Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
|
b. 206
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
Due to the graphic retouches of this fragment of the page in GE1a, the accent under the b category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||
|
b. 217-218
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 222
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
The change of the wedge to a staccato dot is probably a revision of GE, in which the wedge, absent both in the preceding R.H. and L.H. figures and in the identical figure in b. 226, was considered a mistake. Indeed, a mistake of the engraver of FE at the time of interpreting [A] cannot be ruled out; however, since the repetition of this fragment (b. 242) is also provided with a wedge in FE, we keep this version, probably authentic. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Wedges |
|||||
|
b. 223
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
In the main text we suggest adding an accent at the beginning of this bar. The accent is featured in two out of three repetitions of this bar (in b. 227 and 247), and, according to us, it is the composer's inadvertence or a mistake of the engraver of FE that are the most likely reasons for its absence. There is a similar situation in b. 243. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||
|
b. 223-224
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
The missing staccato dots under the bass octaves at the beginning of these bars must be an inaccuracy of notation. Dots are present in analogous b. 227-228 and 247-248 as well as 244. After all, the staccato articulation results here from the very piano texture, hence we do not signalise the addition of the marks with brackets. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
2 quaver was overlooked, which was also repeated in 
