|
b. 82-83
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
In the context of b. 78-79, the missing slurs in FE (→GE) must be an inaccuracy of the engraver of FE or of Chopin himself. In the main text we suggest adding them in the form adopted 4 bars earlier. The slurs were also added in EE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 82-83
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
Just like in the case of the slurs, we consider the accents to be an indispensable element of careful notation, since it is difficult to assume that the performance of these motifs should differ from their counterparts, i.e. b. 78-79. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 83
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
The missing wedge in GE is most probably the engraver's oversight. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
||||||||
|
b. 84
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
According to us, there is no doubt that Chopin was forced to abandon the action of moving the chord an octave higher, which is pianistically natural and typical of virtuoso cadenza formulas – cf. b. 80 – only due to the limited range of the piano. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 85-89
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
According to us, there is a high probability that Chopin meant the accents in b. 85 and 87-89 to be long. Long notes constitute a typical context for these marks, cf., e.g. the Concerto in F Minor, Op. 21, I mov., b. 125-126. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
2-d3-b
