mUltimate Chopin

Op. 22, Polonaise

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 94

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

Slur from quaver in FE (→EE)

Slur from first semiquaver in GE
..

The fact that the slur in GE starts later may be a mistake of the engraver or a revision, related to the addition of the tie of b. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 95

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

Semiquaver in FE, possible interpretation

Quaver in GE & EE

Quaver suggested by the editors
..

In FE the bar opens with a semiquaver in the R.H. and a quaver in the L.H. It is a mistake, yet it is unclear which value is correct:

  • a quaver requires the following 3 semiquavers to be considered a triplet. Such a rhythm naturally develops the scheme used in the previous bars – both the starting point of the new motif on the 2nd quaver of the bar and the homogeneous semiquaver triplet movement are preserved. We give this version in the main text (we also mark the triplets), adopted in EE and GE, also due to association with the polonaise rhythm;
  • a semiquaver is less obvious in this context, yet one cannot rule it out – such a rhythmic diversification of a recently heard model absolutely corresponds to the Chopinesque style. Such an understanding of this rhythm is supported by the layout of the notes in FE, which proves that the engraver was convinced that he was dealing with four regular semiquavers.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors

b. 95

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

 between notes in FE (→GE1), literal reading

on first note in EE

on 2nd note in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The placement of the  mark in FE (→GE1) is unclear. In the main text we move the mark to the beginning of the bar, in accordance with the distinct markings in the two previous, analogous bars (this is how it was interpreted in EE). In turn, in GE2 (→GE3) the mark was placed only just at the beginning of the semiquaver passage, which is closer to the notation of FE in terms of the visual aspect and can be considered an acceptable variant.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 95

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

Slur to d2 in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The ending of the L.H. slur must be inaccurate in FE (→EE,GE1), even if FE faithfully reproduced the notation of [A]. In such a parallel passage, the fact that the hands are provided with different slurs is inconceivable; a comparison with the two previous bars proves that it is the R.H. slur that is correct. The longer slur was introduced in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions

b. 97

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

No teaching fingering
..

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED