|
b. 97
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
In FE, there is no accidental next to the top note of the penultimate triplet. The patent inaccuracy was corrected in EE and GE2 (→GE3). There is a similar situation in the further part of the passage. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions |
|||||||
|
b. 97
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
In FE (→EE) the 1st rest in the parts of both hands is a demisemiquaver, which is a mistake (it is likely that the beginning of this bar was confused with the previous one). The mistake was corrected in GE. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors , Errors repeated in EE |
|||||||
|
b. 98
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||||
|
b. 98-100
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
In FE (→GE1), there are no naturals before the 3rd L.H. note in b. 98 (b), the 14th R.H. note in b. 99 (b2) and the 3rd L.H. note in b. 100 (B). The patent inaccuracies were corrected in EE only in the first of these places, whereas in GE2 (→GE3) only in the L.H. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
|||||||
|
b. 101
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
The version of EE2, in which the entire passage was standardised by changing the last note of the bar from g3 to f3, is an arbitrary revision, assuming a mistake in FE and in the remaining sources. However, the original version most probably does not contain a mistake – cf. similar actions in such passages in the Etude in C Major, Op. 10 No. 1, e.g. in b. 29. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
