b. 126
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||
b. 128
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
The fact that the version of FE (→EE1) is erroneous is proven by:
The change of this note to d was introduced in GE and – probably on the basis thereof – in EE2. The issue concerning the extension of this note – see the note above. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions |
|||||
b. 128
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
In the previous bar Chopin extended the bass d note with an additional crotchet stem. This suggests that the absence of such an extension in the discussed bar may be an oversight. Therefore, we suggest an appropriately completed version as an alternative solution. In the main text, however, we preserve the d note as a quaver, since the same difference in duration – crotchet in b. 127 and quaver in b. 128 – is present in the cellos part, which shows that the rhythmic value and function in the phrase of each of these notes were different in Chopin's mind. See the note below. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
|||||
b. 129-130
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
The change of the font of accents to vertical is a typical mannerism of EE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||
b. 129
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
In EE1 the L.H. octave on the 2nd beat of the bar is an E-e. The patent mistake was corrected in EE2. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE , Terzverschreibung error |