Issues : EE revisions
b. 19
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
The vast majority of similar accompaniment figures in FE is provided with slurs, hence the missing slur here must be considered an inaccuracy. A slur – such as the one we suggest in the main text – was added both in GE and EE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
b. 23
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
In the main text we suggest the slur of FE from analogous b. 167. A slur was also added in EE; however, it was the adjacent figures that served as the model. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions |
|||||||||||
b. 27
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
The missing asterisk must be considered an inaccuracy, hence in the main text we suggest adding this mark after b. 25. The same applies to analogous b. 171. A mark was added in EE as well as in GE2 (→GE3), although slightly moved. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
b. 31
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
A comparison with analogous b. 69, and particularly with b. 175, which was almost certainly marked in [A] as a repetition of b. 31, proves the mistake of the engraver of FE (→GE,EE1). The mistake was corrected in EE2. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE |
|||||||||||
b. 31
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
The mark, which bears all characteristics of a long accent in FE, was interpreted in the remaining editions as a hairpin. It is evidenced by the fact that the mark was being extended, which is particularly clear in GE2 (→GE3) and EE; the aim could have been to partially adjust the mark to the longer mark in the preceding bar. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions |