mUltimate Chopin

Op. 22, Polonaise

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in FE

b. 61

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

..

FE (→GE,EE) are lacking in the  restoring d2 on the 6th note of the run. In EE it is also the  restoring e2 two notes later that is missing. In practice, these mistakes are of no major significance, since there is no doubt that we are dealing with a chromatic sequence. See also b. 205.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in EE

b. 62

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

c3 in FE (→GE)

a2 in EE
..

The version of EE is most probably the original version adopted from FE (or merely a Terzverschreibung), corrected in the very FE (→GE) in the last stage of proofreading. The same in b. 206.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors in FE , Terzverschreibung error , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 74

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

2 slurs in FE (→GE,EE)

1 slur suggested by the editors
..

The change of the slurring scheme, which distorts the natural pianistic gesture, is inconceivable in such a virtuoso sequence. Due to this reason, in the main text we correct the undoubtedly erroneous slurs of the sources. A similar situation can be found in b. 218.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in FE

b. 76

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

..

In FE the dyad of the bottom voice (e1-a1) is a crotchet. The patent mistake was corrected both in GE and EE. The same in b. 220.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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

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