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
..
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
..
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
..
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:
category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors |