|
b. 19
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
In the main text we add a cautionary category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: GE revisions |
||||||||||
|
b. 20
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
In the main text we change the way the extension of the f bass note was written – the notation used by Chopin in analogous b. 168 seems to be clearer in this context. The missing extension of f in EE may be explained by an oversight of the engraver or by a later correction performed in FE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Different values of chord components , Errors in EE , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||||
|
b. 20
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
We consider the missing staccato dot under the bass F to be an inaccuracy of notation. Admittedly, it is the only accompaniment figure among the similar ones that does not require a hand transfer after playing the bass note – the f semiquavers can be performed with fingers 15; however, it does not seem that Chopin could have taken this into account, since he put a dot in analogous b. 58. In any case, indicating a possible performance difference on the basis of a missing mark is generally highly questionable in such a schematic accompaniment. An accidental oversight of a dot occurred in b. 23 too. category imprint: Editorial 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. 23
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
The missing dot is almost certainly an oversight – the mark is present in analogous b. 167, which in [A] was probably marked as a repetition of the discussed bar. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
before a
2. The accidental was also added in 
