|
b. 132
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
FE (→GE) are lacking in the category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions |
||||||||||
|
b. 132
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
A long accent could have been added in the penultimate stage of proofreading of FE; it is indicated by the absence of the mark in EE along with the shift of dim. – see the previous note. In GE the mark was almost certainly erroneously interpreted as a category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||||
|
b. 132
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
Due to graphic retouches of this fragment of the page, GE1a overlooked category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||||
|
b. 133-136
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
The shortened slurs and accents of EE, as well as the wedge over the 1st sixth in b. 135, are unjustified revisions of this edition (analogous additions were introduced in b. 136-137 too). Chopin confirmed the performance manner of these motifs (written down in FE (→GE)) in analogous b. 141-142 and 143-144 (and partially also 142-143 and 144-145), in which, after all, EE did not change the slurs. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||||||
|
b. 133
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
The missing staccato dot in GE is probably an oversight. An intentional omission of the mark, which could have been considered a mistake in the face of the absence of respective markings in the next, analogous bars, seems to be less likely. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
restoring f2 on the 11th small note and in the 
restoring b
1 on the last one. 
in 
, which was also repeated in 
