mUltimate Chopin

Op. 22, Polonaise

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : EE revisions

b. 31

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

..

In FE the 1st note is an erroneous quaver, which was corrected both in GE and EE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions

b. 41-42

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

No slurs in FE (→GE)

Whole-bar slurs in EE

Slurs suggested by the editors
..

In the main text we suggest slurs modelled after the possibly authentic slur in a similar figure in b. 40. Slurs were also added in EE; however, they were modelled after the whole-bar slurs prevailing in the bars based on a similar scheme.
A similar situation can be found in b. 185-186.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions

b. 41

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

..

In FE (→GE) a  was repeated before g2, the top note of the third on the 2nd beat of the bar, which suggests that in spite of the practical, one-part notation, Chopin led two separate voices in his mind (it is more frequent to encounter overlooked signs due to this reason, e.g. in b. 152 or in the Etude in G Minor, Op. 25 No. 6, b. 12). In EE this additional accidental is present only just on the 3rd beat of the bar.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Cautionary accidentals

b. 42

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

a-e1 in FE (→GE) & EE2

a in EE1
..

The missing e1 in EE1 is not an oversight, since it is also absent in analogous b. 186. Therefore, it is probably a revision, unless this note was also initially absent in FE, in which it was then added in the last stage of proofreading, which is less likely, according to us. The correct text was restored in EE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 43

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

Wedge on b1 in FE

No marks in GE

2 wedges in EE
..

The missing wedge next to b1 is most probably an oversight of the engraver in GE. In the main text we add a wedge next to b2, which was already performed in EE (also in b. 187). The absence of this mark must be considered inadvertence, since there is no doubt that all three motifs should be performed alike.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE