b. 205
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
In FE (→GE), there is no restoring d2 on the 6th note of the run (like in b. 61). In turn, the mark is present in EE, unlike in b. 61, in which both this mark and the restoring e2 two notes later are absent. It suggests that the restoring e2 in b. 61 and 205 was added in FE in the last stage of proofreading, not included in EE, and that the reviser of EE added two naturals only in b. 205. However, there are no visible traces of correction in FE that would confirm the above assumption. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions |
|||||
b. 206
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
Like in b. 62, the version of EE is most probably the initial version or a mistake, corrected then in FE (→GE). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE , Terzverschreibung error |
|||||
b. 206
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
Like in b. 62, of which this bar is a literal repetition, there are no accidentals before the 1st, 3rd and 6th notes under the octave sign in FE (→GE1). In the main text we add respective accidentals – of e3, of f3 and of d3. The first two were also added in EE, while in GE2 (→GE3) – only the first one. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
|||||
b. 206
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
Due to the graphic retouches of this fragment of the page in GE1a, the accent under the b2 quaver was overlooked, which was also repeated in GE2 (→GE3). category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||
b. 207
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
Just like in b. 63, of which the discussed bar is a literal repetition, the asterisk was placed a quaver too far in FE, which is probably a mistake. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions |