Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
|
b. 70
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
According to us, the missing accent on the syncopated L.H. chord must be considered an inadvertence of the engraver of FE or of Chopin himself. This bar is a repetition of the preceding one, enhanced by the harmonic tension of the dissonant chord, which excludes a performance without accent. At the same time, both bars are the starting point for the structural stretto of the next two, in which crescendo is based on the accents derived from the syncopations of the discussed and preceding bars. The accent was already added in EE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 73-74
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 78
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
A comparison with analogous b. 82 points to a highly likely oversight of the L.H. wedge in FE (→GE1). Therefore, we add this mark in the main text; it is also in EE. In turn, in GE1a, due to the graphic retouches performed in this fragment of the page, the R.H. wedge was overlooked, which was repeated in GE2 (→GE3). category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Errors in GE |
||||||||
|
b. 82-83
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
Just like in the case of the slurs, we consider the accents to be an indispensable element of careful notation, since it is difficult to assume that the performance of these motifs should differ from their counterparts, i.e. b. 78-79. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 83
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
The missing wedge in GE is most probably the engraver's oversight. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE |
