mUltimate Chopin

Op. 22, Polonaise

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 227

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

leg. in FE

leggiero in GE & EE
..

The abbreviation leg. used in FE is ambiguous – it may be explained as leggiero or legato. However, if Chopin had wanted to change the indication with respect to analogous b. 223, which features leggiero, he would have certainly used an unequivocal indication. Due to this reason, in the main text we give leggiero, which is also compliant with GE and EE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 228

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

..

Just like in b. 224, the cautionary flats before a1 and b1 on the 2nd quaver of the bar were added at the time of proofreading of FE (→GE). The accidentals are absent in EE1; however, they were added in EE2. In the main text we also add a  before a1, the 2nd R.H. semiquaver.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 229-230

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

..

In the main text we omit the reminder flats before a1 in the last chord of each of these bars.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Cautionary accidentals

b. 230-234

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

..

In the main text we add a cautionary  before e2 in b. 230 and 234. The accidentals were also added in GE3, whereby the latter was accidentally placed in b. 233. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions

b. 232

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

..

The flat restoring b2 at the beginning of the last triplet does not appear in any of the sources. It seems that it was believed that the  before b3 four semiquavers earlier was not a cautionary accidental only and that it was also valid in the case of the discussed note. The same in b. 252.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in EE