Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
|
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. 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 |
||||||||||
|
b. 134-137
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
The accents over the 2nd sixth in b. 134-136 and the wedges over the first one in b. 135 and 137 are arbitrary additions of the revision of EE – see the notes to b. 133-136 and 136-137. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||||||
|
b. 142-144
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
Propagating the accent from b. 145 to the three previous seemingly similar situations is an arbitrary revision of EE, disregarding the harmonic context. See also b. 134-137. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||||||
|
b. 149
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
Due to the graphic retouches of this fragment of the page, GE1a overlooked the accent over the last R.H. quaver, which was also repeated in GE2 (→GE3). category imprint: Differences between sources |
in 
