mUltimate Chopin

Op. 22, Polonaise

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : EE revisions

0
b. 93

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

d repeated in FE (→GE1)

d tied in EE & GE2 (→GE3)

d tied, our suggestion
..

According to us, a comparison with the next bar, in which d is tied, makes it highly likely that the tie in the discussed bar was accidentally overlooked. This is how it was evaluated in EE and GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 93

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

No slur in FE (→GE1)

Slur from 2nd semiquaver in EE

Slur from first semiquaver in GE2 (→GE3)

Slur from quaver suggested by the editors
..

The absence of the slur in FE (→GE1) – irrespective of the reason – must be considered a mistake. In the main text we give the same slur as the one featured in FE in the next bar. The slur was also added in EE and GE2 (→GE3); however, none of them took into account the authentic slur from analogous b. 94.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 95

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

Semiquaver in FE, possible interpretation

Quaver in GE & EE

Quaver suggested by the editors
..

In FE the bar opens with a semiquaver in the R.H. and a quaver in the L.H. It is a mistake, yet it is unclear which value is correct:

  • a quaver requires the following 3 semiquavers to be considered a triplet. Such a rhythm naturally develops the scheme used in the previous bars – both the starting point of the new motif on the 2nd quaver of the bar and the homogeneous semiquaver triplet movement are preserved. We give this version in the main text (we also mark the triplets), adopted in EE and GE, also due to association with the polonaise rhythm;
  • a semiquaver is less obvious in this context, yet one cannot rule it out – such a rhythmic diversification of a recently heard model absolutely corresponds to the Chopinesque style. Such an understanding of this rhythm is supported by the layout of the notes in FE, which proves that the engraver was convinced that he was dealing with four regular semiquavers.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Rhythmic errors

b. 95

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

 between notes in FE (→GE1), literal reading

on first note in EE

on 2nd note in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The placement of the  mark in FE (→GE1) is unclear. In the main text we move the mark to the beginning of the bar, in accordance with the distinct markings in the two previous, analogous bars (this is how it was interpreted in EE). In turn, in GE2 (→GE3) the mark was placed only just at the beginning of the semiquaver passage, which is closer to the notation of FE in terms of the visual aspect and can be considered an acceptable variant.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 97

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

..

In FE, there is no accidental next to the top note of the penultimate triplet. The patent inaccuracy was corrected in EE and GE2 (→GE3). There is a similar situation in the further part of the passage.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions