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
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

b. 5-6

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

 in FE, literal reading

in GE

 in FE (contextual interpretation→EE)
..

In FE (→GE) the  mark is placed only in b. 6, the first in a new line. However, the manner it was placed suggests that Chopin wanted it to begin earlier, probably similarly to the hairpin in b. 7-8. This is how it was understood in EE and this is the version we give in the main text. In turn, in GE the mark was considered to have been carelessly engraved, thus it was being gradually shortened and its starting point moved towards the 1st quaver in b. 6. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions

b. 7-8

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

in FE

No sign in EE

in GE1

in GE2 (→GE3)
..

The missing  in EE is probably an oversight, although it is likely that the hairpin was intentionally omitted as supposedly superfluous along with cresc. The shift of the mark in GE1 could be considered an inaccuracy, yet its extension in GE2 (→GE3) was almost certainly intentional – attempts were made to bring the beginning of the hairpin towards the 1st quaver.  

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE , GE revisions

b. 20

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

No mark in sources

Staccato dot suggested by the editors
..

We consider the missing staccato dot under the bass F to be an inaccuracy of notation. Admittedly, it is the only accompaniment figure among the similar ones that does not require a hand transfer after playing the bass note – the f semiquavers can be performed with fingers 15; however, it does not seem that Chopin could have taken this into account, since he put a dot in analogous b. 58. In any case, indicating a possible performance difference on the basis of a missing mark is generally highly questionable in such a schematic accompaniment. An accidental oversight of a dot occurred in b. 23 too.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 23

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

No mark in FE (→GE,EE)

Staccato dot suggested by the editors
..

The missing dot is almost certainly an oversight – the mark is present in analogous b. 167, which in [A] was probably marked as a repetition of the discussed bar.  

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 31

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

Long accent in FE

in EE

in GE1
..

The mark, which bears all characteristics of a long accent in FE, was interpreted in the remaining editions as a  hairpin. It is evidenced by the fact that the mark was being extended, which is particularly clear in GE2 (→GE3) and EE; the aim could have been to partially adjust the mark to the longer  mark in the preceding bar.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions