Issues : Errors in FE
b. 31
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
A comparison with analogous b. 69, and particularly with b. 175, which was almost certainly marked in [A] as a repetition of b. 31, proves the mistake of the engraver of FE (→GE,EE1). The mistake was corrected in EE2. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE |
|||||
b. 31
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions |
|||||
b. 32
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
The missing tie of b is almost certainly a mistake – analogous b. 176 does contain a tie; in [A] b. 176 was almost certainly written in an abridged manner as repetition of b. 32. category imprint: Editorial revisions issues: Errors in FE |
|||||
b. 45
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
FE (→GE1→GE2) are lacking in the accidental before the 5th semiquaver from the end, which results in g2. This patent mistake is evidenced by the before the next note, which is g2. The mistake was corrected in EE and GE3. The same applies to b. 189. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Omissions to cancel alteration , GE revisions , Errors repeated in GE |
|||||
b. 51-52
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
The missing slurs must be a mistake of FE, in which these bars are separated by the transition into a new line. When repeated a bar later, this motif is already provided with slurs, which proves the mistake, as a result of which corresponding additions were already introduced in GE and EE. See also the note above. A similar situation can be found in b. 195-196. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions |