Issues : Errors in EE
b. 7-8
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
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
..
In the main text we change the way the extension of the f bass note was written – the notation used by Chopin in analogous b. 168 seems to be clearer in this context. The missing extension of f in EE may be explained by an oversight of the engraver or by a later correction performed in FE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Different values of chord components , Errors in EE , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||||
b. 35
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
a1 in EE is most probably a mistake of the engraver of this edition. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE , Terzverschreibung error |
|||||||||||
b. 48-49
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
The engraver of EE most probably confused these bars, hence the transfer of the accent. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE |
|||||||||||
b. 61
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
FE (→GE,EE) are lacking in the restoring d2 on the 6th note of the run. In EE it is also the restoring e2 two notes later that is missing. In practice, these mistakes are of no major significance, since there is no doubt that we are dealing with a chromatic sequence. See also b. 205. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Errors in EE , Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in EE |