Issues : GE revisions
b. 1
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
In spite of the title, which clearly indicates that the piece is a polonaise, there is no indication that it is here that the actual polonaise begins, which we consider an oversight and correct it in the main text. It was already GE that introduced a relevant addition; it is also in EE2, most probably on the basis of GE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
|||||||||||
b. 5-6
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
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. 6
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Errors repeated in GE |
|||||||||||
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. 19
|
composition: Op. 22, Polonaise
..
The vast majority of similar accompaniment figures in FE is provided with slurs, hence the missing slur here must be considered an inaccuracy. A slur – such as the one we suggest in the main text – was added both in GE and EE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |