|
b. 98-100
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
In accordance with the explanation in the note in b. 87, to the main text we adopt the notation of FE (→EE) with accents over the a-a1 octaves. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Placement of markings |
|||||
|
b. 98-112
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
In the main text we include the pedal markings of GE, entered probably into [A] after [FC] had already been finished. category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||
|
b. 98
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
The compliance of the versions of GE and FE with each other proves that the version of EE is wrong. The engraver could have, e.g. confused the 1st beat of this bar with a similar respective fragment of the preceding one. However, an identical difference in analogous b. 122 is a strong argument against the possibility of a mistake – a mistake in the same place several dozen bars later seems extremely improbable. Due to the above reason, we consider a revision of EE to be more likely – the engraver, having added the overlooked naturals lowering c category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 98-112
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
As before, the L.H. slurs in b. 98-102 and 111-112 were arbitrarily added by the reviewer of GE2; it unnecessarily specifies the compliant articulation between the parts of both hands, obvious in this context. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||
|
b. 99
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
In EE two staccato dots on the 3rd beat of the bar were overlooked, while in GE2 the dot over a on the 2nd beat. In the main text we provide a complete set of dots after GE1 and FE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE , Errors in GE |
(1) in 
(1) to c(1) in the previous bar, could have assumed that it was also here that a mistake could have been committed in 
