mUltimate Chopin

Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 99

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

..

We add cautionary naturals before d-d1 and e-e1 in the main text.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 100

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

..

The g note instead of a in FE1 (→EE1) must be a mistake of the engraver, corrected in subsequent impressions of both editions.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in EE , FE revisions

b. 101-102

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

No accents in GE1

Accent above upper staff in FE (→EE)

Two accents on lower staff in GE2

2 accents above upper staff suggested by editors
..

The missing accents in GE1 must be an oversight by the engraver – the marks in the last line of this section were overlooked. It is also in the case of FE (→EE) that an oversight seems to be the most likely reason the accent in b. 102 was omitted. Therefore, in the main text we give an accent in b. 101 after FE and suggest adding it in b. 102.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 103-104

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

..

In FE1 there are no sharps raising d1 to d1 in the L.H. part. The oversight (patent in this context) was corrected in FE2 and EE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , FE revisions

b. 104-106

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Continuous slur in GE & FE2

Incomplete slur in FE1

Separate slurs in EE
..

In FE the slur at the end of b. 104, which ends the page, indicates that it should be continued in the next bar. It is confirmed by the slur of FE2 in b. 105-106 (in FE1 the page containing those bars is missing); however, in EE the slurs are separated here. A possible explanation for this discrepancy could have been an oversight of the slur in b. 105-106 in FE1 – the engraver of EE1 could have considered the ending of the slur in b. 104 (without a continuation) to be inaccurate and could have shortened it, whereas the reviser added a slur in b. 105-106 later on, adjusting it to the already printed preceding slur. For this reason, we retain the slur in FE1 unfinished in bars 105-106.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions