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. 186-189

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

No marks in GE & FE (→EE)

Staccato dots suggested by editors
..

In accordance with the explanation in the note to b. 127, in the main text we suggest adding articulation markings (in square brackets) after b. 127-130 and 147-148. We also add slurs (see the adjacent note).

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 186-188

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Slurs from acciaccaturas to g1-b1 in GE

No slurs in FE1

Slur from grace notes to E in bar 186 in FE2 & EE
..

In the entire middle section, each time this theme appears, the grace notes go with the R.H. melody (cf. b. 129, 148-149, 206-208), hence we follow here GE, considering the version of FE2 (→EE) to be a an inept revision.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , FE revisions

b. 187-188

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

2 slurs in GE

Continuous slur in FE (→EE)
..

In the main text we give the R.H. slurring after GE – a slur/tenuto in b. 186-187 and a longer slur starting from b. 188. Such a solution is supported by the following arguments:

  • The presence of the slur/tenuto, frequently used by Chopin, points to a high likelihood of authenticity of such slurring. In turn, the continuous slur of FE could have resulted from the engraver having misunderstood such a non-standard notation.
  • It is also the mistakes and inaccuracies of FE in the reproduction of the slurs concerning grace notes (see the note at the beginning of b. 186) that question the credibility of FE in this place, indicating a possible inaccuracy of the basis and insufficient control of the text in the edition. It justifies the choice of one source in the case of all slurs in b. 186-188.
  • The slurs of GE are compliant with the slurring of similar motifs in b. 206-208, present in all sources.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Tenuto slurs

b. 190-195

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

6 bars of staccato in GE1

2 bars of staccato in FE

2 staccato dots in EE

No marks in GE2
..

The difference between GE1 and FE in the number of bars featuring staccato markings for the L.H. crotchets does not influence the performance – in both cases the marks serve as a model, and the articulation is valid throughout the entire section until b. 197. To the main text we adopt the more accurate notation of GE1. The reduced number of dots in EE probably resulted from the engraver's inaccuracy, whereas the omission of the marks in GE2 is rather a revision (cf. b. 151-158).
See also b. 196-197 and 210-215.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 196-197

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

No marks in GE & EE

Staccato dot in FE

Dots suggested by the editors
..

The single staccato dot at the beginning of b. 196 in FE could have resulted from a mistake; however, it could have been added to remind us of the different articulation between the parts of both hands in a situation in which Chopin moved the majority of the R.H. part to the bottom stave (we do not reproduce this layout in our transcriptions, since it hampers the reading of the text). According to us, it is also the absence of staccato dots in GE that could have been associated with a concern – of Chopin or of the engraver – that the notation could become illegible. To avoid any doubts, in the main text we mark these bars the same as the preceding ones.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions