mUltimate Chopin

Select:

Category

Notation

Importance

Undo Clear

« Previous
1
…
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
…
81
Next »

b. 27

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

in GE

No mark in FE (→EE)

The missing mark in FE (→EE) is probably an oversight of the copyist or of the engraver.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources

Show

in transcript in source compare sources

b. 28

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

f-f¹ on the last quaver in GE

f-c¹-e¹-f¹ in FE (→EE)

The empty octave on the last L.H. quaver in GE is probably a mistake of the engraver (cf. analog. b. 54 and 287). It could also be the initial version, analogous to b. 32, 58, 104, 108 and 291, and perhaps overlooked in [A] at the time of entering corrections into b. 54 and 287 and supplemented in the basis for FE.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , Omitted correction of an analogous place

Show

in transcript in source compare sources

b. 29

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Slur over grace note in GE, literal reading

Arpeggio sign in GE, contextual interpretation

Slur under grace note (= tie) in FE, interpretation

No sign in EE

The reason for the differences in the notation of the ornament preceding the d²-d³ octave is most probably the Chopinesque manner of writing down arpeggios, which would often lose their wavy nature in his manuscripts, thus resembling vertical curved lines. In GE that notation was reproduced quasi-literally, while in FE it was considered a conventional mark combining the grace note with the main note, in this case with the one closest to the grace note, i.e. the bottom note of the octave (the absence of the mark in EE must be an oversight). Consequently, when interpreted literally, the notation of GE means a grace note without an arpeggio, whereas in FE a grace note attached to the bottom note of the octave, which results in an arpeggio without a grace note. In the main text we give the most likely notation, featured in the sources several more times in analogous places, i.e. a grace note and an arpeggio. Such a solution is also supported by the 3rd finger indicated for the grace note in GE – this fingering is natural and comfortable only if we include the arpeggio.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in EE , FE revisions , Arpeggio – vertical slur

Show

in transcript in source compare sources

b. 29

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Dotted quaver & demisemiquaver in GE

Quaver & semiquaver in FE (→EE)

We give the rhythm of the 1st crotchet in the bar after the rhythmically correct version of GE, conveying almost certainly the text of [A]. FE1 contains an erroneous rhythm missing one demisemiquaver – (the scheme preserves the alignment of the R.H. part with respect to the L.H. part). According to us, it is most probably an unfinished notation of the rhythm we can see in GE. The correction of FE2 and EE was aimed at removing the insufficiency of the values and was performed by the revisers. This is also the version we adopt as the text of FE1, since it seems that this is how (on the basis of the notes' rhythmic values) this place would be interpreted by the majority of the readers.