mUltimate Chopin

Select:

Pitch

« Previous
1
…
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
…
25
Next »

b. 96

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

F-f in FE (→EE)

D-d in FE (→EE)

As was the case with b. 94, in the main text we give the enhanced version Chopin introduced while proofreading FE (→EE). In this place, traces of changes being performed in print are perfectly visible.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections of FE , Main-line changes

Show

in transcript in source compare sources

b. 97

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

c⁽¹⁾ in GE, FE2 & EE

c⁽¹⁾ in FE1

The missing naturals lowering c and c¹ to c and c¹ in b. 97 in FE1 must be a mistake, committed probably by Chopin. It is indicated by the lack of planned space for naturals in GE1, which means that they were most probably absent in [A]; they could have been added in printing. The mistake was corrected in FE2 and EE.

Compare the passage in the sources »

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Omission of current key accidentals , FE revisions

Show

in transcript in source compare sources

b. 98

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

c⁽¹⁾ in GE & FE

c⁽¹⁾ in EE

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⁽¹⁾ to c⁽¹⁾ in the previous bar, could have assumed that it was also here that a mistake could have been committed in FE, this time consisting in printing flats instead of naturals.