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
Rhythm
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Rhythm

b. 32

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Double dotted rhythm in GE

Dotted rhythm in FE (→EE)
..

It cannot be safely said which version represents Chopin's final intention. In FE the R.H. rhythm does not contain a mistake, yet the way the notes are aligned (the R.H. with respect to the L.H.) suggests a different version of rhythm than the one resulting from the rhythmic values, i.e. the one we can observe in GE. As was the case with b. 29, it can be regarded as a mistake of the engraver or a possible correction of Chopin; however, in this case too, no visible traces of changes (traces of removal of the second pair of dots and of the third beam) are an argument against a correction. Therefore, in the main text we follow the unequivocal rhythm of GE, analogous to b. 28. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 33

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Demisemiquaver in GE1, possible interpretation

Semiquaver in GE1, probable interpretation, FE (→EE) & GE2
..

GE1 features an erroneous R.H. rhythm on the 1st beat of the bar – a quaver, a semiquaver rest and a demisemiquaver. The mistake may be due to the value of the rest – addition of a dot results in a rhythm resembling the one present in GE in analog. b. 29 and in the same rhythm that can be found in b. 55. According to us, however, it is much more likely that it is the third beam that is a mistake – the e1-e2 octave should be a semiquaver (such a correction was performed in GE2). The engraver of GE1 could have generalised a beaming scheme containing additional, partial beams; such a scheme has already appeared twice in the preceding bars on this page. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 35-40

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

..

As was the case with b. 13-15, the octaves at the beginning of b. 35-38 and on the 2nd beat of b. 39-40 are written in FE (→EE) in a way that an entire octave is encompassed with the stem of the bottom voice quaver, while it is only the top note that is provided with an additional crotchet stem. It must be a mistake, which is evidenced by the dots prolonging both notes of the octaves in b. 37-40. To the main text we adopt the undoubtedly correct notation of GE.
In EE the additional (top) stem in b. 36 was overlooked.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in EE

b. 36

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Crotchet in sources

Dotted crotchet suggested by the editors
..

In the sources, there are no dots next to the 1st R.H. octave; neither in this bar nor in any corresponding ones further on (b. 62, 269 and 295). It seems to be Chopin's oversight – cf. b. 37-40 – hence in the main text we suggest adding dots.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 43

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Quaver c2 in GE1 & FE (→EE)

Crotchet c2 in GE2
..

The c2 note having been separated from the 1st chord is an arbitrary revision of GE2. Actually, on the 1st beat of analogous b. 69 the stems are pointing upwards in GE1 and FE (→EE), yet in both places the first chord in those editions is written down using one-part notation. In FE the visible traces of corrections in print suggest that initially the stems on the 1st beat of the discussed bar were also pointing upwards, which was, however, changed – perhaps by Chopin – to a form compliant with the notation of GE.
A similar situation is to be found in b. 276. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions