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. 50

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

..

Two rhythmic errors crept into FE1 here: at the beginning of the bar a dotted quaver and a semiquaver instead of a dotted semiquaver and demisemiquaver (in both parts) and a quaver triplet instead of a semiquaver triplet in the L.H. The latter was corrected in FE2 and EE1, while EE2 (→EE3) corrected both mistakes.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 55

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Demisemiquaver in GE

Semiquaver in FE (→EE)
..

In the main text we give the rhythm of FE (→EE), written down flawlessly. The version of GE, in spite of correct rhythmic values, raises various doubts:

  • the alignment of the R.H. part with respect to the L.H. one corresponds to the rhythmic values of FE and not GE;
  • Chopin, in accordance with a traditional rule, would not use dots when writing rests;
  • in analogous b. 288 there is a different rhythm in GE, i.e. the same that can be found in FE in both bars. Such a situation could not have taken place in [A], in which the reprise of the main part of the Polonaise was almost certainly marked in an abridged manner as a repetition of a respective fragment of the first part.

The easiest explanation would be that in GE corrections were being added in print; since nothing indicates that Chopin could have participated in the proofreading of GE1, the authenticity of the version of that edition is questionable here.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 61-62

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

..

The crotchets visible in the L.H. part at the beginning of b. 61 and 62 in FE1 resulted from the engraver having overlooked a quaver flag or beam. In FE2 and EE1 it was only b. 62 that was corrected, hence in that group of editions it is only EE2 (→EE3) that includes the correct text, compliant with GE1 and analogous b. 294-295. The quaver flag in b. 61 was overlooked in GE2 too.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , FE revisions

b. 61

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Crotchet f1-f2 in GE

Crotchet f2 in FE (→EE)

Dotted crotchet f1-f2, our alternative suggestion
..

As is the case with the remaining similar bars, in FE (→EE) it is only the top note of the 1st R.H. octave that is separated as a crotchet. It is almost certainly an inaccuracy; in the main text we give the notation of GE. The suggestion of an additional, alternative version of this place results from the failure to provide a justification for the differentiation between the rhythmic values of the bottom and top (tied) notes of that octave. According to us, it may be a remaining element of the corrections performed in [A] or in a still earlier draft autograph – Chopin could have e.g. started from an analogous version to b. 35, in which f1 is repeated on the 2nd beat of the bar, and could have left that notation (for a reason), although he abandoned that repetition in this place. The fact that the sound issues are not involved in this case is evidenced by the text in b. 62, in which the 1st half of the bar is identical (except this detail). The difference in sound is actually minimal, which could have prevented Chopin from possible changes in the later stages of preparing the Polonaise for print.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 62-64

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

..

As is the case with the remaining similar bars, in FE (→EE) it is only the top note of the 1st R.H. octave that is separated as a crotchet. It must be a mistake, which is proven by the dots prolonging both notes of the octaves in analogous b. 36-40. To the main text we adopt the undoubtedly correct notation of GE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE