Issues : Inaccuracies in FE
|
b. 62-64
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
The issue whether the accidentals to the small notes apply to the normal-sized notes was not clearly stated in Chopin's time, as it turns out. In GE and FE there is no accidental before the bottom note of the L.H. chord on the 3rd beat in b. 62 and 63, d, which, at least theoretically, can be misleading. Naturals were only added in EE – in EE1 in b. 63 and in EE2 in b. 62. FE2 added a not so justified cautionary In the main text we include only the naturals before d in b. 62-63. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , FE revisions |
||||||||||
|
b. 69-70
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
In b. 69, which ends the line, the slur of FE clearly suggests that it should be continued; however, b. 70 does not include its ending. In b. 302-303, which are a literal repetition of the discussed bars, there is no slur at all; this mistake impedes a direct reproduction of the ending of the discussed slur. In this situation, we assume that the slur was supposed to reach the end of b. 70, like in analogous b. 44 and 277, and this is the version we suggest in the main text. In GE the slur reaches – like in the aforementioned bars – the c category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||||
|
b. 113-124
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
The absence of accents in b. 113-118 and 122-124 in GE is most probably an inadvertence of the engraver or of Chopin himself. If it were the latter, the accents of FE could have been added by Chopin, e.g. at the stage of proofreading of FE1. The majority of the marks of FE are long accents, although their size is not homogeneous – the marks in b. 116 and 122-124 could have been considered short in a different context. A comparison with b. 87-101 (including short accents) leads to the conclusion that moving certain fragments of the R.H. part an octave higher does not influence the character of the music in the discussed bars enough to use accents of a different length. Therefore, we assume that the longer accents resulted from an inaccurate reproduction of the manuscript basis or Chopinesque proofreading; in the main text we suggest short accents (like the first time). Short accents were also introduced by EE. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||||
|
b. 119-121
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
In the main text we suggest accents as written down in EE. This solution combines the most certain elements of the versions of GE1 and FE:
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Placement of markings |
||||||||||
|
b. 125-126
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
The slurring was most probably changed by Chopin in the basis for FE together with the matching system of beams. However, the new, longer phrase mark was reproduced inaccurately in FE – the ending of the phrase mark in b. 126, at the end of the page (like in our transcription), suggests that it should be continued in the next bar, in which, however, there is no ending of that phrase mark. We consider the a crotchet in b. 127, which ends the phrase, having been left outside the phrase mark to be a mistake; therefore, in the main text we lead the phrase mark to that note. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources |
before d2 in b. 63. The accidental is also present in 
1 minim only, which may but does not have to correspond to the notation of [A].
