Issues : Errors in EE
|
b. 55-56
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
In the main text we give the slur from GE, in accordance with slurs in analogous bars 29-30 and 288-289. In the latter passage such slur also occurs in FE (→EE) what proves the shorter FE's slur in bars in question inaccurate. The missing slur in EE is certainly an oversight. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in EE |
||||||||||
|
b. 57
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
As was the case with analogous b. 31, the slur of GE, although formally correct, is most probably inaccurate and marks a grace note and an arpeggio (written down as a vertical slur), as was conveyed in FE. The absence of a slur (arpeggio) in EE, whatever the reason, cannot be authentic. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in EE , Arpeggio – vertical slur |
||||||||||
|
b. 79-84
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
In the main text we give the unequivocal slur of FE. In GE the inaccurate, slightly too long ending of the slur in b. 82 is not a reliable indication of its intended range – it cannot be ruled out that it was also this slur that was supposed to reach b. 83, yet its ending in a new line was overlooked. The missing slur in EE is most probably an oversight of the engraver (one of a few in b. 79-84). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in EE |
||||||||||
|
b. 83-84
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
It is difficult to say what lies behind the difference between GE and FE (the missing accent in EE is most probably an oversight of the engraver). Each of those versions may be authentic, but also erroneous. In the main text we follow FE, our principal source. category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information issues: Errors in EE , GE revisions |
||||||||||
|
b. 84-97
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
In this entire section (until b. 102) GE include staccato dots over all R.H. quavers and semiquavers written on the bottom stave; this is also the notation we give in the main text. FE and EE contain less dots, which must have resulted from oversights, most probably by the engravers of those editions – FE overlooked dots on the 2nd beat in b. 89 and 91, while EE also those at the beginning of b. 84 and on the 2nd beat of b. 93, 95 and 97. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in EE |
