Issues : GE revisions
|
b. 69
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
As was the case with b. 43, GE2 arbitrarily separated the topmost note of the 1st chord, making a crotchet out of it. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||||||
|
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. 83-97
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
Adding slurs under the L.H. demisemiquavers (as performed in GE2 in this entire section) is rational – the L.H. part is undoubtedly supposed to be performed with the same articulation as the R.H. one. In such homogeneous texture Chopin would generally leave it to the imagination of the performers, hence we do not include those additions in the main text. In GE2 a similar procedure was applied with respect to the staccato dots – see next note. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||||||
|
b. 83-97
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
As was the case with slurs – see previous note – the staccato dots added in GE2 under the L.H. quavers certainly indicate the articulation as envisioned by Chopin. However, in such contexts Chopin would generally not duplicate the markings. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
||||||||||
|
b. 92
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
In GE2 there is a staccato dot over the a-a1 octave, which is most probably a mistake. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |
2 in 
