Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Slurs
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main


Slurs

b. 83-97

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

No L.H. slurs in GE1 & FE (→EE)

L.H. slurs in GE2

..

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. 98-112

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Shorter slurs in GE

Longer slurs in FE (→EE)

..

In b. 98-102 and 111-112 in the main text we reproduce the longer slurs of our principal source – FE (→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 98-112

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

No L.H. slurs in GE1 & FE (→EE)

L.H. slurs in GE2

..

As before, the L.H. slurs in b. 98-102 and 111-112 were arbitrarily added by the reviewer of GE2; it unnecessarily specifies the compliant articulation between the parts of both hands, obvious in this context.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 104-106

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Continuous slur in GE & FE2

Incomplete slur in FE1

Separate slurs in EE

..

In FE the slur at the end of b. 104, which ends the page, indicates that it should be continued in the next bar. It is confirmed by the slur of FE2 in b. 105-106 (in FE1 the page containing those bars is missing); however, in EE the slurs are separated here. A possible explanation for this discrepancy could have been an oversight of the slur in b. 105-106 in FE1 – the engraver of EE1 could have considered the ending of the slur in b. 104 (without a continuation) to be inaccurate and could have shortened it, whereas the reviser added a slur in b. 105-106 later on, adjusting it to the already printed preceding slur. For this reason, we retain the slur in FE1 unfinished in bars 105-106.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 106

composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor

Tied grace note in FE (→EE) & GE1

No tie in GE2

..

The missing tie to the grace note in GE2 is most probably an oversight of the engraver.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE