Issues : GE revisions
|
b. 95-96
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
In these bars Chopin overlooked the naturals lowering g category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 98-102
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
As in the previous bars, in the L.H. part GE2 arbitrarily repeated the authentic dots present above the R.H. part (at the same time, the mark on the 2nd beat of b. 99 was overlooked, which was also the case in the R.H.). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 98-112
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
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. 101-102
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
The missing accents in GE1 must be an oversight by the engraver – the marks in the last line of this section were overlooked. It is also in the case of FE (→EE) that an oversight seems to be the most likely reason the accent in b. 102 was omitted. Therefore, in the main text we give an accent in b. 101 after FE and suggest adding it in b. 102. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 107
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions |
(1) to g(1). It is proven by the absence of those accidentals in 
