Ornaments
|
b. 109
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
In the main text we include the arpeggio present in FE2 and EE (in the copy of FE1 the page including this bar is missing). Its authenticity is highly likely – the mark is present before a chord of a similar span in an analogous place in b. 33. Cf. General Editorial Principles, p. 5a. category imprint: Differences between sources |
||||||||
|
b. 109
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
Taking into account the probably inaccurate notation of arpeggios in similar bars (cf. b. 33 and 55, in which there are no marks in GE), we assume that it is likely that the arpeggio mark was overlooked here; hence in the main text we suggest supplementing the notation of the sources. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 110
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
A comparison with analogous b. 34, 60 and 293 suggests that the ending of the trill could have been overlooked here (perhaps by Chopin himself). Due to the above reason, we suggest a suitable addition in the main text. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 139
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
Both versions are most probably authentic, hence in the main text we give the version of the principal source, FE. The slur next to the grace note may be understood as a conventional mark or as an arpeggio. Performance: category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||
|
b. 181
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
The fact that the mordent is absent in FE (→EE) also in analogous b. 240 makes us approach a possible oversight of that ornament with caution. This means that both versions are most probably authentic, while determining their chronology – problematic (as usual in this Polonaise). Due to the above fact, in the main text we opt for a variant version, i.e. mordent in brackets. category imprint: Differences between sources |
.png)
or .png)
.
in 
