



Rhythm
b. 294
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
The version of FE (→EE), identical to the version of GE and analogous b. 61 in terms of sound, possibly originated as an ad hoc correction of the engraver's mistake. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Terzverschreibung error , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||
b. 294
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
Like in analogous b. 61, in the main text we give the notation of GE, which is undoubtedly correct. In the suggested alternative version, the notation was brought into line with the authentic notation of subsequent bars, since there are no visible reasons to differentiate between the rhythmic values of the top and bottom notes of this octave. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||
b. 295
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
As with the other similar bars, in FE (→EE) it is only the top note of the 1st R.H. octave that is separated as a crotchet, which is a mistake. To the main text we adopt the notation of GE, which is undoubtedly correct. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||
b. 295
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
Like in analogous b. 36 and 62, we consider the missing dots prolonging the f category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||
b. 296-299
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
As with the other similar bars, in FE (→EE) it is only the top note of the R.H. octaves (written down in two-part notation) that is separated as a crotchet. It must be a mistake, hence to the main text we adopt the notation of GE, which is undoubtedly correct. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |