![](/build/images/logo_left-en.png)
![](/build/images/pl-button.5cab5de0.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button.d3d09842.png)
![](/build/images/pomoc-button-en.5098433b.png)
Issues : Inaccuracies in GE
b. 8
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
In the main text we include the pedalling of GE; however, we move the General issue of authenticity of the pedalling of GE – see the next note. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in GE |
|||||||||||||
b. 29
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
The reason for the differences in the notation of the ornament preceding the d category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in EE , FE revisions , Arpeggio – vertical slur |
|||||||||||||
b. 30
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
The version of GE could have resulted from a double interpretation of the mark resembling a vertical curved line (with which Chopin most probably marked the arpeggio in [A]). Engravers would often work in stages, i.e. an entire page of noteheads, then beams, slurs, ornaments, etc., hence it is likely that the slur was engraved at the stage of slurs, while the arpeggio at the stage of ornaments. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in EE , Arpeggio – vertical slur |
|||||||||||||
b. 31
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
The notation of GE, in which the slur runs from the grace note to the bottom note of the octave, is formally correct and means that the octave should be played simultaneously after the grace note. The same meaning is carried by the notation of EE and GE2, in which all slurs were overlooked (probably accidentally). It is also the notation of FE that could be considered correct, according to which the arpeggio should begin from the top note. However, a comparison with the notation of FE in analog. b. 57 and 290, in which the vertical slur placed directly before the octave certainly marks an arpeggio, makes us consider the similar slur in the discussed bar to be inaccurately reproduced and also marking an arpeggio of the octave according to Chopin. Then all three analogous places would be performed the same – a grace note and an arpeggiated octave. Therefore, we suggest this version (constituting a rhythmic analogy to b. 27) in the main text. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in EE , Errors in GE , Arpeggio – vertical slur |
|||||||||||||
b. 57
|
composition: Op. 44, Polonaise in F♯ minor
..
As was the case with analogous b. 31, the slur of GE, although formally correct, is most probably inaccurate and marks a grace note and an arpeggio (written down as a vertical slur), as was conveyed in FE. The absence of a slur (arpeggio) in EE, whatever the reason, cannot be authentic. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Errors in EE , Arpeggio – vertical slur |