|
b. 224-226
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
The correction to the last quaver in b. 226 visible in A – it was probably the e category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Corrections in A , Errors resulting from corrections , Deletions in A , Main-line changes |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 224-225
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
It is highly unlikely that the slur added in the stage of proofreading FE (→GE,EE) was supposed to have such a range. According to us, Chopin entered into the proof copy a slur running from the c minim, perhaps inaccurately, which resulted in it starting later in the editions (the slur pointed upwards, just like the one in b. 226-227, which we do not reproduce in our transcriptions). This interpretation is supported by the aforementioned slur in b. 226-227, also added in the stage of proofreading FE. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 224-226
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
In A (→FE), in b. 224 and 226, the accidentals in the R.H. part are present only at the beginning of the quaver figuration – before a category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A , Errors repeated in FE |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 224
|
composition: Op. 2, Variations, complete
..
As with bar 216, the interpretation of the staccato markings in A is problematic, since the difference between the particular markings, so clear in bars 208-211 (wedges and dots), concerns only the size of the markings in this case – the dots over the 1st and 3rd semiquavers are clearly bigger than those over the 2nd and 4th ones. We consider it a consequence of carelessness and interpret it after the initial bars in this variation. In the main text we suggest adding respective markings in the L.H. part as well. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Wedges |
||||||||||||||
|
b. 224
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
In A the length of both accents is not much different, yet a comparison with analogous bar 228 and 230, as well as 311, 313 and 315, allows us to consider this difference to be significant, hence in the main text we first give a short accent and then a long one. In GE both marks were interpreted as long accents. The absence of the accents in FE (→EE1) proves that they were added to A later, after [FC] had been finished. In EE2 the marks were added on the basis of GE1, interpreting them as common, short accents. See also bar 226 and 228-230. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE |
2-g2 third that was deleted – could be considered an improvement introduced due to a different bass sequence. However, the last quaver was also corrected in b. 224, where the bass is the same as in the previous two occurrences of analogous bars (b. 216 and 218). Therefore, it seems that Chopin was already certain of the concept of both versions of this quaver while writing b. 224; however, the versions overlapped in his mind, thus resulting in mistakes in both places.
minor, Op. 44, b. 
