mUltimate Chopin

Op. 38, Ballade in F major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : EE revisions

b. 196

composition: Op. 38, Ballade in F major

b, b2 & b3 in A (→GC→GE, →FE1→FE2)

b, b2 & b3 in FE3 & EE

b, b2 & b3 in our suggestion
..

In front of the b, b2 and b3 notes in the 2nd half of the bar there are no accidentals in A (→GC→GE, →FE1→FE2), therefore the flats from the 1st half of the bar are valid. Moreover, the deletion of the sign in front of the bottom note of the chord in the L.H. visible in A and GC (in GC one can see that it was a ) proves that Chopin checked the correctness of notation in both manuscripts. The revisers of EE, FE3 added a  in front of these notes (b, b2 and b3). In the main text, in order to avoid doubts, we add cautionary flats in front of b and b2.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions , Deletions in A , FE revisions , Authentic corrections in GC

b. 196

composition: Op. 38, Ballade in F major

..

The flat lowering a3 to a3 is only in GE and EE. Lack of the sign in the remaining sources is an inaccuracy of notation, characteristic for Chopin.

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. 196

composition: Op. 38, Ballade in F major

No sign in A (→FE,GC→GE)

Arpeggio sign in EE
..

The arpeggio sign added in EE may be regarded as a revision, although one cannot exclude a mistake – the engraver might have mistaken for an arpeggio sign one of the lines that form the treble clef.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE