mUltimate Chopin

Op. 38, Ballade in F major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Authentic corrections in GC

b. 177-180

composition: Op. 38, Ballade in F major

No slurs in A (→FE,EE)

Slurs in GC (→GE)
..

Three consecutive, approximately one-bar-long slurs were writtne into GC (→GE) almost certainly by Chopin. 

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections in GC

b. 181-184

composition: Op. 38, Ballade in F major

No slurs in A (→FE,EE)

3 slurs in GC (→GE)
..

As in analogous bars 177-180, the three R.H. slurs were written into GC (→GE) almost certainly by Chopin. In GE1 the slur in bar 183, last in the line, reaches only the last semiquaver even though the next bar holds its ending. The flaw was rectified in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections in GC , Uncertain slur continuation

b. 184

composition: Op. 38, Ballade in F major

No slur in A (→FE,EE)

Slur in GC (→GE)
..

The slur in GC (→GE) was almost certainly written by Chopin – cf. the analogous bar 180, where the corresponding slur occurs in all the sources. The omission of the slur in A was caused most likely by the deletions which forced Chopin to write most of this bar on an additional staff.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors resulting from corrections , Authentic corrections in GC

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. 202-204

composition: Op. 38, Ballade in F major

1. Original version in A

2. Later version of A (→FE1,EE)

3. GC, contextual interpretation

GE

4. FE2 (→FE3)

Our variant suggestion
..

The ending of the Ballade has a few versions proving Chopin's hesitations. We present them below in a chronological order:

  1. The original version in A.
  2. The later version in A (→EE), added by Chopin under the deleted version No. 1. This version was copied to GC, where Chopin would then modify it (with an erroneous c1 instead of d1 in bar 203).
  3. The version of GC changed by Chopin. This version was adopted by GE by correcting the bottom note in bar 203 and adding an erroneous slur combining the grace note and the g minim.
  4. The version of FE2, corrected by Chopin.

As it can be seen, Chopin had two main concepts of the Ballade's endings, "open" and "close." According to us, it is the version No. 1 that presents the first of them in the most thoughtful manner, while in the case of the latter it is the version No. 4. In the main text we give the version No. 1, enriched with variant, characteristic for Chopin grace note added in GC.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Corrections in A , Chopin's hesitations , Errors resulting from corrections , Terzverschreibung error , Deletions in A , Authentic corrections of FE , Errors of GC , Authentic corrections in GC