Issues : Errors of GC
b. 89-92
|
composition: Op. 38, Ballade in F major
..
In GC bars 89-90 end the line of text. This caused the copyist to have erroneously omitted the opening part of the slur – he wrote only the ending fragment in bars 91-92. In GE this fragmentary slur was overlooked or omitted. For the joining of the slur in FE to the preceding one see the note in bar 88. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , Inaccuracies in GC , Errors of GC |
|||||||||||
b. 95
|
composition: Op. 38, Ballade in F major
..
The typical long accent in A was misrepresented in FE (as a diminuendo hairpin) and EE (as a short accent). In GC (→GE) the sign was overlooked. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies , Errors of GC |
|||||||||||
b. 97-98
|
composition: Op. 38, Ballade in F major
..
In GC (→GE1) the crotchets in the middle voice of the R.H. – both in bar 97 and the first in bar 98) – are written without the extending dots. The subsequent impressions of GE correct this patent oversight. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Errors of GC |
|||||||||||
b. 101-102
|
composition: Op. 38, Ballade in F major
..
The bottom arms of the hairpins written in A look like combined slurs, which misled both the copyist and the engraver of FE. The version of EE also results from a misunderstanding of the notation of A, although in this case it was rather the deletion of the abandoned version of bar 102 that contributed to the misunderstanding. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , EE inaccuracies , Errors of GC |
|||||||||||
b. 103
|
composition: Op. 38, Ballade in F major category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Errors of GC |