Pitch
b. 159-160
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
Under these three L.H. chords, one can see deletions in A; however, they allow us to decipher the deleted text – the same chords written down an octave lower. According to us, it did not necessarily have to be the initial version but a mistake – a bar earlier, an identical motif is written down in the bass clef; while writing the same chords in the treble clef, Chopin could have had the impression that the very change of clef assured the transfer of the notes an octave higher. Cf. a similar situation in the Scherzo in C minor, Op. 39, b. 345-347. Interestingly, traces of an identical correction introduced in print are also visible in FE. The only possible explanation would involve Chopin having introduced the correction into A after FE1 had already been engraver, e.g. while proofreading this edition. Did Chopin want to 'erase all evidence' of his (possible) mistake? It could have been distraction – while comparing two texts of the Ballade in search for mistakes, A and the proof copy of FE1, Chopin could have discovered his mistake when looking at A and automatically corrected it there; afterwards, he would mark the change in the printed text. Cf. a similar situation in b. 171. category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Corrections in A , Deletions in A , Authentic corrections of FE , Bass register changes |
||||||||
b. 162
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
The version of A is most probably a Terzverschreibung, which would often happen to Chopin with a larger number of ledger lines – cf., e.g. the Polonaise in C minor, Op. 26 No. 1, b. 5 or the Concerto in F minor, Op. 21, II mov., b. 83. Chopin corrected it twice while proofreading FE – FE1 includes c4, and it is only just FE2 and the remaining editions that include b3. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Terzverschreibung error , Errors in the number of ledger lines , Errors of A , Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||
b. 162
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
The cautionary natural to a1 was added – perhaps by Chopin – in the stage of proofreading FE (→GE,EE). category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||
b. 162
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
In A, the grace note is so close to the f4 quaver that the 8 digit opening the octave sign, although actually placed over f4, encompasses the grace note too. In spite of that, FE (→GE,EE) clearly excluded the grace note from the octave sign, which is, according to us, a mistake, since it constitutes a sonically unjustified complication. Such a problem with a grace note and an octave sign is also to be found in other pieces by Chopin, e.g. in the Sonata in B minor, Op. 58, 4th mov., b. 254 and 258, where it seems that the grace notes are not encompassed with the octave sign in both places, yet the pianistic context (and in b. 254 also the musical context) is an argument for inaccuracy of notation. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in A |
||||||||
b. 164-165
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
In these bars, there are no flats to a1 and A in A (→FE) (the accidental to a at the end of b. 164 is not necessary due to a respective to the L.H. chord). What is more, the remaining necessary flats were inserted only in the first half of each of these bars. Moreover, in A Chopin even deleted the that was initially put to G in b. 165 (cf. the description of A in some Preludes, Op. 28, e.g. in F minor, No. 8). GE and EE include the version adopted by us. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A , Errors repeated in FE |