Issues : Errors repeated in EE
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next »
b. 106-109
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
In A, 8 accidentals are missing: naturals to e in b. 106, e1 in b. 106, 107 and 109, b and b2 in b. 108 and sharps to c3 in b. 107 and f1 in b. 108. FE (→GE1→GE2,GE1a) added 5 accidentals, as a result of which it was only the naturals to e1 in b. 107 and 109 and to b2 in b. 108 that were missing. The mark in b. 109 was added by EE, while the one in b. 108 by GE3 (→GE4) and EE3. None of the sources includes the natural to e1 in b. 107. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in A , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE |
|
b. 170
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
None of the sources includes a restoring e2 at the end of the bar. It must be Chopin's oversight – it is the most frequent mistake committed by Chopin. In this case, the likelihood of an error was additionally increased by the change of pitch of the note – initially, Chopin wrote here a2 in A – performed almost certainly due to the combination with the next bar. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors resulting from corrections , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE |
|
b. 247
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
In A (→FE→EE) there is no restoring b2 on the penultimate quaver. A comparison with similar phrases an octave higher and lower proves that it was an oversight by Chopin. The accidental was added by GE. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors of A , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE |
|
b. 254
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
In all editions, this bar opens a new line, and there is a slur reaching the first L.H. note (B), which seems to be a continuation of the slur from the preceding bar. However, there is no L.H. part slur in the previous bar, which points to a mistake, most probably when prolonging the R.H. slur. Considering the division of the text into lines we adopted in our transcriptions, a reasonable reproduction of this notation is impossible. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in EE |
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next »