mUltimate Chopin

Op. 23, Ballade in G minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in FE

b. 63

composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor

d2 in A & FE2, GE & EE

b1 in FE1
..

The b1 note in FE1 must be a mistake of the engraver, corrected in FE2 (probably by Chopin). The correct version in GE and EE may mean that it was also the bases for these editions that included Chopinesque corrections; however, it is uncertain, since such a mistake could have been detected by the reviser thanks to the very regular structure of the passages of this section.

In A, one can see another deleted note between the f1 and d2 quavers, most probably b1. The gaps between the notes in the entire group suggest that it was not replaced by d2, but removed from the initial version of the passage, which probably did not include the 2nd quaver, d1: .

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

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Corrections in A , Terzverschreibung error , GE revisions , Deletions in A , Authentic corrections of FE , Main-line changes

b. 65-67

composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor

..

It is only GE that include the correct version of the R.H. rest in the 2nd half of b. 65. In A and EE, there is only a minim rest (without a dot), while in FE there is no rest at all. In the 1st half of b. 67, A (→FE→EE) contain only a minim rest too, which suggests that it was considered to be filling a half of the bar (analogously to a semibreve rest).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in A

b. 69

composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor

e1 tied in A, EE3 & GE4

e1 repeated in FE (→GE1→GE2→GE3,→EE1→EE2)
..

The missing tie to the e1 minim in FE and in the majority of the impressions of GE and EE almost certainly results from an oversight of the engraver of FE1. It is proven by the lack of a dot prolonging this note in FE, which could not have resulted from proofreading (the dot, without which the rhythm in this bar is incomplete, was added by GE and EE). The tie was added by EE3 and GE4, most probably under the influence of an analogy to b. 77.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions

b. 76

composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor

Arpeggio sign in A

in FE (→GE,EE)
..

The meaning of the mark written in A before the c1-f1 fourth is not entirely clear; however, it does not seem likely that it could be a  (which would be totally unjustified here), as it was interpreted by FE (→GE,EE). According to us, it is an arpeggio marking; this is how we interpret it in the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 77

composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor

..

The version of FE of the R.H. rhythm is wrong – the tied e1 crotchet and the dotted e2 crotchet are placed over the 3rd and 4th L.H. crotchets; in addition, the dot prolonging the e1 minim was removed (one can see traces of it having been removed). Therefore, it is most likely that the reviser (engraver?), confused by the wrong arrangement of notes, adjusted the rhythmic values in the 1st half of the bar to that wrong arrangement. The versions of the remaining sources are correct.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , FE revisions