|
b. 250
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
The accent added in the stage of proofreading FE (→GE,EE) almost certainly comes from Chopin, hence we introduce it into the main text. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 251-255
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
We keep the notation of A (→FE), where the accidentals in b. 251 for the R.H. part are then not repeated before the same L.H. notes. An analogous situation is to be found in b. 255. In A one can even see that Chopin deleted all accidentals that had been written in those places – four in b. 251 and the category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Deletions in A |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 252
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
In Breitkopf & Härtel publications, an authentic wedge would often be arbitrarily replaced by a staccato dot. The absence of the mark in GE1a is most probably an oversight by the engraver. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions , Wedges |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 252-253
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
In the main text we include the portato dots entered into A. The marks are absent in FE (→GE,EE), which we consider an oversight by the engraver. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
|||||||||||||
|
b. 252-253
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
The deletions visible in A reveal that Chopin considered the dynamic markings over the R.H. part not suggestive enough and moved them lower, between the parts of both hands. None of the sources reproduced this notation accurately – in FE (→GE) the marks were placed too low, before the L.H. part, while GE overlooked category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , Deletions in A |
to e in b. 255. 
& 
in 
