|
b. 253-254
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
The slur of A clearly reaches the last note of the sextuplet only. In spite of that, the slur of FE (→GE,EE) is longer, which is difficult to be considered an inaccuracy or an arbitrary decision, since a similar difference is to be found in b. 257-258 (cf. a similar situation in b. 172-174 and the Chopinesque corrections to A in b. 8-19). Therefore, we consider the longer slurs to have been proofread by Chopin and give them in the main text. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||
|
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 category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in EE |
||||||||
|
b. 256
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
As in b. 252, Chopin deleted in A the category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Deletions in A |
||||||||
|
b. 256-257
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
The missing d1 notes in the chords must be a mistake by the engraver of EE1 (→EE2). It was corrected only just by EE3. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE |
||||||||
|
b. 256-257
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
In A, there are no staccato/portato dots over the chords in b. 256, while the mark in b. 257, not included by FE (→GE,EE), may be a fleck on paper or a fleck of ink (it is impossible to draw any conclusions on the basis of the available photograph of A). However, taking into account the distinct dots of A in an almost identical motif in b. 252-253, we believe that it is highly likely that Chopin could have generally meant the same performance here. Therefore, in the main text we include the dot in b. 257 and add dots in b. 256, which, being the last in a line, could have been written down less carefully. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccuracies in A |
), 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.
in 
