mUltimate Chopin

Op. 23, Ballade in G minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : 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

b. 170-172

composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor

Wedges in A, probable reading

Dots in FE (→GE,EE)
..

The available photograph of A gives no certainty as to the form of the staccato markings over the octaves in the middle of each of these bars, i.e. whether they are wedges or dots. It seems that the marks in b. 171 and 172 are almost certainly wedges, which is also possible in the case of b. 170, which, however, was not reproduced by the editions. In the main text we keep the dots present in our principal source, FE2, in spite of the fact that the marks were chosen (not necessarily accurately) probably by the engraver of FE. This solution is supported by the editorial consistency with respect to the dots over the quintuplet crotchets in b. 170-171 along with the arguments presented therein and by the aforementioned uncertainty of the interpretation of A on the basis of an imperfect photograph.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Wedges , Inaccuracies in A

b. 170-172

composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor

 in A, literal reading

in FE

in GE

in EE

 suggested by the editors
..

The interpretation of the three  marks in A can be approached from different angles:

  • Literal interpretation, in which the range of the marks is related to the respective R.H. crotchets, which results in three increasingly shorter marks. Such a version, suggesting increasingly shorter and milder crescendos, matches the descending direction of this sequence;
  • the difference in the range of the first two marks may be regarded as insubstantial, which suggests that all three hairpins should be unified, since the shape of the melody is the same in each bar. We suggest this version in the main text.

The versions of the editions resulted from the marks in b. 170-171 having been unified; none of these changes resembles Chopinesque proofreading process.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , EE inaccuracies , Inaccuracies in A

b. 179

composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor

Notation in A (→FE)

Notation in GE

Notation in EE
..

The individual voices of the polymetric R.H. figure are not strictly placed in any of the sources, regardless of whether with respect to each other or whether with respect to the L.H. quavers. According to us, as far as the mutual relations between the R.H. voices are concerned, the only imprecision in the notation of A (→FE), i.e. all voices falling on the a1-d1-g2 chord, is intentional and directly indicates the performance manner intended by Chopin. In turn, the attempts of GE and EE to perfect this notation are unsuccessful – in both editions the quaver triplet in the top voice fills the last crotchet of the bottom voice quadruplet, which is a mistake, since the top voices are formally written down in a regular three-crotchet division. Moreover, the aforementioned chord was divided by EE, which, although mathematically correct, is contrary to the Chopinesque notation and most probably to the performance too.
As far as the mutual arrangement of both hands is concerned, it is only the version of FE that can be considered correct, i.e. the only featuring the correct synchronisation of the R.H. quadruplet with the L.H. quavers. The version of A is simply inaccurate in this respect, while the one of GE and EE – erroneous.
In the main text we reproduce the notation of FE, the only one devoid of mistakes in the arrangement of notes yet preserving the nature of the notation of A (a1-d1-g2 as the second element of the quadruplet). According to us, practically, one could apply another improvement: the last 2 quavers could be included in the superior rhythm of the crotchet quadruplet: . In the Chopinesque version, the gap between the last a1 note in the quadruplet and the f1 note belonging to the triplet is very small (1/6 of a quaver), and the difference between the position of the e2 quaver in the Chopinesque version and the one suggested here is twice as much smaller, which justifies them being equated.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 181-187

composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor

..

In A, the flats lowering a1 to a1 in b. 181 and 184-187 and a to a in b. 183 and 186-187 are missing. These patent inaccuracies were already corrected by FE (→GE,EE).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Omission of current key accidentals , FE revisions , Last key signature sign , Inaccuracies in A