Issues : EE revisions
|
b. 155
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
In the entire descending passage, there is not a single accidental in A. FE added only a category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Omission of current key accidentals , Authentic corrections of FE , Inaccuracies in A , Errors repeated in FE |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 156-157
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
In A (→FE), there is no 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. 164-165
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
In these bars, there are no flats to a 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. 169-170
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
In A (→FE,EE), b. 169 ends the line, which resulted in an inaccuracy in the reproduction of the slur – at the end of b. 169 the aforementioned editions suggest that it should be continued, yet in b. 170 a new slur starts from the 1st crotchet (in all of them). In EE and GE1a these bars are in one line, yet each of them interpreted this vague notation differently – EE separated the slurs, while GE1a combined them. We reproduce the inaccurate version of FE and GE in the graphic transcription (version 'transcript'); by contrast, we adopt a continuous slur as the text of these editions (version 'edited text'), in accordance with A. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Uncertain slur continuation , Errors repeated in GE |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
b. 171
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
The version of A (→FE1) (→GE1→GE2 →EE1→EE2) was changed in FE2. The change was almost certainly performed at Chopin's request; however, it is unlikely that he would have wanted to leave d2 in the penultimate crotchet of the quintuplet – the aim of the correction was most probably a version analogous to b. 170. Therefore, it would be an example of an unfinished correction – the engraver was supposed to move d2 from the 4th crotchet to the 5th; he inserted it in a new place, but did not remove it from the former. Such mistakes are very frequent, e.g. in the Ballade in F, Op. 38, b. 179, the Scherzo in B minor, Op. 20, b. 135 and 292 or the Polonaise in A, Op. 40 No. 1, b. 93). Therefore, in the main text we suggest a respectively modified version of FE2, most probably intended by Chopin. Versions of the remaining sources are arbitrary attempts to partially or completely unify the respective fragments of b. 170 and 171. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE |
to the 6th quaver (c
3); the fact that it was only the 1st octave of the passage that was proofread may indicate Chopin as the initiator of the procedure. 
1/2/3 in b. 156 and to the L.H. e
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 
