Ornaments
b. 76
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
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. 124
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||
b. 164
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
The missing arpeggio mark in the editions must have resulted from a mistake by the engraver of FE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
|||||
b. 173
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
We consider the grace note in FE (→GE,EE) the latest authentic version, although it seems that the mordent present in A was not being removed at the stage of proofreading. No traces of corrections in print suggests that the engraver of FE omitted the ornament, and Chopin simply added a grace note while proofreading FE. Therefore, the deletions in A prove that the composer hesitated, since it was the grace note that was removed there and replaced with a mordent. In this situation, both versions may be considered equal variants. Similar variations are to be found in other pieces by the composer, e.g. in the Ballade in A, Op. 47, b. 3 and 39 or the Mazurka in C minor, Op. 30 No. 1, b. 1, 5 and 9, 13. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information issues: Corrections in A , Chopin's hesitations , Deletions in A , Authentic corrections of FE , Main-line changes |
|||||
b. 179
|
composition: Op. 23, Ballade in G minor
..
It is uncertain how the removal of by GE3 came about. Anyway, it is a patent mistake, corrected by GE4. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions |