Issues : Non-slashed grace notes
|
b. 11-19
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 4, Prelude in E minor
..
Both in b. 11 and 19, the grace notes in A (→FE→EE) are non-slashed, whereas in FC (→GE) – slashed. It is an inaccuracy that would often happen to Fontana-copyist, in this case almost certainly contrary to the intention of Chopin. The Chopinesque entries in FED equate the grace note and the crotchet with two quavers, which can be considered one of the performance possibilities of these motifs. We recommend a slightly shorter grace note, which could be written down as category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Non-slashed grace notes , Fontana's revisions |
|||||
|
b. 39
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 15, Prelude in D♭ major
..
As in many other places, Fontana replaced the Chopinesque grace note with a common short grace note (the change also got to EE2, probably via GE1). In the main text we keep the notation of A (→FE→EE1), although it most probably carries the same meaning as a category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Non-slashed grace notes , Fontana's revisions |
|||||
|
b. 39
|
composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor
..
Here and in bar 55 we give in the main text a non-slashed grace note after FE, which seem more reliable in this case. It is true that French editions included inaccuracies in grace notes, but Fontana would very often change non-slashed grace notes to slashed ones (cf. the description of FC in the Preludes, Op. 28). This situation occurs twice in the Mazurka, and in both places FE feature a category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Notation of grace notes , Non-slashed grace notes , Inaccuracies in FC |
|||||
|
b. 41
|
composition: Op. 24 No. 1, Mazurka in G minor
..
For our main text we take the grace note with a slash, as in GE (→FE→EE). Chopin was sometimes inaccurate in his notation of grace notes, and so quavers and crotchets without slashes appear in places in which the context precludes their reading in accordance with classic rules. In our text, a long grace note would ruin the characteristic mazurka rhythm. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Non-slashed grace notes |
|||||
|
b. 77-81
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
The slashed grace notes in bar 77 and 81, which is inaccurate, were almost certainly written by Fontana in [FC] – slashed grace notes were part of Fontana's style as a copyist, which can be observed in the pieces in the case of which both the autograph and its copy are preserved, e.g. in the Preludes, Op. 28. Nevertheless, in the main text we give slashed grace notes, since it was in this form that Chopin wrote them in 4 remaining analogous places – bar 164, 168, 234 and 238. Generally, in obvious situations Chopin would often ignore whether grace notes were written precisely, allegedly writing long grace notes in places in which the context, like this one, determines the use of short grace notes. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: GE revisions , Notation of grace notes , Non-slashed grace notes |
.
in 
in 
