mUltimate Chopin

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Notation of grace notes

b. 5-20

composition: Op. 28 No. 2, Prelude in A minor

4 unslashed grace notes in As, A (→FE→EE) & CGS

4 slashed grace notes in FC (→GE)

Different grace notes in FES
..

In the main text we give the grace notes in b. 5, 10, 17 and 20 in the form of non-slashed grace notes, in accordance with the notation of A (→FE→EE). However, in this context, it does not mean a performance that would be radically different from a common, slashed grace note, which is indicated by:

  • the correction of rhythm in b. 10 visible in As, in which Chopin replaced the initially written 2 semiquavers with a grace note and a quaver;
  • the grace notes in b. 17 and 20 in FES having been slashed, probably by Chopin, most probably in order to correct the wrong, too lengthy performance;
  • the notation of grace notes by Chopin, not always precise; he would sometimes use them interchangeably, not being concerned about a possible difference between the performance of slashed and non-slashed grace notes (cf., e.g. the Polonaise in C Minor, Op. 26 No. 1, b. 11 and 36).

According to us, taking into account the tempo and character of the music and all the above factors, one can recommend the following rhythmic solution of this detail: .

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Notation of grace notes , Fontana's revisions

b. 15

composition: Op. 28 No. 7, Prelude in A major

Unslashed grace note in A (→FE→EE) & CGS

Slashed grace note in FC (→GE)
..

Replacing non-slashed grace notes – small quavers – by slashed ones is one of the mannerisms of Fontana as a copyist. As Chopin did not strictly observe the difference between both types of grace notes, in this case both versions of notation have the same meaning.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Notation of grace notes , Fontana's revisions

b. 39

composition: Op. 28 No. 5, Prelude in D major

Unslashed grace note with slur in A

Slashed grace note with slur in FC (→GE)

Unslashed grace note without slur in FE (→EE)
..

In the main text we keep the notation of the grace note used in A. The versions of the remaining sources result from revisions (slashed grace note in FC) or mistakes (missing slur in FE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Notation of grace notes , Fontana's revisions

b. 39

composition: Op. 30 No. 4, Mazurka in C# minor

 in FC (→GE)

in FE (→EE)
..

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 , although almost all the remaining grace notes in entire opus 30 are reproduced there as  (except bar 80). According to us, it guarantees the authenticity of this notation. As a matter of fact, the notation is probably of no significant importance in practical terms, since the grace note merely indicates that the trill is supposed to begin from the main note. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Notation of grace notes , Non-slashed grace notes , Inaccuracies in FC

b. 74

composition: Op. 29, Impromptu in A♭ major

..

The first grace note in EE has the form of a small semiquaver. It is difficult to determine whether it is coherent with the notation of the manuscript (with the small semiquaver or slashed quaver) which served as the base text for this edition.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Notation of grace notes