Ornaments
|
b. 18
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
In the main text we keep the authentic notation of the grace note as a small crotchet, although in this context it is clear that we are dealing with an ordinary short grace note. Such inaccuracies in the notation of grace notes are quite frequent in Chopin's works. This kind of notation was not repeated by any other source, which, however, does not allow us to consider Chopin's possible revisions in [FC] or FE, since Fontana would routinely change non-slashed grace notes to slashed ones. The absence of arpeggios in FE could be explained by an oversight (by Fontana in [FC] or by the engraver) or by the arpeggios having been added to A after [FC] had already been finished. The latter is indicated by the fact that in A the R.H. arpeggio overlaps with the accidentals, which almost certainly means that Chopin did not leave space for an arpeggio while writing the chord. In GE the L.H. arpeggio was reproduced correctly, while in the R.H. the Chopinesque vertical slur (indicating an arpeggio) was considered a conventional slur running from the grace note. This version was adopted by EE2. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , GE revisions |
||||||
|
b. 34
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
The missing arpeggio in FE (→EE1) is most probably an oversight. The mark was added by EE2 on the basis of analogy with bar 26 or comparison with GE1. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions |
||||||
|
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 |
||||||
|
b. 85-90
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
The arpeggios before the tenth chords in bars 85-86 and 89-90 were added to [FC] or at the stage of proofreading FE1; it is undoubtedly Chopinesque, e.g. due to the use of vertical slurs, typical of him. According to us, the addition should also be applied to all further similar bars including tenths or tenth chords. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||
|
b. 87
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
The arpeggios in this bar were certainly added – at the stage of proofreading FE1 or earlier to [FC] – by Chopin. Similarly, in bars 91-92. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
& arpeggio signs in 
, L.H. arpeggio sign & R.H. slur in 
