Issues : Fontana's revisions

b. 10-11

composition: Op. 28 No. 4, Prelude in E minor

Version in As

Rhythm in A (→FEEE) & CGS

Rhythm in FC (→GE)

Rhythm in FED, possible interpretation

..

The version of As, replaced then by the final edition of those motifs, resulted from corrections itself. Their traces in the form of crossings-out are almost invisible on the available photograph; however, a comparison with similarly looking corrections in b. 18-19 suggests that in both places Chopin began with similar ideas and then changed them in a similar manner.
The change of the long grace note to a short one was an arbitrary decision of Fontana, certainly contrary to the intention of Chopin, which is particularly confirmed by the Chopinesque entry in FED, difficult to interpret as a whole, but in terms of rhythm almost certainly tantamount to the addition in b. 19, which is perfectly clear.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Main-line changes , Fontana's revisions

b. 11-19

composition: Op. 28 No. 4, Prelude in E minor

..

Both in b. 11 and 19, the grace notes in A (→FEEE) 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 .
We give the variants resulting from the above differences of notation in the notes to b. 10-11 and 18-19.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FED , Non-slashed grace notes , Fontana's revisions

b. 16

composition: Op. 28 No. 4, Prelude in E minor

No hairpins in As & EE1

  in A, contextual interpretation

  in FC (→GE) & EE2

  in FE

  in CGS

..

The range of the   hairpins in A is unclear, since the  is written at the end of the line, practically already beyond the bar line. In spite of that, diminuendo must concern also b. 16, since at the beginning of b. 17 we can already see a new sign – . This is how it was interpreted both in FC (→GE) and FE (with a slight difference in the range), and this is the interpretation we give in the main text. The absence of the marks in EE1 is most probably a mistake of the engraver, rectified in EE2 on the basis of a comparison with GE1, which is indicated by the compliance of the range of the marks. The hairpins in CGS are most probably inaccurately outlined marks of FE.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: EE revisions , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Errors in EE , FE revisions , Fontana's revisions , Inaccuracies in A