Issues : Fontana's revisions
b. 10-11
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 4, Prelude in E minor
..
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. 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 (→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. 16
|
composition: Op. 28 No. 4, Prelude in E minor
..
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 |