Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Placement of Chopin's grace notes.

I prefer grace notes before the beat, generally speaking. The reason being, when it's played before the beat you can alter the duration of the grace note more freely. When you play grace notes on the beat, the main note following the grace note tends to have to be placed in a rhythmically strong position so that it makes sense - thereby making the grace note a fixed duration.

When the grace note falls before the beat it could be anywhere from a full metric division before that beat, say 16th note, to a split second before. I feel it's a more free and spontaneous way to play grace notes. You can also make them all different within the same piece if you play them before the beat.

I had such discussions about ornaments with my professors at conservatories around the world when I studied classical guitar and they agree that certain composers had a predilection for ornaments being played a certain way, and there was a shift at some point between the old and the new (old being on the beat, new being before) - but they are just trends. In the end, it is up to the performer to judge the quality and purpose of a grace note. Some of the greatest performers were those who defied tradition and did it their way. I feel the Romantic composers leave room for interpretation with ornaments - much in the same way they used rubato for rhythmic freedom more than classical and baroque periods, so I would feel free to play ornaments in Romantic music any way I see fit. Baroque is a whole different story. A lot of that is just a notation convention stuff that people understood at the time. Baroque music has its own particular traits which should be adhered to.

I think there are some multi-note grace note type of constructions that could sound ridiculous if played with their first note on the beat. But even some of the multi-note groups, especially the ones that simply outline a chord, can go on the beat to good effect.

Trill suffixes/terminations can look visually like a group of grace notes but IMO should always finish before the next beat.

What about the little notes in bar 23, 24, 30, 31, 45, and 47 of the e-minor op.posth. nocturne?

Bar 65 of Op. 62 #2?

I have no books or papers that would be of any interest in resolving this discussion. Anybody?

My teacher agreed with Schnabel. I've never been puzzled. Bar 37 in op 37. no. 1 being a good case in point - and thanks for pointing that out Arghhh.

I couldn't agree with that. I almost never play appogiaturas in a way that could be precisely notated rhythmically- not even in Mozart. I'd say the same of most older-generation performers who play them on the beat. I think there's actually a lot more room for freedom than if you land onto the main note. It makes the beats far less prominent, for me, whereas playing them before makes the beats stick out.

I'd certainly agree in that case. The B flat is a point of harmonic tension, not resolution. However, I think that grace notes are frequently underplayed due to the small type. They can are often far more interesting than the following notes. This is my problem with playing them before the beat. It makes them a mere passing detail, without allowing the sheer harmonic tension that frequently occurs within them to register (or even occur at all, in some case- where it occurs to soon to clash against a bass)

That presents a case for treating dissonant grace notes as a category on its own. A consonant grace note wouldn't face the implications you describe - it's just a decoration, not a suspended dissonance. I don't have a concrete rule. If I felt that I was missing an important aspect of suspension/resolution by playing grace notes before the beat, I would certainly re-evaluate the way I am playing them.

Regardless, I take your point. Some players feel that even if they don't use "struck" dissonances, they are still implied even if the grace note is before the beat. This is certainly a matter of interpretation.



I disagree that you can resolve onto a note in a rhythmically ambiguous way. If you look at it objectively, you will be placing that tone on a division somewhere - well if it works convincingly, anyway. A grace note before the beat doesn't face the same stricture because it is incidental to the next beat. It can literally exist anywhere because the brain is look for the uniting pulse which comes straight after it. By saying that you don't resolve onto a rhythmic division, you are saying that there is an almost random or disorganised aspect to your phrasing. The resolved tone should be placed in a position where it would still function, even if you left the grace note out. I would argue that the human mind would try to place your main note into representative rhythm in any case. The development of suspension/resolution in polyphonic music of the Renaissance clearly point towards this strong rhythmic aspect too.

"That presents a case for treating dissonant grace notes as a category on its own. A consonant grace note wouldn't face the implications you describe - it's just a decoration, not a suspended dissonance."

Yeah, absolutely. Each case is judged on it's own merits. But it's worth noting that traditional classical appogiaturas tend be notated that way specifically because they are notes that pass onto harmonic ones. Sometime chromatic notes are referred to as an appogiatura, regardless of whether notated that way or not. That practice is not so rigorously adhered to in romantic music- but it's worth remembering that although the notes are written smaller, it can arguably be the case that the divergence from normal notation could be specifically to highlight the interest in the small note- not to necessarily to make it look less significant, as might be assumed.

"I disagree that you can resolve onto a note in a rhythmically ambiguous way. If you look at it objectively, you will be placing that tone on a division somewhere - well if it works convincingly, anyway."

Cortot certainly doesn't do that. Do you find him unconvincing? Why is any more the case that it must be played more on an exact division after the beat than before? I find it makes far more sense to free up the timing between the point of tension and the point of release. So if I were to approximate to two quavers, I would almost always play the 2nd quaver a fraction after where it would strictly fall- so as to dwell on the tension and marginally delay the release.

"A grace note before the beat doesn't face the same stricture because it is incidental to the next beat. It can literally exist anywhere because the brain is look for the uniting pulse which comes straight after it."

If you look for strict division and solid arrivals on each beat, that may be. But the old-school players who usually play grace notes on the beat seem to have been looking for the very opposite. It's usually a chance to free up the timing and spread the interest more freely, instead of between square reference points.


"By saying that you don't resolve onto a rhythmic division, you are saying that there is an almost random or disorganised aspect to your phrasing."

??? I'd call it freedom and illustration of harmonic tension and release. If you're used to modern standards of very slight freedom and rubato, you may hear it that way. But it's neither random nor disorganised.


"The resolved tone should be placed in a position where it would still function, even if you left the grace note out. I would argue that the human mind would try to place your main note into representative rhythm in any case. The development of suspension/resolution in polyphonic music of the Renaissance clearly point towards this strong rhythmic aspect too."

How do you play the appogiaturas in rondo alla turca then? I'm afraid that the above premise simply fails to make any sense, with a very large number of true appogiaturas.

The whole concept of the appogiatura is destroyed if it's not played on the beat. Numerous manuals on keyboard playing have demonstrated this was common practice, and like slatterfan mentioned, it was very important for singers. Lute players were very familiar with the appogiatura and they performed it by striking the grace note and then letting their finger fall on the main note - this naturally put the emphasis on the grace note, and was done on the beat. An appogiatura could be added to almost any note that needed a little extra expressiveness or feeling, and this worked well because the grace note stole time from the main note.

There were grace notes that came before the beat, but these wouldn't be appogiaturas strictly speaking. One edition of Chopin lists grace notes played before the beat as:
1- those that are anticipations of the following note
2- octave skips
3- those written before bar lines
Some simple rules, but not rules to never be broken. Examining the phrase and trying to figure out what Chopin was trying to say, can help in determing whether an on-the-beat grace note is the best way to go, or not. I would say that generally, it would be - but it always, always depends on the context.

Chopin was old fashioned with his trills, as well - starting them on the upper note. Nowadays, we generally learn the modern methods of grace notes and trills, and when we finally approach the older composers we are surprised to find that alot of things are the exact opposite! Piano performance was still evolving around the time of Chopin, so it's not surprising to find a few holdouts of the old school plodding along and hoping that those young whipper-snappers get with the program.

It's almost as if they cringed at the very thought of writing down on paper certain harmonies that were considered unorthodox... >:) They saved themselves a lot of trouble by using grace notes, if that's the case!

Do you think so? I honestly wonder if it's the opposite, odd as it may sound- that the tiny note is supposed to raise awareness that a clash occurs? Why write these funny little notes, if they don't mean to suggest something? i always wonder about the rondo alla turk. Should it really mean our typical even semiquavers, or was Mozart trying to imply a slight freedom of timing and more of a sigh? It seems so unnatural to me to think that they might written that way to emphasise a resolution rather than the suspension. And why write this strange notation if it isn't supposed to imply something? I always suspect it's supposed to draw greater attention to the clashes.

I'd love to know the reference to that. It's very interesting.

His students attested to this fact of his playing. It had been common practice to begin a trill on the upper note, but the practice was changing during Chopin's life - see Hummel, for instance. Like anything, there were exceptions to starting the trill on the upper note, but these were exceptions dependant on a particular context.

I was half-joking with my post...

If you're talking about a strict appogiatura, then the common practice - especially for singers - was to add one to a note that needed expressiveness. This was done frequently, sometimes, and was an expected skill of a singer, or musician. Italians got especially nasty if you dared to write them in the score, and took it as an insult to their musical skills heh heh!

When you encounter a written-out appogiatura in a score, it's definately drawing attention to itself, but the reason it's so small is because it's meant to be added on the spot, instinctively, or with some study beforehand - the main note is still part of the melody, but the appogiatura is only adding expressiveness to it, or some time - it's not taking the place of the main note. Some composers became sick and tired of musicians taking too many liberties with their pieces due to bad taste, so they began writing out some of the ornamentals that were expected of performers. To keep the sense of the composition, it makes perfect sense to write the appogiaturas smaller (they were originally dashes, commas, slides, and other symbols - not notes) - they are just ornaments. That way the musician can make sense of the theme, phrasing, and not become confused by a bazillion ornaments - it keeps it nice and easy, so that you can ornament using taste.
Some scores are so cluttered with ornaments, they are a nightmare to make any sense of - most musicians didn't have time to plod through all those ornaments, so the composers tended to keep them either as small symbols, or did not bother to write them down at all. They left it up to the performer. As the years went by, composers began being more and more specific and protective over their works - because they became more individualistic expressions, more representative of a personal message.

In the end, the old appogiaturas were very important onrmanents, once you hear them, but still ornaments.

A demonic rendition indeed! In my opinion not only are you and Brailowsky right with that trill, but I find it weird to think of starting it any other way. For my taste B's dynamics are too loud most of the time, but he definitely "gets" the essence of the work where Mr Rubinstein does not (IOHO? in our humble opinions? is that a new term? )! Out of curiosity, do you like B's opening octaves, and the quintuplet octaves when they appear later on? My shameless armchair critique is they sound rather metronomic and careful, and I wish B would play them with more freedom. Funnily, the reverse with the central mazurka, which I think has more poison if it is played with less rubato, so the rubato "really counts" whenever it occurs. Especially the four measures at 5:38 in the recording, which to me have semplice written all over them, but B just has to pull even those around a bit too!

Okay, this site is currently running so horribly slowly that I almost feel like not visiting ever again, but let's see if this post of mine saves in under 57 years...

Bingo.


Of course I agree, but..... the way Chopin notates it doesn't seem clearly in line with that; in fact if anything I think it argues against it.

That's not enough to stop me from playing it that way.


I'd say some of the time, but not most. I like the 'brutality' of his interpretation, and I think that would be sacrificed by what you're suggesting.

Mind you, in competitions I do play much of the piece softer. It's another example of the "chicken" thing I talked about on another thread.
But in recital, I fire away.


Agree totally. The first album I bought of the polonaises was Rubinstein's, because the store didn't have the Brailowsky -- and when I heard #5, I just about wanted my money back.


No. That's the main part of the piece that I play very differently than he does.


No, not those real much either, although I do think there's a certain 'resigned grandeur' to them. I try to retain some of that aspect (as conscious homage to him) even while playing it quite differently.


Yes - exactly, in both of those passages you mentioned.


I mostly agree with you there too. I also have always been bothered by that little passage at 5:38 but to me the main issue is something different: too loud (echoing your earlier point).
I think "semplice" means (among other things) gentle, and even if it doesn't, and even if it didn't say "semplice," I'd feel this way about the passage.

Sorry the site is acting slow for you! It's OK over here, at least right now.
And sorry to everyone else for this digression.

Slatter: Great job with that post! And not just because I agree on almost everything.

Chopin wrote a few lines in pupils' scores with these kinds of grace notes but he wasn't consistent. I find it interesting to talk about specific cases and see why/how we feel the music as we do. Where Chopin writes two consecutive sets of grace notes - a single note followed by a group or a group followed by a single note - I find myself playing the first group before the beat and the second group on the beat. So in bar 65 of Op.62 No.2 that you mention, I play the group of 5 roughly as the 2nd eighth note of the measure, with the lone crushed note on the 2nd beat.

With the Op.72 No.1 nocturne, I regard bars 23 and 24 as "exceptions" beacuse the crushed notes feel like they belong to the preceding beat. I see them as a rhythmically flexible way of expressing that the half note chords are really sort of triple-dotted quarter notes, lingering for most of the beat before the crushed notes hop in to introduce the next chord. Bars 30-31, first note before the beat, second note on the beat. In bar 45, I don't know why Chopin even wrote those as grace notes; they seem to naturally fall on the last LH 8th note (before the beat). The triplet chords in bar 51 strengthen my feeling about the crushed notes in bars 23, 24, and 47, that they are naturally anticipations of the main chord on the beat.

The Nocturne in G minor Op.37 No.1 is a good one for "playing the Chopin grace note interpretation game" ... To my taste, all the "little notes" in the first 40 measures are played on the beat except for:

Bars 5, 14 & 30: single note before, group/pair on.
Bars 6 & 22: 2nd beat, before (the strong accents need to land right on the beat, I feel).
Bars 10, 12, 26 & 28: group before, single note on.
Bars 19 & 31: before (written out turns in the middle of the beat).
Bar 24: before (trill ending).