mUltimate Chopin

Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Slurs
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Slurs

b. 172-177

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

No slurs in A (→GE)

Slurs in FE (→EE)
..

The L.H. slurs in bars 172-173 and 176-177 were added – almost certainly by Chopin – at the stage of proofreading FE1 or earlier to [FC].

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

b. 180-187

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

..

Between bars 180-181, 182-183 and analog., in addition to four necessary ties, FE includes a fifth one, at the pitch of b. This is a routine revision (in similar contexts ties are often overlooked), yet in this case it must be erroneous – in bar 180 and 184 there is no b note to which this tie could apply, whereas in bars 182-183 and 186-187 tying b would deprive the motif of its last note. In EE the ties were reproduced inaccurately – the tie in bars 184-185 was overlooked, whereas the one in bars 180-181 was provided with the form of a slur, combining c1-b.
Interestingly, in bars 182-183 this kind of superfluous tie is also in A (→GE), most probably entered by mistake.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE , Errors of A , FE revisions

b. 190-196

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Slur to a2 in A (literal reading→GE)

Slur to b. 196 in FE (→EE)
..

In A a line ends in bar 190. The ending of the slur over the R.H. part clearly suggests that it should be continued; however, there is no ending, neither in the next line, encompassing bars 191-195, nor further, in bar 196. In GE the ending of the slur in bar 190 was considered inaccurate, and the slur was led only to the last quaver, a2. In the main text we give a slur reaching bar 196, added certainly by Chopin to [FC] or while proofreading FE1.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccurate slurs in A , Authentic corrections of FE , Uncertain slur continuation

b. 197-198

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

No slur in A (→GE) & FE1

Slur in FE2 (→EE)
..

The slur added at the stage of proofreading FE2 (→EE) comes most probably from Chopin, hence we give it in the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

b. 199-203

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

3 slurs in A, literal reading

3 slurs in A (contextual interpretation→GE)

Continuous slur in FE (→EE)
..

Generally, the A slurs do not raise any concerns; however, they should be carefully evaluated for possible inaccuracies. It is already the first slur in bar 199 that attracts our attention in this respect – in a different context, such a beginning of the slur, reaching so far out, could be misleading. The beginning of the third slur is also questionable – when interpreted literally, it starts from the crotchet in bar 201, yet a comparison with an analogous situation in bars 216-217 reveals that Chopin most probably meant a slur starting from the preceding semiquaver. This is the interpretation of the A slurs (contextual, compliant with the natural division into motifs and adopted by GE) that we give in the main text.
On the other hand, the authenticity of the FE continuous slur is questionable if we take into account that similar long slurs are to be seen in FE in a few other places, in which their musical accuracy is highly problematic – cf. bars 240-241. On the other hand, the situation in bars 77-84 makes us include a possibility in which the FE slurring, in spite of likely inaccuracies further on (see below and bars 204-205), could be an alternative, authentic version of phrasing. One of such patent inaccuracies is the situation between bars 201 and 202 – the slur in bar 201, at the end of a page, suggests that it should be continued, which is not confirmed by the beginning of the slur in bar 202. In our transcription we interpret this situation as a continuous slur, as it was already done in EE. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A , Uncertain slur continuation