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
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 33-35

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Continuous slur in A (→GE)

3 slurs in FE (→EE)
..

According to us, the one-bar slurs of FE (→EE) resulted from mistakes and misinterpretation of A. The division of the slur in bars 33-34 could have been caused by confusing these bars with bars 25-26, as in A these pairs of bars end adjacent lines (it was probably similar in [FC]). The division in bars 34-35 could have resulted from the inconsistent A slurring – see the note on bars 26-27.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 34

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

g1 in A (→GE) & FE2 (→EE)

g1 in FE1
..

The FE1 version must be erroneous, which is confirmed by the  added – probably by Chopin – to FE2 (→EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 34

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Arpeggio sign in A (→GE) & EE2

No sign in FE (→EE1)
..

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. 36

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

..

One could have doubts whether the grace note at the beginning of the R.H. part should be taken into account while complementing the incomplete, sketch notation of this bar in FCs. The first half of this bar is signalised as a repetition of bar 28, like 7 preceding bars, corresponding to bars 21-27. However, unlike in those bars, in the discussed place Chopin did not leave empty space but wrote two crotchet stems in the R.H. part, corresponding to the c2-a2 and b1-g2 crotchets. The absence of a signalised grace note could be considered a cue that it should not be included here. According to us, such a strict interpretation would be wrong:

  • if Chopin wanted to make a change with respect to bar 28, he would have written this fragment more accurately, as he did in the 2nd half of this bar, as well as in other similar situations, e.g. in bar 6 or 16;
  • Chopin would use simplified, incomplete cues to indicate the text in longer, briefly marked fragments even in fair-copies – cf. e.g. the Polonaise in E minor, Op. 26 No. 2, bar 105 and 153 (of course, with FCs being a sketch, the level of incompleteness is greater than in a fair-copy). Therefore, the described crotchet stems were probably supposed to make it easier to navigate through a text that was meant to be repeated.

Taking into account the above, in the content transcription (version "edited text") we provide a grace note.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Source & stylistic information

b. 36

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

2 slurs in A (→GE)

Continuous slur in FE (→EE)
..

The continuous FE (→EE) slur could be authentic, which is indicated by the fact that it appears twice in analogous places (here and in bar 28). Nevertheless, it is still uncertain, hence in the main text we provide the version of the principal source, A.

category imprint: Differences between sources