|
b. 66
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , FE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 67
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
The missing accidental to the 12th semiquaver formally means that it is a G1. However, in similar contexts, Chopin would often consider the accidentals to the same note in a different octave in a given bar to still be valid. Taking into account the 4th semiquaver, G category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A |
|||||||||
|
b. 67
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
In A (→GE) the semibreve rest is placed on the bottom stave, over the semiquaver sequence. This notation may be misleading: the rest on the bottom stave concerns the L.H. (if it concerned the R.H., it would be on the top stave), yet it being over the semiquavers suggests a reverse hands position – the rest in the R.H., and the figuration in the L.H. Due to this fact, in the main text we put the rest under the semiquavers. In FE (→EE1) the rest was overlooked, while in EE2 it was added after GE1. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE |
|||||||||
|
b. 68
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
The difference between the pedalling versions of A (→GE) and FE does not seem accidental. This is indicated by similar differences in bars 43-48 and by the pedalling version in bar 52 (probably authentic). Therefore, the FE pedalling is most probably authentic, yet it is uncertain whether Chopin replaced the pedalling repeated after A with this version (in [FC] or while proofreading FE1) or whether he added it in a place in which the copyist or the engraver overlooked the markings or whether, last but not least, he added the pedalling independently to A and to [FC] or while proofreading FE1. The missing markings in FE in the next bar may point to the second possibility – distraction leading to the oversight of markings could have encompassed both bars, whereas Chopin noticed and corrected it only in bar 68. Not being sure whether Chopin considered the FE pedalling to be final, in the main text we suggest a variant solution, as in a similar situation in bars 43-48. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in EE , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||||||
|
b. 68-75
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
In bars 68-76 the authentic L.H. slurring – in A (→GE) and EE2 – consists of only one slur over the first half-bar figure in bar 68. This is most probably an earlier version, perhaps left by inattention, which is indicated by compatible, complete slurs, entered into A in both subsequent appearances of this phrase, in bars 155-163 and 235-243. As there are no doubts that all three fragments are to be performed analogously, in the main text we suggest slurs modelled after the aforementioned bars. The missing slur in FE (→EE1) could be attributed to an oversight if it were not for the fact that these editions do not include slurs in the following appearances of this phrase either. This means that in the initial version of these places there were no slurs at all, while the A slurs were added after [FC] had been finished. In this case, too, the complete slurring of analogous phrases must be considered an improvement, intentionally referring to the discussed bars as well. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE |
1 in 
