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

Pitch

b. 10

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

c1-a1 in A (→GE), as well as FE1 (contextual interpretation) & FEJ (1st stage of corrections)

c1-c2 in FE2 (→EE1)

c1-a1, c2 tied in FEJ (2nd stage of corrections)

c1-e1-a1, c2 tied in FES & EE2

Possible interpretation of notation of FES
..

For the 3rd crotchet in the bar we choose the unquestionable A version (→GE). The same version, although written down with errors, is to be seen in FE1. The mistakes were corrected in FE2, yet, according to us, another mistake was committed in the act – the topmost note was changed from a1 to c2. The erroneous FE2 version was subject to further corrections and changes in the preserved teaching copies. In some respects, interpretation of these additions is problematic, particularly in the case of the FES entries, where we suggest two possible interpretations.
According to us, the tie to c2 present in both copies is of technical and pedagogical nature, as it facilitates the performance of the broad chord on the 4th beat of the bar.
The presence of the FES version in EE2 suggests that the edition was co-revised by a person who had access to FES.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors resulting from corrections , Terzverschreibung error , Annotations in FES , Authentic corrections of FE , Authentic post-publication changes and variants , Annotations in FEJ , FE revisions

b. 15-16

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

..

In FCs these bars are written in shorthand as empty bars marked with digits 1 and 2, whereby in bar 16 digit 2 is followed by a C-c minim (each note provided with a separate stem). However, as no other bars were marked with these digits, it is unclear which bars they should be referred to. There are 3 possibilities:

  1. The digits simply mean bars 1-2. It results in a reasonable continuation if we accept the imprecise notation at the beginning of bar 15 – the preceding two-bar phrase, marked in shorthand with digits 3 and 4, which is clear in this case, since these digits are also written above bars 3-4, must end with a chord, as in bar 5.
  2. The digits refer to bars 5-6. It is a perfect content match, while the seeming discrepancy in the numbers of bars could be explained by the fact that the notation of bars 5-6 is incomplete, assuming that it should be supplemented after more accurately written down bars 1-2.
  3. Chopin wanted to repeat here – changing the last minim – the version of bars 11-12. As in point 1, the version of the 1st crotchet in bar 15 should be sought in bar 5. In this case, digits 1-2 written in bars 15-16 should be understood as "bars preceding the bars marked a moment ago with digits 3-4". According to us, it is likely that Fontana, while copying this fragment, imagined bars 15-16 as a variant of bars 11-12, hence with octaves in the L.H. It would be indicated by the poorly visible mark written in FCs under the C-c octave, which we interpret as a deleted digit 8, marking the C1-C octave. This would suggest that Fontana wrote here an 8, which he saw in bar 12, and only later did he realise that in bar 16 it was absent in the Chopinesque sketch. One can even imagine a scenario in which this 8 was also in Chopin's original sketch, written down and perhaps deleted, yet not clearly enough for Fontana to know how to interpret it. Consequently, he first copied the digit and then deleted it.

The first two possibilities give the same result, compliant with the published version, in which the L.H. part is devoid of octave doublings. On the other hand, the third interpretation leads to a version featuring octaves, which we suggest in the main text – see the note below.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Source & stylistic information

b. 15-16

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

No L.H. octaves in sources

Octaves suggested by the editors
..

It seems highly likely that Chopin did not repeat the L.H. octave doublings in these bars – cf. bars 11-12 – only due to the fact that the pianos at his disposal did not include C1, necessary to end the phrase in a consistent manner. This is supported by the presence of similar, sometimes even more obvious textural inconsistencies in a few other pieces, e.g. in the Scherzo in C minor, Op. 39, bar 197 and 315 or in the Polonaise in E, Op. 22, bar 84. In this very fragment of the Fantasy an additional argument is provided by the FCs notation, in which the minim in bar 16 is a C-c octave with an 8 indicating that the bottom note should be doubled in an octave, C1-C (see the note above). Assuming that it approximately corresponds to the notation of the Chopinesque sketch, one can suppose that Chopin 'automatically' wrote here the musically necessary C1, and only then (or maybe even only just while preparing the fair-copy) did he realise that the note goes beyond the piano's range and removed the bottom octave doublings in bars 15-16. This justifies the suggested editorial addition, since one could believe that the composer would have actually introduced the notes going beyond the available piano's range if he had had the right instrument at his disposal.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: Bass register changes

b. 17

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

..

In A and FE the  raising g2 to g2 is missing. Chopin's patent inaccuracy was corrected in GE and EE.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A , Errors repeated in FE

b. 18

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

..

In FE1 the topmost note of the arpeggiated chord on the 3rd beat is preceded by a  (c3). The manifest error was corrected – perhaps at Chopin's request – in FE2. The traces of a natural visible in EE prove that in this place it was based on a copy of FE prior to this correction, and the mistake was rectified by the reviser of EE1, Ignaz Moscheles.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE , FE revisions