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. 91-92

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

..

In A a few necessary accidentals are missing, which, however, does not make the text ambiguous. All the overlooked accidentals are naturals – in the R.H. before the 6th, 11th and 12th quavers in bar 91 (d3, b2 and d4) and in the 2nd and 3rd triplets in bar 92 (b2, d2, b1, d1) as well as in the L.H. part before the 4th chord in bar 91 (b, d2). In FE1 it was only the L.H. naturals that were added – Chopin could have done it while adding the arpeggios. FE2 added all the R.H. naturals except the first one. GE and EE include all necessary accidentals.  

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 91-92

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Two-bar pedal in A (→GE)

Pedal in b. 92 in FE (→EE)
..

As in bars 87-88, the FE (→EE) pedalling cannot, according to us, correspond to Chopin's final intention.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 93-94

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

4 slurs in A (→GE)

Continuous slur in FE (→EE)
..

It is difficult to conclusively say where the differences in the L.H. part slurs come from. We could assume that Chopin was adding slurs to the initial text, with no slurs – cf. the note on bars 68-75 – and that the way he did it in A differed from the one he did it in [FC] or FE1. Such a scenario is supported by the situation in analogous bars 260-261, in which there are no slurs in the L.H. in FE, which could be explained by the fact that Chopin overlooked them while adding slurs to this edition or to the basis thereof, [FC]. Both source versions, undoubtedly authentic, may be considered equal variants; in the main text we give the slurs of the principal source, that is A.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

b. 93-94

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

..

In the sources we encounter a few inaccuracies and differences in the notation of accidentals in the chromatic sequence:

  • Before the last octave in bar 93 in A a  is present only to the top note, which was supplemented by GE and FE (→EE).
  • Before the 1st octave in bar 94 Chopin wrote in A a cautionary  to the top note (b1). GE added a mark also to the bottom note. In FE there is no accidental before this octave, yet EE contains both flats.

In addition, the deletions visible in A allow us to conclude that the 2nd R.H. quaver in bar 93 was initially written as c1-c2.

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

issues: Errors in FE , Accidentals in different octaves , Corrections in A , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Deletions in A , Enharmonic corrections , Inaccuracies in A

b. 93-97

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

 in A (→GE) & EE2

No sign in FE (→EE1)
..

In bar 93 and 97 the missing  marks in FE (→EE1) are not a mistake. Initially, the marks were probably also absent from A, to which, however, Chopin added them after [FC] had been finished. The situation in subsequent bars (bar 94 and 98) is similar – the varying markings were probably added by Chopin both to A and [FC]. In EE2 the marks were added after GE1.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions