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. 93-94

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Pedalling in A (→GE)

No markings in FE (→EE)
..

According to us, the most plausible explanation for the lack of pedalling in FE (→EE) is that the pedal markings were added to A after [FC], the basis for FE, had already been prepared. Such a conclusion results from the examination of a few other similar discrepancies between A and FE – cf., e.g. bars 116-118 and 124-126.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 94-95

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Slur to g1 in b. 94 in A & FE (→EE)

Slur to g1 in b. 95 in GE
..

In A the slur encompasses bars 93-94; although its ending reaches beyond the last note in bar 94, nothing suggests that it should be led to the next bar (the beginning of the slur precedes the 1st octave in bar 93 by about the same gap, it is a typical example of the Chopinesque encompassing slur). This is how it must have been interpreted by the copyist in [FC] and, on the basis thereof, by the engraver of FE (→EE).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Embracing slurs

b. 94

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Accent in A (→GE)

No mark in FE (→EE)
..

The missing accent in FE (→EE) probably is not an oversight, since Chopin was probably adding various dynamic markings both to A (accent) and [FC], on which FE was based () – see the previous note.
See also the note on the accent in bar 98.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 94-98

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

No in A (→GE)

in FE (→EE)
..

The missing  in bar 94 and 98 is not an oversight in A (→GE), since Chopin was probably adding various dynamic markings both to A (accent – see the next note) and [FC], being the basis for FE (). Both marks can be considered in isolation, interpreting them in a way leading to a different performance, or jointly, seeing in them various aspects of the same interpretation. In the main text we adhere to the version of the principal source, that is A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 95-100

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

4 slurs twice in A (→GE)

2 continuous slurs in FE (→EE)
..

As far as the L.H. slurs in bars 95-96 and 99-100 are concerned, the two groups of sources show similar differences to those observed in bars 93-94. In this case, it is also difficult to conclusively determine the origin thereof; however, it seems likely that Chopin was adding slurs to A and to [FC] or FE1 twice, at a different time. In the main text we give the slurs of the principal source, that is A. They are very characteristic due to their motivic, and not pianistic nature – respective slurs encompass six-quaver groups that do not correspond to subsequent L.H. positions, but are composed of pairs of different chords. It is only the second time (bars 262-263 and 266-267) that the slurs are compliant with the hand position and combine groups generally based on one chord.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations