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. 160-163

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Slurs in A (→GE) & EE2

No slurs in FE (→EE1)
..

As in the case of the previous, long slur, Chopin added 8 subsequent, half-bar slurs to A after [FC] had been finished. The EE2 slurs were added after comparing it with GE1.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

b. 160

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

New cresc. - - in A

Dashes continued in FE (→EE) 

cresc. repeated in GE
..

In the main text we give the nuanced crescendo, consisting of two waves, marked in A. GE reproduced it inaccurately, as a result of which the cresc. indication in this bar only reminds us that the marking whose range is indicated by the dashes is crescendo. On the other hand, the continuous cresc. (without the repeated indication) in FE (→EE) may be an authentic variant, entered into [FC] or at the stage of proofreading FE1 independently of the A notation.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE

b. 161

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

..

Comparing this bar with its counterparts, bar 74 and 241, one can ponder whether Chopin did not commit a mistake by adding a  to the bottom note of the 1st quaver, which changed it from b1 to b1. This was the opinion of, among others, the majority of the editors of later collective editions of Chopin's works. A mistake consisting in writing two identical accidentals instead of different ones to simultaneously played notes can be assumed, e.g. in the Mazurka in A minor, Op. 59 No. 1, bar 112 (c1 instead of c1). The fact that the A notation is free of mistakes is proven by the  restoring b1 at the beginning of the 2nd half of the bar. It is also worth mentioning that if Chopin wanted to have a b1 note here, he would not have had any reason to write any accidental to this note. Except the misleading orthography – b1 instead of c2 – this version is perfectly correct, harmonically speaking, since the accompaniment in the 1st half of the bar is based on a ninth chord with a minor c1 ninth. Such enharmonically mixed notation is not unusual in Chopin's pieces, cf., e.g. the Ballade in G minor, Op. 23, bars 156-157 or the Concerto in E minor, Op. 11, II mov., bar 78. There are also many examples in which Chopin cares more about the convenience of reading, e.g. natural size of intervals (in this case a third, and not a second) or other factors, than the harmonic accuracy.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: GE revisions

b. 161-162

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

..

In A and FE none of these bars include naturals to the bottom note of the 2nd R.H. quaver. In turn, Chopin wrote a  to d2 in the middle of bar 162; in the main text we omit this unnecessarily repeated accidental. GE and EE added the overlooked accidentals, while EE also removed this superfluous  to d2. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

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

b. 162

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

..

In the main text we add a cautionary  to b1 at the beginning of the bar.

category imprint: Editorial revisions