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

Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

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. 95-99

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Staccato dots in A (→GE)

No marks in FE (→EE)
..

The easiest explanation for the missing staccato dots at the beginning of bar 95 and 99 would be Fontana's oversight in [FC] or an oversight by the engraver of FE. However, it cannot be ruled out that Chopin added dots along with slurs (see the next note) to A after [FC] had been finished. See also bar 262 and 266.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 98

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

 in A (literal reading→GE)

No  in FE (→EE)

Long accent suggested by the editors
..

The mark present in A (→GE), despite its considerable size, seems to indicate a long accent – it begins slightly before the b-b1 minim, but after the preceding note, and ends before the next one, which means that it actually concerns only this minim. However, since such notation could potentially hinder the correct interpretation, in the main text we suggest a standard long accent mark, compliant with the ones Chopin wrote in all analogous bar 94, 261 and 265. The absence of the mark in FE (→EE) most probably results from the fact that Chopin was adding dynamic markings concerning this fragment to A and [FC] or FE1 at a different time.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents

b. 109-115

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Half-bar-long  in A

Longer  in GE & EE2

No signs in FE (→EE1)
..

The  hairpins in bar 109, 111, 113 and 115 must have been added by Chopin to A after [FC] (→FE→EE1) had been finished. It is difficult to imagine a situation in which the copyist or the engraver could overlook so many marks, particularly since there is an identical situation in analogous bar 276, 278, 280 and 282. In GE the marks were extended by placing their beginnings under the first quaver in the bar. It is in this form that they were added to EE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Corrections in A

b. 110-114

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

3  in A, literal reading

2  in GE1

3  in GE2

3  in FE (→EE)

3 long accents suggested by the editors
..

We consider the  marks visible in A in bar 110, 112 and 114 to be long accents, in spite of them being longer than typical accents. The GE marks are inaccurate, which clearly changes their meaning in this case (this inaccuracy was not repeated by GE2 while correcting the GE1 oversight in bar 112 – the  added by GE2 are compliant with the A notation). In FE (→EE) the marks are also longer than the ones in A, yet their meaning is similar, which suggests that they could be authentic, if, e.g. Chopin were adding them to [FC] or while proofreading FE1 independently from the marks added to A.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions