|
b. 223
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
In FE1 the bottom minim at the beginning of the bar is an A category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE , FE revisions |
|||||||||||
|
b. 223
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
When interpreted literally, the Tempo primo indication directs us to the beginning of the piece, which, of course, could not have been intended by Chopin. Therefore, formally speaking, come prima would be more appropriate, which means, among others, 'as before'. We keep the source indication, as the texture clearly indicates that it should be the tempo of the main section of the Fantasy that should be continued. category imprint: Source & stylistic information issues: Errors of A , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE , Errors repeated in EE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 224
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
In A the length of both accents is not much different, yet a comparison with analogous bar 228 and 230, as well as 311, 313 and 315, allows us to consider this difference to be significant, hence in the main text we first give a short accent and then a long one. In GE both marks were interpreted as long accents. The absence of the accents in FE (→EE1) proves that they were added to A later, after [FC] had been finished. In EE2 the marks were added on the basis of GE1, interpreting them as common, short accents. See also bar 226 and 228-230. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 224
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
As before, in the 2nd half of the bar Chopin did not write accidentals in the R.H. part in A (→GE1). This version was also repeated by FE1, while FE2 (→EE) added both naturals. GE2 added only the latter (a3), probably assuming that a category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , FE revisions , Inaccuracies in A , Errors repeated in GE , Errors repeated in FE |
|||||||||||
|
b. 226
|
composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor
..
When interpreted literally, both accents in A seem to be identical and rather short – cf. the long accents in the middle of bar 228 and 230. However, it is the comparison with these bars, as well as with bar 311, 313 and 315, that suggests that Chopin could have wanted to differentiate between them. We can actually see a difference in their length if we compare the top arms of both marks, which, most probably written first, can be considered to be written more carefully, hence more reliable. Taking that into account, in the main text we suggest a short accent at the beginning of the bar and a long accent in the middle. GE standardised the marks as long accents. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in A |
1. The mistake was corrected in 
to a2 is not necessary, since in the 1st half of the bar there are naturals both to a1, written at the same pitch as the discussed note, and to a2.
