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. 234

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Rhythm with semiquaver in A (→GE) & EE2

Rhythm with quaver in FE (→EE1)
..

As in analogous bar 154, the FE rhythm (→EE) conveys the initial version. In the main text we give the rhythm as corrected by Chopin in A (→GE), after [FC] (→FE) had been finished. In the discussed bar Chopin did not finish the correction – he overlooked the second pair of augmentation dots to the crotchet L.H. octave. This is – next to the graphic details of the autograph's notation described the first time – further proof that a change was being introduced into A.

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

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

b. 234

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

ten. in A & GE2

No indication in FE (→EE) & GE1
..

The ten. indication was almost certainly added to A after [FC] had been finished (along with  and the accents), which explains its absence in FE (→EE). In GE1 it was overlooked (along with the slur – see the adjacent note), while in GE2 – added.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 234-235

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Slur to b. 235 in A, contextual interpretation

No slur in GE & EE2

Slur in b. 234 in FE (→EE1)
..

In A the slur in bar 234, last on a page, clearly suggests that it should be continued, yet there is no ending thereof on the following page. The fact that Chopin indeed wanted to lead the slur to the beginning of bar 235 is confirmed by the slur (consistent in all sources) in analogous bars 154-155. The FE slur (→EE1) suggests that Fontana did not lead the slur to bar 235 in [FC]. In EE2 the slur was deleted, most probably after the GE version, in which the A slur was overlooked.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors in GE , Uncertain slur continuation

b. 234

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Long accent in A, possible interpretation 

 in A, contextual interpretation

No sign in GE

Shorter  in FE (→EE)
..

In A the mark looks like a typical long accent, yet due to the graphic context, it can also be interpreted as a  hairpin encompassing almost the entire bar. This bar is exceptionally narrow in A, since Chopin wanted to fit it on the same page so that it does not open a new one. A comparison with analogous bar 154 is an argument for diminuendo, and this is the interpretation that we suggest in the main text. The FE version may be an attempt at finding a compromise interpretation of the A notation (by the copyist or by the engraver), while in GE the mark was overlooked (along with the slur and ten.).

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Scope of dynamic hairpins , Errors in GE

b. 235

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Staccato dot in A

No mark in FE (→EE) & GE
..

As in analogous bar 155, the staccato dot was probably added to A after the basis for FE had been finished ([FC]). In GE the dot was overlooked (as was the slur).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE