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. 187-188

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

in A (→GE) & EE2

No sign in FE (→EE1)
..

The  hairpin was probably added to A after [FC] had been finished (probably together with slentando). In EE2 the mark – slightly shorter – was added on the basis of GE1.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

b. 224

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Different accents in A, contextual interpretation

Long accents in GE

No marks in FE (→EE1)

Short accents in EE2
..

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. 226

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Short accents in A (literal reading) & EE2

Different accents suggested by the editors

Long accents in GE

No marks in FE (→EE1)
..

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.
The absence of the accents in FE (→EE1) almost certainly means that they were absent in A while [FC] was being developed, serving as the basis for FE – Chopin added the accents to A after the copy had been finished. In EE2 the accents were added on the basis of GE1, interpreting them as short.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 227-229

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Staccato dots in A (→GE)

No marks in FE (→EE)
..

The staccato dots for the G1-G octaves in bar 227 and 229 were probably overlooked in [FC] or in FE (→EE). However, this does not significantly influence the interpretation of the text, since the dots in the two previous analogous bars (bar 223 and 225) should be considered a model to follow in this context.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE

b. 228-230

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Different accents in A

Long accents in GE

No marks in FE (→EE1)

Short accents in EE2
..

In bar 228 and 230 the absence of accents in FE (→EE1) proves that Chopin added them to A after [FC] had been finished. In GE, and on the basis thereof also in EE1, the marks are standardised – long in GE and short in EE2. In the main text we give the A version with a pair of accents of different length in each of these bars.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE