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. 1-16

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

No L.H. markings in A & FE (→EE1)

L.H. dots & slurs in GE1

L.H. slurs & dots in EE2

L.H. slurs & dots in GE2
..

In bars 1-2, 5-7, 11-12 and 15-16, in GE and in EE2 (probably on the basis thereof) separate articulation markings for the L.H. were added (staccato dots and slurs under the stave). In bars 1-2 in EE2 only slurs were added, since this edition does not contain dots in the R.H. part. In these two bars it is also GE2 that contains slurs only, since the dots at the beginning of the piece were replaced with a slur, also in the R.H. These additions cannot be authentic; moreover, they are superfluous, since Chopin would very often omit markings for a left-hand part led in unison, considering them obvious (although he was not always consistent – there are examples of both parallel parts being provided with markings – one should not assume that the lack of markings could suggest the use of a different kind of articulation).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 1-2

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

2 staccato dots in A (→GE1)

1 dot in FE (→EE1)

No marks in EE2

Slur in GE2

4 dots suggested by the editors
..

The missing second staccato dot in FE (→EE) may have resulted from an oversight by Fontana in [FC] or by the engraver of FE. It is also likely that Chopin added dots in A after [FC] had already been finished, and then added only the first one while proofreading FE1. The absence of both dots in EE2 must be an oversight, while the slur in GE2 – an arbitrary revision to make the articulation of the 1st crotchet resemble the articulation of the subsequent crotchets in this phrase. In the main text we suggest the dots of A (→GE1) and two further ones, modelled after the more accurate notation of the sources in analogous bars.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in EE

b. 4-14

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

in A (→GE) & EE2

No signs in FE (→EE1)
..

The  hairpins in bars 4 and 14, acting as long accents, were most probably added to A after [FC] had already been finished. It seems highly unlikely that Fontana could have overlooked both marks or that Chopin could have crossed them out in [FC] or removed while proofreading FE. The marks being present in EE2 probably resulted from a revision including the GE1 text.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions

b. 6-7

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

Slur & dot in A (→GE) & EE2

No markings in FE (→EE1)
..

The missing articulation markings between the bars may be explained by an oversight by the copyist or by the engraver of FE or – which seems less likely in this case – by the markings having been added to A later. The fact that the marks were added by EE2 most probably resulted from using GE1 while revising.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions

b. 9

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

in A

in GE & EE2

No sign in FE (→EE1)
..

The  hairpin under the L.H. motif was most probably added by Chopin to A after [FC] had already been finished. In GE the mark was moved to between the staves, which was repeated in this form in EE2.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE