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. 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

b. 235-236

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

3 long accents in A (→GE)

1 long accent in FE (→EE1)

3 different accents in EE2

Our variant suggestion
..

As in bars 68-69 and 155-156, both versions – with three accents in A and with one accent in FE – are authentic and can be considered equal. Due to this reason, in the main text we suggest a variant solution. EE2 added the accents noticed in GE1, yet they were considered short, in spite of the fact that the first mark, repeated after FE, was reproduced correctly as a long accent.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , EE inaccuracies

b. 236-237

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

 & cresc. in b. 237 in A (→GE) & EE2

cresc. from b. 236 in FE (→EE1)
..

Both versions of the dynamic markings are almost certainly authentic and were most probably added by Chopin independently to A and to [FC] or while proofreading FE. In EE2 the markings were changed after GE1.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions

b. 244

composition: Op. 49, Fantaisie in F minor

in A (→GE) & EE2

No sign in FE (→EE1)
..

As in bar 81, 164 and 168, the  hairpin was almost certainly added by Chopin to A after [FC] had been finished, which explains its absence in FE (→EE1). In EE2 the mark was added on the basis of GE1.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions