Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Chopin fantaisie impromptu: to play 4a or 4b?

Hi

I am now learning Chopin's Fantaisie Impromptu and in my score(Henle urtext)there are 2 different versions of it. Namely the autograph version(4a)and the fontana version(4b). From what I watched in youtube, I gather that most younger pianists play the 4b version. But I would still like to hear some advise from different people as to which version will be better for me to learn.

apple

Never heard of a second version of Fantaisie-impromptu. See which of those two is on Paderewski Edition and/or Edition Peters (Scholtz/Pozniak) -- it should be the same one. Go for that...

...unless you really prefer the other one, that's your taste. But again, I can't remember anything about a second version of this piece.

You could go with Chopin's recommendation and not play it at all! Other than that, you should make up your own mind.

"Better for [you] to learn" in what sense? Most people play the Fontana version. Rubinstein is one of the few recordings I have where the autograph version is performed.

Regards,

I was hoping someone who has the Henle would chime in. What are the differences? The commentary to the Paderewski edition makes no reference to discrepancies between the manuscript and Fontana's version.

Steven

I am working on this piece from the same Henle urtext. I decided to go with the Fontana version (4b) because that's how I've always heard it played. When I first started to learn it I opened the book of Chopin impromptus to the Fantasie Impromptu "page" (not knowing here were two versions) and sight read the first several measures. Somehow it didn't sound right to me. Then I realized I was playing version 4a which was unfamiliar to my ears. Since I learn a lot by listening to interpretations by great pianists I figured I should learn the version most people play.

Steven: I don't have my Henle with me. I'll check it when I get home.

In what ways is version 4a different?

Steven

Nice! So many pianists out there (not in here, not in this thread) throw stones on the basis of arbitrary and a-historical notions about composers' "intentions" and how to respect them. Why can't they take their own unsolicited advice in situations like this, when it would actually help? Burn those scores, folks, it's what the composer intended!

But seriously, to the OP, surely it's not much additional trouble to learn both variants. They're not very different. Playing them both should help you decide which you prefer.

You can take what you like from each version, if you want.

Dang, I sure wonder what those differences are. It would be great if those who are commenting on them could describe them.

Steven

Hi Steven,

I have the Alfred edition (ed. Maurice Hinson) of the 'Fantasie-Impromptu' which, like the Henle, contains both versions in addition to some very helpful explanatory notes about both. It appears that Fontana, in a desire to publish an 'authentic' edition of Chopin's unpublished works, sourced the piece from two autograph copies, but heavily edited the work, filling it with expression marks not in the manuscripts (tempo/metronome markings, dynamic signs, etc.) and 'regularising' Chopin's slurs. However, because the Chopin edition (from the manuscripts) was not intented to be published, it sometimes seems less 'finished' than the Fontana, e.g. with placing of accents in bars 13-22 and 91-98, that Chopin may well have included later.

All pedal indications in the Fontana edition are by him and not Chopin, who only left pedal indications at bars 41-45. Dynamic differences include just a ‘forte’ marking with a decrescendo to the end of bar 1, as opposed to Fontana’s sforzando with no dim. A ‘con anima’ is given instead of ‘sotto voce’ at bar 43. There are differences in note values at some turns (e.g. b. 49 RH- Chopin has quavers to start with the D-flat in the LH, whereas Fontana has demisemiquavers) and at other points such as bar 60, where the RH figure is notated by Chopin as a semiquaver group of 7 as opposed to Fontana, who has it notated as a quaver group of 7. The phrasing of the entire middle section in the Chopin is totally different as well.

These are just a few of the many differences; some of them are quite subtle but make a big difference in performance...it’s quite interesting to compare the two versions side-by-side!

Hope this helps,

Andrew

Andrew, I appreciate your effort.

FWIW, I was especially puzzled by jazzyprof's comment that the autograph version "didn't sound right" based on just "the first several measures"; perhaps that was hyperbole.

Thanks again for your help.

Steven

Steven, the most noticeable differences (at least to my mind) are in the middle section, so yes, perhaps a bit of hyperbole going on there. The first 'several' measures contain subtle differences in dynamics, pedalling (i.e. it is marked in Fontana!), accents and phrasing, although exactly how 'different' it actually sounds depends, of course, on who is playing.

Andrew

Steven,

There are some really striking differences between this composition, as we know it today, and what Chopin apparently wrote for his student. You really have to get a source and examine the differences for yourself. There are a few details that I like, but for the most part I find the original very much less effective than what we know.

The advantage to having both is that you can choose to mix them. After all, Fontana, seems to have been very willful about the choices he made. There is no reason not to choose some of Chopin's original ideas in places except, of course, that you would be flying in the face of tradition. Shame, shame!

Hyperbole? Moi? I resemble that remark! Anyway, to my ears, the differences are clear within the first few measures and it is not just a matter of phrasing and dynamics but actual pitch differences. Have a look at the bass line in measures 5 and 6 below. In version 4a the fourth note in the second group of eighth notes is a G#. In the Fontana version it's an E. When I played the first version it sounded like an error to me because I was used to hearing the E.

I'm perplexed because I was completely unaware of an alternate version of the Fantaisie-Impromptu. Maybe I've just forgotten, but I don't recall it ever being mentioned in the many discussions that such a popular composition would naturally elicit, and, as I said previously, the Paderewski edition's commentary—a good resource for precisely this sort of variation among editions—makes no mention of it. (And yet the Paderewski edition of the Waltzes offers alternate versions of three posthumous pieces: Op. 69 No. 1 (Fontana and MS), Op. 69 No. 2 (Fontana and Oxford University edition) and Op. 70 No. 2 (Fontana and MSS).

Until now, the only variant with which I was familiar was Klindworth's ossia for bar 72 that distinguishes the descending figure from its first appearance in bar 60. But neither did I know (to the best of my memory) that the piece was written for one of Chopin's student. Live and learn!

Steven

Edit: jazzyprof, thanks very much for the visual aid. I took your reference to the "first several measures" literally, and imagined that the introduction (i.e., the left hand's unaccompanied cadential octaves and repeated broken chords) was different.

Hi

Thanks all for your valuable advice! I think I'll most likely go with the fontana version. Btw, which is Chopin's original version, is it the fontana? Oh, and Steven, I can describe the differences to you though it is a bit hard to explain through just a post, but I'll try my best. Ok, basically the fontana version is kinda easier because you don't have to stretch your fingers too much. For example, in the part where the right hand first comes in, for the autograph version, the left hand goes like this: C#-G#-C#-E-C#-G#, E-G#-C#-G#-C#-G# whereas in the fontana version, instead of E-G#-C#-G#-C#-G#, it goes E-G#-C#-E-C#-G#. So the G# is replaced with a E, so you don't have to stretch too much. But in my opinion, it's more simple and not as "colourful" as the autograph version because on the fontana version the highest note of the left hand is always repeated instead of going a bit higher. Also , fontana is easier because for instance in the 2nd page, the left hand for the autograph version starts like this: A-C#-F#-A-C#-F#, A-C#-F#-C#-C#-F# whereas for the fontana version it's: A-C#-F#-A-F#-C#, A-C#-F#-A-F#-C#. So it does not have the changing note, making it easier. Also, for both versions, their second last chord is different. The second last chord for the autograph version has an additional low C# as compared with the fontana version which is only C#,G#,F#,G#,B#,D#. These are the main differences that I have spotted, hope that my explanation is clear enough. Those who have spotted any other differences, feel free to add on

apple

Thanks jazzyprof. I couldn't find any other reference on the Internet showing the actual differences in the NOTES between the two versions. I've been practicing the unedited original version which shows up first in the Alfred edition and it does sound different from what is commonly played.

You're thanking jazzyprof for something he wrote over three years ago. I guess it's "better late than not at all."

Regards,

Here's a little something I prepared earlier - from ABF. Notice the big accents in the LH (also in jazzy's 4a, though not as dramatic looking). I'll bet you don't hear those too often. Also, if you're going for the LH G#'s the accents and the crescendos go without saying. Chopin never had one tune where he could have at least two or three! (like his hero Bach):