Hi:

I began a blog a month ago in order to learn to play Chopin's Fantasie Impromptu in C# minor. Since then, I've heard from some of you about different editions for this same piece. I was wondering what edition you have? Mine is an Alfred Masterwork Edition, edited by Willard Palmer. There are no una corda markings, whatsoever. Another forum member has the "ANATOMY OF A CLASSIC" by Maurice Hinson. She says there are two different editions in it. One has una corda markings and different phrasings, etc.

Anyway, if you have the piece, please let me know which edition you have and what it looks like (as best you can).

If you'd like to follow my blog, the address is:

http://www.projectfantasie.blogspot.com

Thanks, everyone!

You could compare some editions at IMSLP:

Fantasie-Impromptu at IMSLP

I think you'll find these are more-or-less the same -- the traditional version based on what Chopin's friend Jules Fontana published after his death.

There's a slightly different version based on a manuscript that Arthur Rubinstein found. It does have some different phrasings, and some of the broken chords are voiced slightly differently.

Looks like Hinson's edition includes both versions, and I think a couple of other publishers do as well. But the one unearthed by Rubinstein isn't significantly different, and isn't widely known. Willard Palmer is a very respectable editor, and you should do just fine with the edition you're using.

I have Henle and it is weird.. some notes are totally different (the chords are the same, but the order of the notes are different from the version I used to originally learn that piece!).

The Henle edition (H325) that I have includes the two versions of the Fantaisie Impromptu, the manuscript version that Rubinstein owned (pp. 28-38) and the more conventional one known as the Fontana version(pp. 39-47.

I'm not sure why you would say it is "weird;" it is simply a different version from the one more generally known and most frequently played and different from the one that you learned. This was one of the works that Chopin reportedly wanted destroyed at his death but his friend, Fontana, ignored that request and had it published. Whether this version incorporates changes or editing Fontana may have made or whether Fontana published it as he found it, I don't know. Fontana is known to have added pedal markings and dynamics to some of Chopin's works he edited or which Chopin passed to him for publishing.

We do know that Chopin often changed works from one published version to another, so it wouldn't be unusual to have two different versions. That said, this version is considerably different, in details, from the one more widely known. Listen to Rubinstein's recording of the Fantaisie-Impromptu and you'll hear that he uses the version of the score that he possessed, not the Fontana version.

In either case, there are no u.c. markings in the Urtext; those are probably suggestions made by Mr. Palmer.

In Mr. Hinson's edition, there are pedal markings throughout the "Rubinstein" version which do not appear in the Urtext. In the Urtext of this version there are no pedal markings at all. In the Hinson edition of the Fontana version there are pedal markings throughout, and Hinson indicates that they are Fontana's markings. These coincide with the pedal markings in the Henle Fontana version.

Regards,

LOL, that's why you should never listen to the rantings of a mad genius - and never let them be in charge of their own catalogue because their own self-loathing would result in them destroying half their body of work.

There is an English virtuoso jass-fusion guitarist named Allan Holdsworth who had been contracted to record an entire album for progressive fusion group Planet X. Holdsworth is a perennial self-loather and as a result, he had kept the band waiting for over a year, so they were getting restless. He had finally finished the whole album and went out to the pub to have a few drinks. He had more than a few and returned home and listened to his newly recorded tracks. He decided he hated all of it and promptly deleted the lot (and couldn't get it back once he sobered up). In the end he only played parts of 2 tracks and the rest was recorded by another guitarist who finished the whole thing in 3 weeks.

I do understand why Chopin wanted it destroyed.. its a very catchy piece when you first hear it, but I find nothing really interesting in there anymore.

Bruce, thanks for the info. I called it weird because I have not heard this version be performed before. So I was just highly unfamiliar with it. "Weird" is probably inaccurate.

I honestly wish he would have listened to him. If I were to never hear the piece again I'd never miss it.

But that's mostly because it's tremendously overplayed. If you only heard it once a year and you had never been overexposed to it, it wouldn't be so offensive to you. It's not like it's a truly offensive piece of music. It's just had the magic stripped from it by being overplayed.

Anyway, the thrust of my comment was that there would be dozens of works that composers would probably take back, but many of them are parts of the beloved classical repertoire. We don't really care whether the composer thought they were good enough if we ourselves love them. Most composers are ultra-anal and never satisfied with their work. I know that I'm my own harshest critic when it comes to my own compositions. So anyway, I'm glad Chopin didn't get a chance to delete any of his works. Whether he liked them or not, they are part of his journey.

Maybe the lack of appeal is *partly* because it's overplayed, but that's not the whole story to me. I think it's also mediocre Chopin! I think he probably knew that, and would also have known that the A section has a noticeable similarity to the Impromptu Op. 89 by Moscheles. Moscheles was way better known then than now, and that similarity *would* have been noticed.

Fantasie-Impromptu might could be judged a fine work from a third-rank composer, though. Consider the Impromptu by Hugo Reinhold, Op. 28 No. 3. It's superficially appealing, and it's the *only* piece by that composer that remains in recital repertoire or even in print.

Yikes !! I haven't heard the Reinhold mentioned by anyone in years !! Actually, I worked on it when I was about 13, and still have the old dog-eared score in my music library. For those of you who may not know this Impromptu, here's a link to one of the MANY performances of it on You Tube. It appears to still be quite popular as a teaching piece.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXCdka3yKEc&NR=1&feature=endscreen

I see what you are saying, but I still don't think it justifies removing it from existence. All composers have works that are a rung or two below their artistic/technical peak. These works serve as important introductions to the composer for students. Many are also experiments from the composer and enlighten us about their thinking at certain times.

The Fantasy Impromptu is very popular and well-liked by many non-classical music listeners. For them it can serve as an entry point into classical music. I think we too often assume that everybody is in the same place we are in terms of musical development. The world needs these sorts of pieces to fill the void between popular music and sophisticated art music. Fantasy Impromptu sounds impressive and interesting to the casual listener and may well pique their interest to look deeper into Chopin. If you played the more "serious" Chopin to most non-classical people, they would run in the opposite direction.

Finally, I enjoy the odd performance of Fantasy Impromptu. I'm aware it's not the Polonaise in Ab, but I still quite enjoy it if it's played very well. Does that make me some sort of musical heathen?

True, Fantaisie Impromptu (an orchestral version!) was what got me into serious listening. So its definitely served its purpose.

The question of whether composers should have control over their own output is an interesting one. It is easy to imagine that many of the pieces that Brahms famously destroyed would have been much loved, had they been allowed to exist. It's terrible to think about Sibelius destroying his last symphony, which apparently was very far along. But don't composers have the right to determine their own output? Should they?

Maybe they do, but I'm glad that they weren't always successful in their attempt to do so. I'd rather composers put their energies into composing new works rather than worrying about how perfect their reputation is. It smacks of egotism. Every composer produced modest works on the way to their masterpieces. I'd rather they just accepted that. By trying to control their image to such a degree, such composers are trying to depict themselves in a god-like way, when the truth is composition is lots of blood sweat and tears - and plenty of mistakes. None of them are perfect, they just aspire to perfection and they want their catalogue to portray them that way. I prefer the truth - warts and all.

I've heard your point numerous times and of course it IS overplayed, but truly, I never found it that "magical" to begin with. I love Chopin, but I'm not enamored with his entire output.

Nor am I, but I'm not anxious to delete the parts I'm not enamoured with. It's easy really, just avoid the pieces you dislike.

I do. It would be much easier, if they weren't there to begin with, however. =p

It's not a problem for me because I ENJOY avoiding pieces the popular pieces I dislike.

The Fantasie-Impromptu was my absolute favorite piece of classical music as a child. I don't actively avoid it now, but I certainly don't seek it out.

It makes me wonder how my taste will evolve in the future.

I really liked it as a teen and learned it in a month. Compared to the other (FAR superior and more difficult!) impromptus it comes together very quickly, the 3 against 4 are not an issue. Yeah, I find it a bit tiresome these days, but good on any young pianist who wishes to learn it.

And don't you have so much to look forward to! One never knows how we will evolve, that is the excitement of classical music.

I didn't like Mozart (prissy porcelain doll) or Haydn (crotchety old Hapsburg Kapellmeister) as a teen, and was quite vocal about it! But let me tell you, that changed with maturity, and they are two of my dearest favourites.

That's very interesting. What notes are different? Thanks for responding to my topic.

Thank you so much, Bruce, for describing in detail the Henle and the Fontana version. I will listen to Rubenstein play it to see if I can spot the differences.

That was funny! And how true, indeed! Thank goodness Fontana was in his right mind and didn't discard a lot of Chopin manuscripts!

Ando: You're no heathen! I'm learning to play Fantasie Impromptu now. I don't know why so many on this topic "look down" upon it. It's not that easy to learn to begin with, or perhaps I'm not in the same league as most of you. Even though it is played often, I always enjoy listening to it, if it's played beautifully. There's something sublimely beautiful about the melody and not that many people play it.

candlelightpiano, Sheet Music Plus also sells the Rubinstein edition published by G. Schirmer. Dunno how many of the differences are revealed in the Look Inside feature here, but it does offer up two random pages:

Rubinstein's edition at Sheet Music Plus

I noticed the inscription on the first page to the Baroness d'Este. I'd forgotten that the piece was commissioned by (or for) her - so another reason Chopin didn't publish it was that it was no longer his to sell.

By the way, candlelightpiano, there is also a site with Chopin's First Editions Online. I like to check it when in doubt.

Thanks, pianomie! That's cool. I could see some differences. I liked the way Rubenstein performed it better than Horowitz. Horowitz seemed to have some additional notes in the middle section. I wondered if he had added them himself?

ChopinAddict: Thank you so much! That is a tremendous resource! I didn't even know such a site existed. Thanks!!

Do you know where, exactly? In standard editions, measures 60 and 72 are identical. In the edition of Karl Klindworth - you'll find it at the IMSLP link earlier in the thread - measure 72 is changed so that what *was* a septuplet of eighth notes starts an octave higher, so that the downward cascade contains more notes than otherwise.

I'm looking at the IMSLP edition now and notice a lot of differences in the middle section. At the very beginning of the Largo, there's a little grace note before the 1st note. Then, instead of trills, they're all mordents. And Bar 72 is definitely different.

What does IMSLP mean, anyway? Why are there so many differences in that manuscript compared to mine?

I just listened to Horowitz again. The most notable difference is in bar 77. LOTS more notes! It seemed as if he had added those turns! He probably didn't.