Talk:Fantaisie-Impromptu

message: This Moonlight stuff isn't exactly right. First off, it just happens to be in the same key as Moonlight, which is already going to cause similarities. Second, the Moonlight piece is written in very slow triplets, as apposed to Chopin's very fast sextuplets. Third,the right hand plays the triplets in Moonlight, and the left hand plays the sextuplets in Fantaisie-Impromptu. Lastly, The Monlight triplets are the melody backed by the right hand playing chords(harmony), and Fantaisie-Impromptu's sextubplets(Harmony) are played behind cut time sixteenth notes(Melody) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.161.247.202 (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moonlight stuff

message: I changed a sentence in the article. It seemed subjective and not entirely true.
Original sentence: "However, the most important thing to consider was that Chopin wrote this piece at an incredibly young age."
New sentence: "However, perhaps the most impressive factor to consider is that Chopin wrote this piece at an incredibly young age."
Hope that was okay. Chavila 19:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed that whole sentence. It violates the neutral point of view policy no matter how it is phrased - stating that he was young when he composed it is enough. Graham87 04:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, good. Chavila 19:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The most important thing? 

message: Can someone please get ride of the use of the term "semiquaver"?  It may be standard British usage but hardly any Americans will know the term...and there are a few more of us...plus "sixteenth-note matches German and Polish terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.67.235 (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semiquaver

message: The title and the first sentence disagree in spelling.  Which is it? DavidRF 01:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Japanese resarch,"Fantasie-Impromptu" is usual.As like the page----Kaori Makube 07:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fantaisie-Impromptu or Fantasie-Impromptu?  

message: The moonlight sonata and the connection with the Fantasie Impromptu has been published some time ago. Felix Salzer wrote about it, and Dr. David Beach (professor Emeritus and former dean at the U of Toronto) had it included in a series of articles he had put together regarding Schenkerian analysis. Felix also adds that the climax on a six-four chord (chord in 2nd inversion) in the Moonlight Sonata, is also replicated in the Fantasie Impromptu. I think the book which has this article is Aspects of Schenkerian Theory, Yale University Press, 1983, edited by David Beach. Unfortunately I don't have access to a copy of this book, and the last time I read it was back in 1987, so it's been a while. 
Ll1324 (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This idea of the connection between the Fantasie Impromptu and the Moonlight Sonata has been done already 

message: The pop culture references have no citations. In fact- the entire article has no citations. I'm putting up a "Article needs references" tag. Once we've acquired them, by all means, take it down.
--Chopin-Ate-Liszt! (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the bit about "Fantaisie-Impromptu" featuring in the film "Lost in the Desert".  I don't know how I would add a citation for this: I have the D.V.D. myself, and know this is true; so if the D.V.D. itself doesn't count as a citation, I don't know what else I can do about it. M.J.E. (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: I couldn't believe it. Fixed now. 24.226.77.23 (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bach's Moonlight Sonata??? 

message: I just moved this back to Fantaisie-Impromptu, as that's the title that appears to be most-often used. Any further discussion?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's clear this up once and for all. "Fantasie" is the German translation of the English word "Fantasy", while "Fantaisie" is the French translation. Since Chopin was French (and Polish) and certainly not German, it is certainly more valid to preserve the "Fantaisie" spelling than it is to use the "Fantasie" spelling. Thank you. Happy holidays. :P 24.91.157.67 (talk) 15:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved back to original title 

message: As of 7 Dec 2009, the recorded media is NOT a representative depiction of this piece. Can we either replace it or, at least, remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.236.180.181 (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The recorded media is certainly not a good representation of the piece; I second that we should replace or at least remove it.
dawhipsta (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recorded media 

message: I want to add this to the article, but currently I have no web references.
The piece is in IABACDABACE format. The introduction section starts with a loud left-hand octave, and continues with left-hand triplets.
Section A: Main Theme in C-sharp Minor
This section consists of fast right-hand sixteenth notes combined with left-hand triplets, played piano. The piece modulates briefly to G-sharp Minor before transitioning to the B section.
Section B: Secondary Theme in E major
The first note of each group of 4 sixteenths in the right hand is the melody here, going G-sharp, F-sharp, F, F-sharp, C-sharp, D-sharp, E, G-sharp. The left hand has E major arpeggios. The first iteration is marked forte, with the second iteration piano, and with the 2nd, not the 1st, of each 4-sixteenth-note group in the right hand the melody. A chromatic passage transitions back to the A section.
Section C: Codetta in C-sharp Minor
Starting from the A section's piano, this section gradually builds to a forte, where the right hand has a long descending chromatic scale, which ends with a very powerful hit on G-sharp, followed by a long run from the top of the keyboard down.
Section D: Moderato Cantibile in D-flat Major (the parallel relative major of C-sharp Major)
A slow right-hand melody is accompanied by left-hand triplets. This melody is repeated four times, very soft almost all of the time.
Section E: Coda
After the run in Section C is finished, the rhythms of the two hands are finally united (not polyrhythms). A very loud section is followed by a soft one, then another very loud one, which then diminishes to piano. Modulating to C-sharp Major (the parallel relative major of C-sharp Minor), the right hand accompanies a left hand repetition of Section D's melody. The piece then ends very very softly on a rolled C-sharp Major Cord.
This is my suggestion. Find references for it if you can. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Print references would also be fine. Graham87 02:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure of Piece 

message: I think you know that Chopin's original version was found after Fontana had published his one with some differences. This is all I know because I've never found Chopin's version on the Internet. But I heard from people that the end (coda) of Chopin's one contains sixtuplets instead of quavers in Fontana's version. That's only one difference. Could anyone who knows a little more about it edit the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.116.230.218 (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chopin's and Fontana's version 

message: Other sources say that this pieces was dedicated to Madame la Baronne d'Esté. Fontana was just the one who published it. You should read the French Wikipedia article.--89.14.66.39 (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Henle Urtext edition of Chopin's Impromptus also confirms the dedication to Madame la Baronne d'Este. Double sharp (talk) 08:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dedicatee 

message: I recently got my hands on Salzer's article on the Moonlight Sonata and the Fantasie Impromptu. I put in a couple quotes from it in the main article here, but there is a lot more, not just riffs from the Moonlight, but chordal structure which is the same, and other parts of the framework which are similar. It's a pretty technical read, but quite good, if anyone wants to delve into the reasons why Salzer concludes that the Fantasie Impromptu was in fact a Tribute to Beethoven. I'll try to incorporate some of that info later on (if I get the chance). 
Ll1324 (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: By my research, the article you refer to was written by Ernst Oster (see: http://books.google.de/books?id=2VwgtdyofPoC&lpg=PR1&hl=de&pg=PA189#v=onepage&q&f=false, the Database RILM Abstracts of Music Literature has the same information). I am quite confused because I don't believe that these are different articles, the Salzer quote in the article is part of the Oster article. Greetings --Manjel (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Fantasie Impromptu a Tribute to Beethoven 

message: The article said nothing about this version, based on which an edition has been in existence for over 50 years.  I have found a dearth of information about this fact over the Internet in general so I have added a paragraph concerning it in the history section. Also I have added an external link to a source for it. I admit that my paragraph follows the preceding one a little awkwardly and fits into the whole article a little awkwardly as the article really concerns the Opus 66 version specifically.  Maybe someone could change the title of the page to "Fantaisie-Impromptu,Op. posth. 66" to be more accurate. (I am not able do so at this time).Thanks. Troother (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, sounds interesting! I'm not sure about the title change, as there's only one famous fantaisie-impromptu. Perhaps bring it up at the talk page for WikiProject Classical music. Graham87 02:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Album of the Baroness d'Este" Version

message: I don't believe we should link to a commercial site which doesn't show the page of the sheet music that has Rubinstein's preface, since that's the information the reference is supposed to back up. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , since you've reverted me twice here, would you care to join the conversation? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

text: You're right, it's no different than a page in a book. Ever seen a reference here that linked to Amazon or B&N? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

text: The URL field in references is generally only used for freely available links, or, very occasionally, sites that require registration to access. I've changed it to use  as a compromise. Graham87 04:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Rubinstein edition at SheetMusic.com 

message: Wikipedia shows an example of a similarity of the Fantasie-Impromptu. 
thumb|middle|500px|Cadenza (measure 188), Beethoven's Piano Sonata No. 14, third movement 
The Cadenza for Beethoven Sonata 14 is incorrect. This is the correct cadenza of the piano piece. Go to page 12, staff 4, measure 1 (IMSLP) 
I request a replacement of the picture above.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevon kevono (talk • contribs) 23:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Cadenza for Beethoven Sonata 14

message: Clearly, the reason why Chopin didn't publish this is a debated subject.
Therefore, a source for the Ernst Oster technical examination would be useful.
Also, I find it should be mentioned that Fantaisie-Impromptu is technically extremely similar to Ignaz Moscheles's Impromptu Op. 89. This may even be the main reason Chopin didn't publish the piece. More value is added to this statement by the fact that Chopin and Moscheles were friends. Also, back in those times, similarity to pieces was mostly judged by the technical aspects, rather than the 'feel'. Fantaisie-Impromptu may feel more similar to Moonlight Sonata, but it's technically almost identical to Op. 89.
Op. 89 should be, at the least, mentioned in the article, be it as a main reason or as a possibility. OscarVFE (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moscheles's Impromptu Op. 89 

message: In the available audio samples, the pianists race through the notes and turn the piece into a partly contourless carpet of sound. The recording of the former student of Hiroshi Kajiwara differs from this. Although not played on a grand piano, it is played much more expressively, than the others and should be used here to do justice to Chopin's composition. Frédéric Chopin: Fantasie Impromptu cis-minor] Sciencia58 (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason to promote a subpar amateur recording here. If we were to include more external links, they should be established performances by established artists, e.g. Horowitz, Ashkenazy, Kissin, Perahia, or Rubinstein. intforce (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Not to mention the mistakes in the digital piano recording, especially the first scalar passage, which strongly detract from the listening experience. Unfortunately Horowitz's recording is geoblocked here in Australia. Graham87 05:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

text: I do not share your opinion on Ashkenazy. You are talking about an artist who is regarded as one the finest living pianists; who has recorded the complete piano works of Chopin to great acclaim. It is ludicrous to suggest that his recording is worse than an amateur recording by someone with neither the technical nor artistic prowess to play this piece – considering the frequent mistakes, the excessive amounts of rubato, subpar phrasing, and so on. That being said, I've added the aforementioned links to the External links section, replacing Horowitz's link with another one that hopefully works. intforce (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Uh, what? Yeah no. We're Wikipedia editors, and shouldn't be rating performances ourselves (WP:OR)—we will stick with performances by established Chopin interpreters, Yundi Li, Kissin, Rubinstein, Ashkenazy, Argerich, Zimmerman, Pollini, Moravec... Horowitz is not an established Chopin interpreter, and we all know that. Aza24 (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Thanks Intforce for the links ... all of them worked here except the Rubinstein one, so I've removed that one. Graham87 02:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

text: I have just included versions by Rubinstein and Yundi in the external link section. Not sure whether Horowitz's should remain, is there a finalised conclusion? EleniXDD※Talk 16:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea, but I've removed your two new links because Wikipedia doesn't link to Youtube videos unless they're known not to be copyright violations (i.e. made by a verifiablyy official account or a record label, etc. representing them). Graham87 (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for telling, I have updated the links, with ones uploaded by labels EleniXDD※Talk 09:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio samples  

message: The link refers to "Augusta Emma Wilde, Baroness Truro". However, according to the Chopin Institute's entries, (English and Polish). The correct person is "Frances Sarah d'Est". Note that the last "e" is omitted in "d'Est". It may be a spelling variation, I will have to confirm that later. However, the original 1835 manuscript does have it written as "d'Este." Does anyone have any thoughts or other information? Fantaisie-Impromptu (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  I believe that the d'Este citation is not referring to the correct person.