Talk:Fantaisie-Impromptu

Moonlight stuff
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)

ahhhh its exactly the same, i was sad enough to check it. regardless of what context theyre in, theyre the same notes/melody. debussy can copy henry purcells melody but just change it into c minor and in 3 time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarandir (talk • contribs) 22:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

the person who wrote the first para: you're talking about movement ONE of Moonlight sonata. the copy thing is directed at movement THREE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1fingerpushup (talk • contribs) 12:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been playing piano for 7 years and I can play both pieces, but I'm not sure about which stuffs you're talking. Could you please give me the numbers of them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.159.232.59 (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

(Take a look at the comment about the connection between these two pieces being published, below) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.198.113.130 (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The most important thing?
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)


 * 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. Graham 87 04:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, good. Chavila 19:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Semiquaver
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)

Fixed. Most Canadians could use either form, but quarter, half, and eigth notes (etc.) is vastly more common. 24.226.77.23 (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

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

My Dover Edition English score book says: Fantaisie-Impromptu. Eigeldinger's "Chopin Pianist and teacher as seen by his pupils" also writes "Fantaisie-Impromptu". Looks like the French type spelling is used even in English books. Perhaps similar to the fact that we call his songs Ballades instead of Ballads. Janderk 08:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Moonlight Sonata bit
I am removing the following information:

"It is speculated that Chopin thought the piece too much like Ludwig van Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata, and refused to publish it while alive because of this."

Reasoning: Aside from key the pieces are wildly different. I speculate that this bit was put in here by someone who noticed the similarities at the very beginning of the Adagio Sostenuto and the Fantaisie-Impromptu, and then decided to put it in.
 * 1. It contains weasel words (It is speculated)
 * 2. In reality the piece is nothing like the 14th Sonata by Beethoven.
 * 3. Because of this, I'm fairly certain it's original research. I have never heard anything else about the piece 'being too much like' the Beethoven sonata.

Please do not add the section back in, unless you can verify it by a reliable source. --Chopin-Ate-Liszt! (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I agree with your point about the "weasel words" (i.e. "it is speculated" -- who's doing the speculating?), something does have to be said about the relationship with Beethoven's Fourteenth Sonata and the Fantaisie-Impromptu, in particular the striking resemblance of the melodic fragment first introduced in measures 7 & 8 to the "cadenza" of the third movement of Beethoven's "Moonlight" Sonata:




 * You'll notice that the descending line is precisely the same, except that in Chopin it begins an octave higher. I have no idea whether this is the reason Chopin was uncomfortable with publishing the piece; but regardless, it's pretty clear that this part of the melody was lifted from Beethoven. (Of course, to Chopin's credit, the fragment serves very different ends in his piece than it does in Beethoven's.) It would be interesting to know whether Chopin composed the Fantaisie-Impromptu beginning with this fragment, or whether it was added in later. (My money would be on the former.) -- Todeswalzer | Talk 03:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't make too much of this. For one thing, it is not *precisely* the same: the rhythm is different (the on-beat notes are different) and the passages end differently. I suppose it's possible that Chopin may have been subconsciously influenced by Beethoven; but so were lots of composers so influenced by others. This kind of figuration was very common in music from about Beethoven onwards for the next hundred years, and is little more than a standard method of decorating a diminished-7th chord by interspersing the main notes of the chord with notes one step upwards, and this kind of thing was almost a part of the musical language of the time.

I so much take this for granted that, although I've known both pieces well for most of my life, I've never before noticed this similarity. Of course the music is so totally different in most other respects, so the context of this similar bit is completely different.

But I guess we'll never know whether this resemblance could have been a reason Chopin didn't want the piece published. M.J.E. (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I should point out that the passage I've included from Beethoven is from the "cadenza", and so the precise rhythm, as notated, reflects the interpretation of editors and is not exactly what Beethoven wrote (he notated the entire thing in small notes). I of course also realized that the passage is just a decorated diminished seventh; however, I'm not sure I can completely agree with you that "this kind of thing was almost a part of the musical language of the time". Perhaps you could offer a few counterexamples -- most preferably in C-sharp minor -- of pieces where this figuration also occurs? -- Todeswalzer | Talk 01:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The information has been added back in; I've put a citation request on it but having seen this section of the talk page I don't think anyone would take it amiss if it was removed wholesale. Mallocks (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This idea of the connection between the Fantasie Impromptu and the Moonlight Sonata has been done already
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)

Salzer's article does get a bit analytical, and one should have at least some background in elementary harmony and voice leading to understand some of the denser sections, as well as some understanding of Schenkerian Analysis. Despite that, someone who does not have that much of a background can still understand some of the parts that are not so heavy. Some of the items cited here on the talk page also appear in Salzer's article. Salzer finishes the article saying, more or less, that the Fantasie Impromptu is Chopin's way of saying what he likes in the Moonlight sonata, that now we get a glimpse of what one genius hears in another genius's work.

Ll1324 (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

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

archived pop culture section
I just removed the following section... DavidRF (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Why? Isn't that a bit heavy-handed?  Did you consider every single entry in the list to be invalid?


 * It seems to me that, although it would be good to get references, this information could be of interest to people interested in the article. An awful lot of articles have very similar "Popular culture" sections - would you propose removing them all? M.J.E. (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know about other Wikiprojects, but its something that's been done across most of WP:CM. Left unchecked, these sections grow and grow until they completely take over the article. (This one in particular had gotten to be over 50% "pop culture").  We've tried forking off "in pop culture" articles, but those are usually quickly deleted because for "trivia" or "notability" issues.  Drop a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music to get more opinions if you'd like. DavidRF (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is anecdotal, but in my case the pop culture section was precisely what I was looking for and was quite disappointed when I didn't find it in the article. Pop culture reference are useful information that should certainly be available somewhere - if not in the main article then in a side article. Kupopo (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

In popular culture

 * The 1991 film Impromptu takes its name from the Fantaisie-Impromptu, which is both heard in the soundtrack and performed a number of times by the character Chopin. In the film, a different reason is given for the Fantaisie-Impromptu's not being published: Chopin (played by Hugh Grant) tells George Sand (played by Judy Davis) that he is not satisfied with it - that a true impromptu should have a feeling of perfect spontaneity.
 * The piece is featured briefly in episode 4 of the anime Nodame Cantabile.
 * In season 4, episode 20 (Elegant Iggy) of the TV-Series Taxi, Jim Ignatowski (played by Christopher Lloyd) startles everybody at an art-society party by, after some initial difficulties, playing this piece on the piano.
 * An excerpt of the piece was featured in an early segment of the survival horror video game Clock Tower 3, when the character May Norton, a prodigious piano player, plays Fantaisie Impromptu as her participation in a piano play contest, and she also plays it when her tormented ghost and the Sledgehmmer are first introduced in their current forms.
 * The piece is also featured in the Japanese role playing game Eternal Sonata in the third chapter's intercalary section, highlighting the history of the piece as well as its relation to Chopin's personality (as Chopin is a featured character in the video game).
 * A lengthy portion of the piece also appears in the introduction to the Afrikaans (but not the English) version of the South African film Lost in the Desert, in which the central character's father, who is a concert pianist, is shown playing the piece in a recital, and then bowing to receive applause.
 * The middle section of the piece was later adapted by Harry Carroll for the opening verse of the popular song "I'm Always Chasing Rainbows".
 * The piece is apparently the inspiration for the song "Electro Fantasy" available in the online rhythm-matching game O2Jam.
 * An excerpt of the piece was featured in the Tom & Jerry episode "Snowbody Loves Me".
 * The excerpt of the composition was also played in the anime series Kin'iro no Corda by character Ryoutarou Tsuchiura in episode 3 and episode 10 for the 2nd selection.
 * This piece was used as the ringtone of Bob Harris' cell phone in the film Lost in Translation.
 * Florida politician Christopher Kriado has expressed interest in the piece, and has played portions of it at political gatherings.
 * The middle section of the piece was used in Orson Welles’ famous “The War of the Worlds” broadcast.
 * This piece is played by Zoisite in the series Pretty Guardian Sailor Moon.

Moved back to original title
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)
 * 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)

Recorded media
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)


 * 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)

Structure of Piece
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)


 * Print references would also be fine. Graham 87 02:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Chopin's and Fontana's version
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)

Dedicatee
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)
 * 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)

I removed the statement that it was dedicated to Julian Fontana. The reference cited does not support this. He only published it. There are several early publications at imslp.org. None of them bear a dedication. Troother (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The Fantasie Impromptu a Tribute to Beethoven
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)
 * 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)

Right, it is Ernst Oster, I'll fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ll1324 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The "Album of the Baroness d'Este" Version
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)
 * 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. Graham 87 02:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It occurred to me that since the version published by Fontana does not mention the Baroness, Chopin may have composed it initially with the intention of publication after perfecting it. Then when an opportunity arose to sell a composition to the Baroness he may have perfected the final version for her. If it had been composed for her from the outset one would expect to see her name on the early draft. Now the question becomes: Why didn't he destroy the early draft?Troother (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Link to Rubinstein edition at SheetMusic.com
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)
 * , since you've reverted me twice here, would you care to join the conversation? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I really don't understand your objection to the reference. It meets all wikipedia criteria: 1) published[currently in print], 2) reliable sources[G.Schirmer and Artur Rubinstein], 3) accessible for verification [anyone can buy it from the link provided or elsewhere, possibly available in libraries but there is no requirement for it to be free of cost].  I know of no other source for what Rubinstein wrote other than with the sheet music. It's no different than if I named a page in a book and you couldn't pull up that page online. The fact that it is a commercial site is OK if that's all that's available.  Troother (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)

So your objection is not to the source reference itself but to the included link to a commercial site? Troother (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 cite book as a compromise. Graham 87 04:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

That's good. The link is still there with the External Links. My objection was to removing the reference completely.Troother (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Cadenza for Beethoven Sonata 14
Wikipedia shows an example of a similarity of the Fantasie-Impromptu.



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)

Moscheles's Impromptu Op. 89
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)

Audio samples
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)
 * 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)

Even a so-called amateur can be a virtuoso if he has not made music his main profession but has given smaller concerts all his life. The main thing here is not to go by the name, not by the speed at which a piece is played, which can sound very mechanical, but by one's own musical ear, if one has it. If you find well-known names important, Vladimir Horowitz is much better than what we have had so far. Ashkenazy is racing through the notes again and overrunning important passages that could be accentuated more beautifully. Sciencia58 (talk) 05:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

If you listen to the very delicate sudden short ritardandos and the slight accelerations in the performance of Horowitz, that's what I mean, that gives the piece its breath and makes listening a pleasure. Sciencia58 (talk) 05:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 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. Graham 87 05:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)

I only compared Horowitz to Ashkenazy. The performance of Horowitz has more expression. Someone's celebrity means nothing to me and what they are seen as. It's often a matter of management and what reviews are written about someone and how famous they become. Many people rely more on what they read than on what they hear. With Ashkenazy, it sounds to me like he's reeling off the piece, it sounds like a routine where speed is taken as a measure of virtuosity, which it is not. Evengy Kissin has more feeling. But such things are a matter of taste. Thank you for linking the pieces to be heard now. Sciencia58 (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Indeed. Thanks Intforce for the links ... all of them worked here except the Rubinstein one, so I've removed that one. Graham 87 02:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * thanks for telling, I have updated the links, with ones uploaded by labels EleniXDD  ※  Talk  09:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the d'Este citation is not referring to the correct person.
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)