mUltimate Chopin

Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

b. 58-59

composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major

..

In AI the semiquavers of the bottom voice in the R.H. are marked in the 2nd half of bar 58 as repetition of the 1st half. The continuation of this part in the next bar is not marked at all, which is certainly an inaccuracy of notation. However, it is not entirely clear how this continuation was supposed to look like in Chopin's intention, as one can imagine a slightly different addition to the versions of the top voice of the R.H. written out with notes (on the top stave) than the one that was included in the final version, e.g. f-b-f-b in the 2nd half of the bar (a missing notation is not always the same as an obvious continuation – cf. the Etude in F minor, No. 9, bars 49-50). However, we assume that while finishing works on this fragment in AI, Chopin imagined the entire part of the R.H. in the final version.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: Abbreviated notation of A

b. 58-60

composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major

No prolongations in AI

9 quavers in A

5 quavers in FE (→EE)

5 quavers in GE
..

In A, all g-f combinations in the bottom voice in the R.H. (also in bars 56-57) are precisely emphasised by their separation as combined pairs of quavers and accentuating the first note of each pair (g). This subtlety of notation was only partially reproduced in FE (→EE) – it is only the first and fourth quavers in the bar that were separated. As the accents are also respectively reduced, the whole may be considered to have been changed on purpose. However, not being certain thereof, in the main text we give the version of A.

In FE (→EE) last two separated notes have separate stems instead of a quaver beam. The notation of GE is similarly inaccurate, yet it is only f at the beginning of bar 58 that has a stem (overlooked in GE5). See the note to bars 44-57.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in GE , GE revisions

b. 58-59

composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major

No marks in AI & EE2

Four accents in A

Two accents in FE (→GE)

Accent in EE3

Two accents in EE4
..

Out of four accents in A concerning the g notes, only two are in FE (→GE). At the same time, the accent in bar 58 was placed under the B note in the L.H., which certainly does not follow from the notation of A. It is probably a result of inattention of the engraver of FE, yet the compliance with the parallel change in the layout of beams suggests a possibility of a coordinated action in this respect, hence Chopin's proofreading.
In #EE1 there are no accents at all, which was completed in EE3 in bar 58, while in EE4 also in bar 59. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 58-59

composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major

Wedge in AI

Dots in A

Wedges in FE (→GE1→GE1a→GE2) and EE3 (→EE4) & (GE4→GE5)

No marks in EE2

Dot & wedge in GE3
..

It is unclear whether Chopin wanted to mark the staccato of the quaver after the semiquaver triplet with a dot, as it is in A, or with a wedge, as it is in AI (only in bar 58) and FE (→GE,EE; in EE2 both signs were omitted, while in GE3 in bar 58 there is a dot). In this case, we consider A as the most reliable source.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in GE , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in EE

b. 59

composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major

..

In AI the notation of the part of the R.H. is unclear in this bar. Chopin certainly performed corrections in it, yet it is unclear, which version is the last one. According to us, it is most natural to assume that Chopin strived for the version which he then eventually deemed as the best, while the remaining ones – written out with notes – are earlier:
 and . Therefore, it is the sign defining this bar as repetition of the previous one that we consider to be written as the last one. See also the note on abbreviations in the L.H.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Abbreviated notation of A