



Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
b. 10-13
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
In the main text, we give the consistent category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||
b. 14-15
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
The missing accents over the 3rd semiquaver in these bars in FE (→GE,EE) could have been considered as a mistake, if it was not for the fact that in bar 14 there are visible traces of deleting an accent in FE. Taking into account numerous corrections of dynamic markings and accents in the first part of the Etude, in the main text we do not consider the accents of A. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Authentic corrections of FE |
||||||||
b. 18
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
According to us, the missing category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Inaccuracies in FE |
||||||||
b. 20
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
The clear long accent, visible in A, was reproduced in FE (→GE,EE) as short. See the note below. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
||||||||
b. 21
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
According to us, the accent written in A is to be interpreted as long. The sign in FE, despite that it recreates the notation of A quite accurately, due to the more constricted notation, is rather a short accent and this is how it was understood in GE and EE. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Long accents |