mUltimate Chopin

Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Long accents

b. 27

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

Long accent in A (→FE→EE2→EE3)

 in GE1 (→GE1a)

 in GE2 (→GE3→GE4→GE5) & EE4
..

The long accent in A (→FE→EE2→EE3) was reproduced in GE1 (→GE1a) as  hairpins after bar 25. The homogeneity was maintained in subsequent GE, extending the sign even more, for four semiquavers. This arbitrary version was repeated also in EE4.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 54

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

Long accent in AI & EE3 (→EE4)

Short accent in A (→FE→GE)

 in EE2
..

The long accent in AI (in this and in the next bar) proves that highlighting the c note was an important element of the sound concept of this fragment from the very beginning. However, the clearly short sign in A (→FE→GE) opens the issue of the type of accent, with which Chopin wanted to provide this note. According to us, it is the notation of the fair score that is inaccurate in this case, however, as we are not certain, in the main text we reproduce the notation of the main source.
The sign used in EE is closer to a long accent or even diminuendo hairpins, while in EE2 it was printed the other way round, as . In the copy presented in mUltimate Chopin, the mistake was corrected by hand (the other, uncorrected copy can be seen here). 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in EE , EE inaccuracies , Sign reversal

b. 55

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

Probable long accents in A

Possible short accents in A (→FE→GE) & EE3 (→EE4)
..

Both accents – on f1 in the R.H. and on c in the L.H. – seem to be longer in A than their counterparts in the previous bar (as well as the majority of other accents in bars 54-59). The difference was not reproduced in the editions, it is also unclear whether Chopin actually wanted to differentiate the accents. In the main text, we give the long accents, taking into account also the undoubtedly long accent in the L.H. in AI. Cf. bar 54 and 55-56.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents

b. 57

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

Long accent in A

Accent (?) in FE (→GE1)

Short accent on d1 in EE2 (→EE3)

Short accent on g1 in GE2 (→GE3→GE4→GE5) & EE4
..

One can have doubts concerning the type of the accent used in A to indicate the beginning of the motif. According to us, it is the long accent that is more likely. In FE (→GE1) the sign was reproduced inaccurately, so that in EE2 (→EE3) it was placed over the 2nd semiquaver in the bar.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies

b. 64

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

No mark in AI & FE (→GE,EE)

Long accent in A
..

Lack of the accent in FE (→GE,EE) is most probably a result of an oversight.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE