mUltimate Chopin

Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Errors in EE

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. 55-57

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

Wedge in AI

Dots in A

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

No marks in EE2

Wedge in GE3 (→GE4)
..

In A it is not entirely clear with which staccato signs – dots or wedges – Chopin provided the A and E quavers in the middle of bars 44 and 57. In FE (→GE,EE) they were reproduced as wedges (in EE2 both signs were overlooked, while in GE3 and GE4 – the one in bar 57), yet, according to us, it is much more likely that Chopin had dots in mind. Cf. bars 58-60 where in similar motifs in A there are undoubtedly dots. In AI the signs are only in bars 57 (and 58) and they are undoubtedly wedges. However, it has to be emphasised that even the relatively accurate indications of AI, as e.g. in bar 43, were then changed by Chopin. See also bar 56. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE , Errors in GE , Wedges

b. 56-57

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

Slurs in A

Slur in FE (→GE1→GE1a) & EE3

Slurs in GE2 (→GE3→GE4→GE5) & EE4
..

In bar 56 the earlier start of the slur in FE (→GE,EE; overlooked in EE2) seems to be an inaccuracy of the engraver, in spite of the fact that it is compatible with – according to us, apparently – lack of tie of f1. In turn, lack of the slur in bar 57 in FE (→GE1→GE1a→GE2→GE3) is almost certainly a mistake.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 56

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

..

In EE2 (→EE3) there is no accent on c1, which is certainly a mistake.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in EE

b. 56-57

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

g accented in A

B accented in FE (→GE)

B accented in EE
..

The accents in A written on the bottom stave clearly refer to the g notes. In spite of that, in FE (→GE) they were placed under B in the L.H., which, according to us, is a result of misunderstanding of the autograph. The overlooked in EE2 signs were completed in EE3 (→EE4), however, they were arbitrarily given the form of vertical accents.

category imprint: Differences between sources

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