Issues : Errors in GE

b. 41-57

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

Literal reading of slurring in A (→FEGE,EE2)

Contextual interpretation of slurs in A

Slurs in EE3 (→EE4)

Our suggestion

..

A single, short slur in bar 41 must be considered in A as an inaccuracy of notation – there is no continuation of the slur from the previous bar; there is also no reason to single out particularly this pair of semiquavers. According to us, it is a result of an unfinished change of slurring – at the beginning Chopin wrote in A four slurs 2 semiquavers each, starting from the second one in bar 41 and then, at the time of writing the octave sign, three out of these slurs were included in the line determining the range of the octave sign. However, he did not finish the correction, leaving the first slur unchanged and not entering the target slurring. Taking into account the structure of figurations and a few examples of extending the slurs in this Etude (e.g. in bars 2321), we assume that Chopin most probably wanted to lead the slur from bar 40 until the beginning of bar 42. The arbitrarily added slurs of EE also draw attention, similar to the original slurs of A. Cf. the slur in the L.H.

In AI there are no slurs in bar 41. However, we do not consider lack of this and many other performance indications on this page as an equal version of a given fragment, as the autograph is of a clearly working nature. In particular, when AI is not mentioned in the content of the note, it means that the discussed indication does not appear in it.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: EE revisions , Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors in GE

b. 43-46

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

Dots & slur in AI

18 wedges in A

2 wedges in FE (→GE1)

No marks in EE2

2 dots in EE3 (→EE4)

4 wedges in GE1a (→GE2GE3GE4)

2 wedges in GE5

Our variant suggestion

..

All wedges given in the main text are in A. In FE (→GE1) only two signs at the beginning of bar 44 were reproduced. In EE2 even those were omitted, which was corrected in EE3 (→EE4), by adding two staccato dots in this place (there was also an arbitrarily added slur for the L.H. in bars 43 and 45). In the subsequent GE, wedges in bar 46 were added, while in GE5 those in bar 44 were omitted. According to us, Chopin could have accepted the lack of wedges over the chords in bars 43 and 45 (not to mention a possibility of their deletion in proofreading, which also cannot be entirely excluded), therefore, in the main text we leave their inclusion at the discretion of the performer. In turn, in the main text we explicitly give the wedges at the beginning of bars 44 and 46, which, as it seems, are to be considered jointly (cf. the signs in bars 42, 48 and 50). The indications of AI, despite being written only in the first pair of bars, indicate essential performance elements of these chord passages. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

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

b. 44-45

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

in A

in FE (→EE,GE1GE1aGE2GE3)

in GE4 (→GE5)

Our variant suggestion

..

According to us, it is most probably the full indication written in A that is the only authentic one, while the omission of its first part in the editions is a mistake of the engraver of FE (→GE,EE) – cf. the adjacent note. However, Chopin might have accepted the indications of the editions in such form (cf. e.g. the Etude in E major, No. 11). In turn, it is hard to state whether the change in GE4 (→GE5) of con fuoco to con forza is a mistake or revision. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in FE , Errors in GE

b. 45

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

..

In GE1 the bottom note of the 2nd chord is an erroneous a.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 48-52

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

..

In the autographs there are no sharps returning f1 and f3 at the 6th semiquaver in bar 49. From the harmonic point of view, f1 and f3 could be possible here, yet taking into account the regularity of the figuration's structure, one can assume this omission as a clear oversight. The signs were added – probably by Chopin – in a proofreading of FE (→GE,EE; in GE1 and GE1a there is no  in the L.H.).

In bars 48-52, AI still lacks several accidentals, yet due to the octave doublings between the parts of both hands, it does not lead to any text doubts.
In GE1, before the top note of the 5th semiquaver in the R.H. in bar 49 there is an erroneous  instead of . The error was also in the proofreading copies of FE1, yet it was corrected in the last proofreading.
In FE1 (→GE1,EE2EE3) there is no  lowering f3 to f3 in the 5th semiquaver in bar 51. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Accidentals in different octaves , Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE