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. 3

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

b in AI

e1 in A (→FE→GE,EE)
..

The version of AI is already the second attempt to shape the inner voices in this place. Initially, Chopin wrote the following version, schematically developing the idea included in the previous bar: . In bar 11 Chopin deleted in AI also the second version, replacing it with a version which was eventually adopted in all analogous bars. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 4-5

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

No slur in AI & A (→FE→GE,EE)

Our suggestion
..

In the main text we suggest to embrace with a slur eight subsequent thirds, after the slurs written in A in both analogous places – bars 12-13 and 65-66. However, the source version can be deemed as complete.

category imprint: Editorial revisions

b. 4-12

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

Short accents in A (→FE→GE,EE)

Our suggestion
..

It is not entirely clear, which accent – short or long – Chopin had in mind in bar 4, while writing A. According to us, due to the melodic context, it is the long accent that is more plausible, yet it is worth observing that the accents in the L.H. in bars 1-2 are shorter from the discussed accent in bar 4. The problem is even more evident in bar 12.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents

b. 5

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

No marks in AI

Short accent in GE & EE, probable reading of A

Dot & accent in FE

Possible interpretation of A
..

In the sources, the indications concerning the e1 crotchet are unclear. The fact of shifting the accent in A to the right may be considered as an irrelevant inaccuracy of notation or a suggestion of the sign's length. The version of FE seems to be even more puzzling, especially given the fact that it was most probably corrected – over the stave, to the right of the note there are visible possible traces of deletion of the accent. It is also unclear why the staccato dot was not included neither in GE nor in EE.
In the main text we give a short accent over the note, which combines the most definite elements of the notation of the sources. Alternatively, due to the melodic context, we suggest a long accent here.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Errors in EE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 6

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

No fingering in AI, A & FE (→GE)

Fingering written into FED

Fingering in EE
..

In the main text we include the fingering written by Chopin in FED. The abundant fingering of Fontana in EE includes, among others, an identical indication of double use of the 4th finger.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FED