mUltimate Chopin

Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 38-40

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

Slurs in A, literal reading

FE (→GE,EE)

Our suggestion
..

In spite of the fact that the layout of the figurations in particular bars is similar and the phrasing of the parts of both hands naturally stems from the texture, the slurs in A are inconsistent in these bars. According to us, it is a result of inaccurate notation, therefore, in the main text we suggest to homogenise the notation after the undeniable slurs of the R.H. in bars 39-40. The shorter slurs of the editions are a different attempt of a homogenised interpretation of the slurring of A, performed probably by the engraver of FE.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Inaccurate slurs in A

b. 38-40

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

cresc. - - in AI

 in A, contextual interpretation

 cresc. in FE (→GE)

 cresc. in EE
..

Cresc. - - in AI is the original version, replaced in A with more precise indications. According to us, minor graphic differences in the notation of crescendos in A – both  and cresc. – are of random nature and are not supposed to suggest any differences in the interpretation of these indications. The engraver of FE (→GE) considered such a characteristic for Chopin imposition of the  sign and the cresc. indication as an unnecessary complication. In EE the range of the  signs in these bars was homogenised.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE

b. 42-43

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

..

Chopin omitted in A the last of the slurs embracing subsequent pairs of semiquavers. It is almost certainly an oversight, therefore, in the main text we suggest adding the slur. In FE (→GE1), the previous slur was also omitted, which was completed in EE2. The subsequent GE and EE have all slurs here. AI, in which all pairs of semiquavers are ascribed to the R.H., has one slur over the entire passage.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions

b. 42

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

R.H. wedge in AI & A

No marks in FE (→GE,EE)

Wedges suggested by the editors
..

In the main text we give a wedge in the R.H. written in both autographs. Its absence in the editions is almost certainly a result of an oversight. The wedges at the beginning of bars 44 and 46, marked in A in the parts of both hands, suggest the need to add the sign in the L.H. also in bar 42.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Wedges

b. 43

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

 in AI & A

FE (→GE,EE)
..

In the main text we suggest an average interpretation of the range of the  hairpins in AI and A. The minor difference between the autographs is almost certainly insignificant and it results from the graphic nature. It is particularly the slightly earlier beginning of the sign in A that is a result of bypassing the previously written indication con forza. In FE (→GE,EE) the sign – which clearly starts from the beginning of the bar – was radically shortened in order to avoid a clash with this indication – cf. bars 38-40.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE