Issues : Errors in FE
|
b. 61
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
It is hard to determine whether the missing accent in FE (→GE,EE), probably resulting from the engraver's inaccuracy, was not eventually accepted by Chopin – cf. bars 61 and 62. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
|||||||||
|
b. 62
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
According to us, the fact of leaving out category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Errors in FE |
|||||||||
|
b. 63
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
In the main text we give two slurs written in A and overlooked – together with the accent – in FE (→GE,EE2).In EE3 (→EE4), certainly by analogy with bar 2 and 10, one slur was added. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE |
|||||||||
|
b. 63-64
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
In the main text, we give the long accent in bar 63, written in A and overlooked – together with slurs – in FE (→GE,EE2). In EE3 (→EE4), category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE |
|||||||||
|
b. 65
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
FE (→GE1) has an a as the 1st note of the bottom voice in the R.H. instead of a b. This patent error was corrected in FES, as well as in EE and in the subsequent GE (in GE1a in a simplified manner – by removing the ledger line without moving the note head). category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Annotations in FES |
and legatiss. is a result of inattention of the engraver of 
& accent in 
1 third was considered. (The accents in both bars in