mUltimate Chopin

Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 52

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

No slurs in AI & FE (→EE2)

Slur in A

Two slurs in GE & EE3 (→EE4)
..

In A Chopin overlooked one of the slurs in the L.H. (in AI there are no slurs in this fragment at all). The engraver of FE (→EE2) omitted the previous slur too. In the remaining editions these patent inaccuracies were corrected.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , GE revisions , Inaccuracies in A

b. 53

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

..

In FE (→GE,EE) there is no 'e' conjunction between ritenuto and cresc.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 54

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

No marking in AI

in A

in FE (→GE,EE)
..

In the main text we give  written in A. As in many different cases (see e.g. the Etude in C minor, No. 4, bar 1),  in FE (→GE) is almost certainly a result of misunderstanding of the manuscript by the engraver of FE.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , fz – f

b. 54

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

No mark in AI & FE (→GE,EE)

Accent in A
..

The missing accent in FE (→GE,EE) is almost certainly a mistake of the engraver.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

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