Slurs
|
b. 55-56
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
Lack of the slur in A (→FE→GE,EE) is probably a result of Chopin's distraction due to the transition to the new line – in the identical motif one bar before, the slur is present. However, Chopin could have differentiated between the indications of these motifs on purpose, which would be indicated by the use of a longer accent and wedge on B. category imprint: Editorial revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 56-57
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
In bar 56 the earlier start of the slur in FE (→GE,EE; overlooked in EE2) seems to be an inaccuracy of the engraver, in spite of the fact that it is compatible with – according to us, apparently – lack of tie of f category imprint: Differences between sources issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Errors in EE , GE revisions |
||||||||
|
b. 56
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
The staccato dots on the 2nd and 3rd quavers visible in AI is the original version of the articulation, replaced in A by a slur and a dot. Moreover, in A Chopin provided the first quaver in the bar, B, with a wedge. Lack of both staccato signs in the editions is probably a mistake, yet it could have been accepted by Chopin. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Errors in FE , Wedges |
||||||||
|
b. 60-61
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
The extension of the slur in FE (→GE,EE) is almost certainly a result of Chopin's proofreading, hence we adopt this version to the main text. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Authentic corrections of 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 |
1. In turn, 
