Issues : EE revisions
|
b. 38-40
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
In order to facilitate the interpretation of chromatic progressions, we add a number of cautionary and reminding signs. Only a part of them are in the sources; it also happens that the sources have different signs of this type, which are, according to us, superfluous. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals |
|||||||||
|
b. 41-57
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
A single, short slur in bar 41 must be considered in A as an inaccuracy of notation – there is no continuation of the slur from the previous bar; there is also no reason to single out particularly this pair of semiquavers. According to us, it is a result of an unfinished change of slurring – at the beginning Chopin wrote in A four slurs 2 semiquavers each, starting from the second one in bar 41 and then, at the time of writing the octave sign, three out of these slurs were included in the line determining the range of the octave sign. However, he did not finish the correction, leaving the first slur unchanged and not entering the target slurring. Taking into account the structure of figurations and a few examples of extending the slurs in this Etude (e.g. in bars 2, 3, 21), we assume that Chopin most probably wanted to lead the slur from bar 40 until the beginning of bar 42. The arbitrarily added slurs of EE also draw attention, similar to the original slurs of A. Cf. the slur in the L.H. In AI there are no slurs in bar 41. However, we do not consider lack of this and many other performance indications on this page as an equal version of a given fragment, as the autograph is of a clearly working nature. In particular, when AI is not mentioned in the content of the note, it means that the discussed indication does not appear in it. category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions , Inaccurate slurs in A , Errors in GE |
|||||||||
|
b. 41-42
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
We consider the missing slur in the L.H. as an inaccuracy of notation – see notes to the slurs in the R.H. and to bars 38-40. The suggested addition is compatible with the slur adopted in the part of the R.H. In EE3 (→EE4) a slur was added in bar 41, probably modelled on the slurs from the previous bars. category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions issues: EE revisions |
|||||||||
|
b. 42
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
The fingering in EE is an addition by Fontana. In the main text we include the digit written at the end of the bar in FES, indicating the same, natural fingering – see bars 41-42. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Annotations in teaching copies , EE revisions , Annotations in FES |
|||||||||
|
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 |
