mUltimate Chopin

Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Authentic corrections of FE

b. 46-47

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

..

The notation of accidentals is not accurate in the autographs, particularly in AI. Typical for Chopin omissions of signs written simultaneously or slightly earlier next to proper notes in another octave, as well as oversights of cancellations of previous alterations, do not, however, lead to any misunderstandings, as far as the interpretation of the intended text is concerned. In all sources there are also signs of cautionary or reminding nature. In the main text we include these which Chopin wrote in A.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , GE revisions , Cautionary accidentals , Authentic corrections of FE , Inaccuracies in A

b. 48-52

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

..

In the autographs there are no sharps returning f1 and f3 at the 6th semiquaver in bar 49. From the harmonic point of view, f1 and f3 could be possible here, yet taking into account the regularity of the figuration's structure, one can assume this omission as a clear oversight. The signs were added – probably by Chopin – in a proofreading of FE (→GE,EE; in GE1 and GE1a there is no  in the L.H.).

In bars 48-52, AI still lacks several accidentals, yet due to the octave doublings between the parts of both hands, it does not lead to any text doubts.
In GE1, before the top note of the 5th semiquaver in the R.H. in bar 49 there is an erroneous  instead of . The error was also in the proofreading copies of FE1, yet it was corrected in the last proofreading.
In FE1 (→GE1,EE2→EE3) there is no  lowering f3 to f3 in the 5th semiquaver in bar 51. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , Accidentals in different octaves , Omissions to cancel alteration , Errors in GE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 53-54

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

..

The c-c1 octave at the last semiquaver in bar 53 was written by Chopin in AI after trying a number of different versions. The version, written in the final form in A, was then changed by Chopin for an a-f1 sixth at the time of proofreading FE (→GE,EE). Of course, the fingering added by Fontana in EE concerns only the last version (cf. bars 53-57).

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Authentic corrections of FE

b. 55

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

e1 in AI, A, FE2, GE1a (→GE2→GE3→GE4→GE5) & EE4

d1 in FE1 (→GE1,EE2→EE3)
..

d1 as the 4th semiquaver of the bottom voice in the R.H. is a patent error of FE1 (→GE1,EE2→EE3).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE , GE revisions , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 60

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

in A

in FE (→GE,EE)
..

In bar 60 in A there are visible traces of corrections of the written in this place indication. According to us, Chopin initially wrote smorz. and then transformed it to calando, which seems to be more accurate in this context. Eventually, FE (→GE,EE) has, however, a smorzando, which means that while proofreading FE, Chopin most probably returned to the original concept (however, it is possible that the engraver of FE deciphered the unclear inscription in a different manner than us).

In the entire fragment presented on this page (bars 58-77), AI has significantly less performance indications. Wherever the omission of some of the indications undoubtedly results from the working notation of this autograph, their absence is not considered as an equal version of the discussed place. In practice, it means that if the content of the note does not mention AI, the discussed indication is absent in this autograph.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Chopin's hesitations , Authentic corrections of FE