mUltimate Chopin

Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : GE revisions

b. 61

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

No indication in AI, A & GE1 (→GE1a→GE2)

in FE (→EE)

in GE3 (→GE4→GE5)
..

The indication poco rall. was added by Chopin most probably in the last proofreading of FE (→EE). It is indicated by its absence in GE1 (→GE1a→GE2). The subsequent GE add in this place only rall., probably to justify a tempo in bar 62.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: GE revisions

b. 64

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

No slur in AI & A (→FE→GE1,EE2)

Slur in GE1a (→GE2→GE3→GE4→GE5) & EE3 (→EE4)
..

The attempt to complete the indications over the 2nd half of the bar may be considered as justified in a situation where the only authentic indication – a long accent – was overlooked in FE (→GE,EE).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions

b. 65-66

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

Tie to f1 in AI, GE1a (→GE2→GE3→GE4→GE5) & EE3 (→EE4)

No tie in A (→FE→GE1,EE2)

Our variant suggestion
..

In A (→FE→GE1,EE2) lack of the tie sustaining f1 may be Chopin's oversight. In AI the bars are marked as repetition of bars 4-5 (or 12-13), in which f1 is sustained. In A the repetition of the initial fragment of the Etude is written with visibly less concentration; moreover, the proofreading of FE was also less accurate in this fragment (cf. e.g. bars 67 and 69).
On the other hand, the version of bar 67 written in A constitutes a repetition of the figure in bar 66 one fourth higher, which is even more audible when f1 at the beginning of this bar is repeated. Therefore, it cannot be excluded that Chopin omitted the tie of this note on purpose. However, while proofreading FE, in bar 67 the composer eventually resigned from the strict repetition of the previous bar, hence it cannot be excluded that also in the case of sustaining the discussed note, he could have wanted to return to the original concept, although he did not mark it in the proofreading. Taking into account the aforementioned possibilities, in the main text we leave the inclusion of the slur at the discretion of the performer. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , GE revisions , Errors of A

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

b. 66

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

Accent in AI

No marks in A (→FE1→GE1,#EE2)

  in FE2

  & accent in GE1a (→GE2→GE3→GE4→GE5) & EE3 (→EE4)
..

The accent in AI, in which the bar is marked as repetition of bars 5 or 13, presents the original version of the indications of the motifs in bars 2, 3, 5 and analog. In the main text, we give the pair of   hairpins, added with the slurs in a proofreading of FE2. The signs correspond to the final concept of the indications of these motifs, introduced in a proofreading of FE1 in six places of the first part of the Etude. In GE1a (→GE2→GE3→GE4→GE5) and EE3 (→EE4), the indications were completed also in this bar, by analogy with bar 13; at the same time, the accent on the e1 crotchet was included.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

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