mUltimate Chopin

Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : EE revisions

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

b. 63

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

Slur in AI & EE3 (→EE4)

Two slurs in A

No slurs in FE (→GE,EE2)
..

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.
(The version of AI is repeated from bar 10).

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE

b. 63-64

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

Accents in AI

Accent in A

No marks in FE (→GE,EE2)

  & accent in EE3 (→EE4)
..

In the main text, we give the long accent in bar 63, written in A and overlooked – together with slurs – in FE (→GE,EE2). In EE3 (→EE4),   hairpins were added in this bar, by analogy with bar 10; at the same time, the accent on the e1-g1 third was considered. (The accents in both bars in AI are repeated from bars 10-11).

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Errors in FE

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