Pitch
|
b. 3
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
The version of GE3 (→GE4→GE5) is an example of an error resulting from shifting the note by a third. category imprint: Differences between sources issues: Errors in GE , Terzverschreibung error |
|||||
|
b. 3
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
The version of AI is already the second attempt to shape the inner voices in this place. Initially, Chopin wrote the following version, schematically developing the idea included in the previous bar: category imprint: Differences between sources |
|||||
|
b. 4-12
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
It is not entirely clear, which accent – short or long – Chopin had in mind in bar 4, while writing A. According to us, due to the melodic context, it is the long accent that is more plausible, yet it is worth observing that the accents in the L.H. in bars 1-2 are shorter from the discussed accent in bar 4. The problem is even more evident in bar 12. category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources issues: Long accents |
|||||
|
b. 6-7
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
In FE, in the part of the R.H. there are visible traces of correcting up to six erroneous notes in this bar. The engraver's errors resulted here from the routine approach, assuming the presence of the simplest figuration schemes – category imprint: Source & stylistic information issues: Errors in FE , Authentic corrections of FE |
|||||
|
b. 6
|
composition: Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major
..
At the time of writing AI, Chopin was still looking for the best melodic continuation for the first, five-bar-long phrase. In the 1st half of the bar, after numerous deletions, he wrote two versions, out of which it was eventually the second one that was adopted, marked in this manuscript as ossia. The only version of the 2nd half of the bar was then changed in A. category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations issues: Chopin's hesitations |
in 
. In bar 11 Chopin deleted in 
.
