mUltimate Chopin

Op. 10 No 3, Etude in E major

Text Compare Notes Sources Description
Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main
Undo Clear

Articulation, Accents, Hairpins

b. 1

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

No sign in AI

 in A (→FE→GE,EE)
..

Lack of the  hairpins in AI may be not only an inaccuracy of the working notation, but also the original version – the accent on the 2nd beat of the bar results in a similar sound effect.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 1

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

Accent in AI

No mark in A (→FE→GE,EE)
..

The long accent, written in AI, was not included in the version prepared for print. Chopin probably considered the  hairpins in the 1st half of the bar to be sufficient, therefore, we do not suggest an accent in the main text. However, we cannot exclude that the accent was overlooked by the composer at the time of writing A, as both signs can be considered as complementary.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 2-5

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

Two long accents in AI

Three different accents in A

  in FE (→GE,EE)
..

In the main text over the semiquaver motifs in bars 2, 3 and 5 we give consequent pairs of   hairpins, introduced by Chopin in a proofreading of FE (→GE,EE). Both autographs include the previous concept, written more or less accurately, in which only the 3rd semiquaver in the bar is provided with an accent (generally long). Cf. the adjacent note on slurs.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations

issues: Long accents , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 2-10

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

No mark in AI & A

Short accent in FE (→GE,EE)

Long accent suggested by the editors
..

The accent over the crotchet in bar 2 was added most probably by Chopin in a proofreading of FE (→GE,EE). Taking into account the fact that the engravers often did not understand the sign of the long accent and used to reproduce it as a casual accent or – often longer –  hairpins, in the main text we suggest a long accent, which in this context seems to be more appropriate. The same applies to bar 10. 

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 5

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

No marks in AI

Short accent in GE & EE, probable reading of A

Dot & accent in FE

Possible interpretation of A
..

In the sources, the indications concerning the e1 crotchet are unclear. The fact of shifting the accent in A to the right may be considered as an irrelevant inaccuracy of notation or a suggestion of the sign's length. The version of FE seems to be even more puzzling, especially given the fact that it was most probably corrected – over the stave, to the right of the note there are visible possible traces of deletion of the accent. It is also unclear why the staccato dot was not included neither in GE nor in EE.
In the main text we give a short accent over the note, which combines the most definite elements of the notation of the sources. Alternatively, due to the melodic context, we suggest a long accent here.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

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