The missing slur in AI is probably an inadvertence – all of the several dozen similar motifs are provided with slurs in this manuscript, and the momentary distraction of the writing person is evidenced by the total absence of articulation indications (staccatos, slurs) in both these bars.
As far as the FE slur (→EE) is concerned, its starting point is questionable, since in the vast majority of similar situations, the note played on the first beat is not linked with the following quaver figure (in FE the only exceptions are the discussed bar and bar 75; in AI there are no exceptions). If the slur had been engraved on the basis of the manuscript, it would have been very likely that it would have been wrongly deciphered in this context – the slur could have started before the first quaver of the quaver group, which the engraver could have understood as a beginning from the 1st note in the bar. On the other hand, the absence of the slur in GE may – as in the previous bar – indicate that it was added in the last stage of proofreading FE1, which makes a possible misunderstanding less likely. In the face of uncertainties concerning this issue, we suggest an alternative solution with a slur running from the 2nd beat of the bar.
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: Errors in GE
notation: Slurs
Back to note