data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/73ecd/73ecd80c88ad44c39f3711b6bcc33ca9e1021267" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/75013/75013441a15e45e6f391d55c49aaf803f3dff8a4" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/57140/571405c7057401412640722d57e0f4262876af22" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3075f/3075f31e8b155e01785c3a53896ad205598099cf" alt=""
The slur in A in bar 86 (at the end of the great stave) clearly suggests a continuation, which is however not proved by the slur in the new line in bar 87. The separated slurs are compatible with the phrasing clearly inscribed in bars 3-6. The constant slur in GE1 is a consequence of unclear notation in A. It can be assumed that the manuscript sent for EE also had a similarly ambiguous notation.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources
issues: Overextending slur
notation: Slurs