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=""
In FE in bar 54 and 55 the augmentation dots to the L.H. f minims are missing. It must be an oversight, in GE corrected only in bar 55, while in EE in both bars. Moreover, in GE the augmentation dot to the e1 crotchet in bar 54 was overlooked. We comprehensively discuss all irregularities concerning the rhythmic notation and the issue of division into parts in this fragment of the Variations in the note in bar 39.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: EE revisions, Errors in FE, GE revisions, Errors repeated in GE
notation: Rhythm