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=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e59ea/e59ea164cc09fb20651e39bd84b5beefb140cf1e" alt=""
![]() |
![]() |
rall. - - till 6th quaver in FE |
![]() |
![]() |
rall. in GE |
![]() |
![]() |
No indication in EE |
![]() |
![]() |
rall. - - - till end of bar suggested by the editors |
The GE and EE versions most probably resulted from the engravers' inaccuracies or mistakes. According to us, the FE version is also inaccurate, even if it corresponds to the [A] notation, as it is hard to imagine that the absence of the last dashes could be indicating a sophisticated agogic nuance. Therefore, in the main text we suggest leading the dashes marking the range of the rallentando to the end of the bar, in accordance with the natural performance manner of figuration in this context.
Compare the passage in the sources»
category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions
issues: Inaccuracies in GE, Inaccuracies in FE, Errors in EE
notation: Verbal indications