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=""
It is difficult to say what prompted the people working on GE (→FE,EE,IE) to add a raising f2 to f
2. Perhaps the missing
to the bottom note in the next third, which results in e
2 when interpreted literally, confused the engraver or the reviser.
It is difficult to say what prompted the people working on GE (→FE1,EE,IE) to add a raising f2 to f
2. Perhaps the missing
to the bottom note in the next third, which results in e
2 when interpreted literally, confused the engraver or the reviser. The erroneous accidental was removed only by #FE2, perhaps after comparing it with analogous bar 126, in which f
2 is impossible due to f1 in the L.H. sequence of thirds.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: Errors in GE, GE revisions, FE revisions, Errors repeated in EE
notation: Pitch