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=""
One can doubt whether the break between the slurs visible in GC and copied even more vividly into GE actually reflects the true sense of [A1] notation, as neither EE nor FE displays this divided slur. The break in the slur at this point is related to the basic rhythmic structure (in b. 549 anouther four-bar section begins) but it is not compatible with the motif-based or phrase structure. Therefore, for the main text we adopt the EE and FE version.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources
issues: Inaccuracies in GE, Inaccuracies in GC
notation: Slurs