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 dynamic marking in PE looks like . However, it seems very likely that in [A] there was
in this place, which is indicated by:
— the shape of the sign, differing from other featured in PE; its lower part matches the shape of
;
— different performance markings of the introduction, particularly the accents in bars 1-3 and marcato in bar 4;
— the introduction's character, texture, register, and key;
— the sign's position on the stem of the 1st chord in the R.H., which could have impeded its correct reading.
In EF a dynamic marking – – appears only before the 2nd beat of the bar.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources
notation: Verbal indications