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=""
![]() |
Tie & slur in JC |
|
![]() |
Slurs in FEF |
|
![]() |
Slurs in GEF |
|
![]() |
Suggested supplement to EF ties |
|
![]() |
Ties in PE, possible interpretation |
|
![]() |
Slurs in PE, probable interpretation |
The meaning and number of slurs starting from the d and d1 crotchets on the 2nd beat of bars 88-89 and 96-97 are unclear. The situation in JC and PE, in which those bars are only a repetition of bars 52-53 and 60-61, is discussed in the note concerning those bars. Consistent ties in bars 88 and 96 in EF may be a result of Fontana's interpretation and revision, which is indicated by lack of a similar consistency in bars 89 and 97, including the difference between FEF and GEF in bar 89. However, assuming that the notation of FEF in bars 88-89 and 96 is correct, we propose to add the missing slurs in bar 97.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources
issues: Errors in Fontana's editions, Fontana's revisions
notation: Rhythm