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 structure of the figuration in the entire passage in the L.H. (bars 153-156 and 157-160), and particularly the comparison with analogous bar 159, indicate a mistake of the copyist in this place. The absence of a correction in GE may be attributed to the absent before this note (although in a similar situation four bars later, a
before the respective note – c
2 – was added). The sign is absent also in the majority of the sources featuring the note at the correct pitch – it was added only in EE2.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources
issues: EE revisions, Accidentals in different octaves, Terzverschreibung error, Errors of GC
notation: Pitch