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=""
FE2
compare
The comparison with GC and later correction in FE2 prove that the version of FE1 is erroneous. The omission of f was probably the reason of an inaccurate shortening of the slur of the grace note.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources; Corrections & alterations
issues: Errors in FE, FE revisions
notation: Pitch