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=""
![]() |
3 slurs in A, probable interpretation |
|
![]() |
||
![]() |
Combining the slurs over the rest in bar 288, as it was done in GE1 (→FE→EE), may be considered to be justified in this case – the slurs in A look like an inaccurately written one slur. In GE2 the manuscript was interpreted correctly. In turn, in the very A the slurring of the junction of the bars, which are written on adjacent pages, is unclear. The slur in bar 288 suggests a continuation, which is not excluded at all by the slur in bar 289. However, when discussed separately, the second slur seems to be a typical slur combining a grace note with a semiquaver associated with it, hence we consider such an interpretation to be more likely and we adopt it as the text of A and the main text.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: Inaccuracies in GE
notation: Slurs