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=""
Combining the slur beginning in bar 146 with the next one is a patent mistake of GE1 (→FE→EE). It is one of many examples of flagrant ignorance of the notation of A, since the slurs in the manuscript are unambiguous. The correct slurs were restored in GE2. In FE (→EE), the mistake of GE1 was complemented with an inaccurate beginning of the slur in bar 146, which, next to the oversight of a staccato sign in this bar, completely distorted the vision of phrasing of the beginning of this bar.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: Errors in GE, GE revisions
notation: Slurs