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=""
According to us, the slur of FE (→EE), additionally separating a group of two notes from a three-note motif, is a result of an erroneous interpretation of the tie of a1. (FE and EE differ in the arrangement of the noteheads constituting the a
1-b
1 second; as a result, the discussed slur of FE seems to be reaching b
1, whereas in EE – a
1.)
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions
issues: EE revisions, Errors in FE, Errors in EE, Errors in GE
notation: Pitch