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=""
EE1
compare
The missing b on the 3rd semiquaver on the 2nd beat of the bar is probably an oversight of the engraver. It is indicated by:
- the use of triads in all three pianistically analogous situations – on the 2nd and 4th beats of bar 31 and on the 4th beat of bar 33;
- an important factor favouring a mistake – the note, if it was present in [A], was most probably written on the bottom stave, hence separated from the e1-g1 third. Such situations would sometimes cause a note being overlooked while reproducing the manuscript – cf. e.g. the Sonata in B
Minor, Op. 35, 1st mov., bar 3.
Due to this reason, we suggest adding that note in the main text.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Editorial revisions
issues: Errors in FE
notation: Pitch