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, a double appearance of an identical indication (sempre forte) four bars apart may be a mistake of the engraver, who, apart from the correct place, unnecessarily repeated the indication a line higher or lower. Due to this reason, in the main text, we give the indication in bars 334-335 in a variant form (in brackets), being less justified after the in the previous bar.
In GE and EE, in both places, forte was replaced with a conventional mark.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions
issues: EE revisions, GE revisions
notation: Verbal indications