EE1
compare
|
Slur E-B1 in sources |
|
|
Our suggestion – no slur |
The articulation markings at the transition between these bars in FE (→EE) are questionable. It particularly applies to the internally contradictory combination of the two-note slur of E-H with the wedge over E – one of those marks is most probably erroneous:
- according to us, it is the slur that is unnecessary – upon seeing in the base text the E note provided with a wedge (at the beginning of bar 452) and a slur directed towards the bar line, the engraver could have placed a mirror reflection of that slur in the discussed place by mistake. An overlooked slur results in an analogous version to bars 448-449, which clearly supports this interpretation, regardless of how the version of FE came into existence;
- the wedge could have been misplaced. This is how it was interpreted in GE, which moved the mark to the beginning of bar 453. Such a version can be considered an alternative interpretation of the notation of FE.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Editorial revisions
issues: Errors in FE
notation: Slurs