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=""
It seems to be unlikely that the missing e on the 3rd quaver could have been considered a mistake, which could have been suggested by a comparison with analogous bars. In FE, a corresponding note is absent also in the next bar, thus both bars refer to the shape of the accompaniment in the previous phrase (bars 272-279). Therefore, we consider the revisions of EE and GE3 to be unjustified.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: EE revisions, GE revisions
notation: Pitch