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=""
Afrag
compare
In the main text we include the staccato dot present in GE1 at the beginning of b. 89 and 93. Such an articulation – a dot and a slur – refers to the original version of this motif in b. 1 and analog. The absence of the dot in b. 89 must be an oversight of the engraver of GE2.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: Errors in GE
notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins