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=""
CB
compare
The manuscripts conveying the text of [A2] are pretty united on the range of the dynamic hairpins in these bars (A1 is devoid of such marks). The whole-bar marks of EL are an arbitrary decision of Kolberg or the engraver.
Compare the passage in the sources »
See b. 22
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins, Balakirev's revisions, Revisions in EL
notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins