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=""
The indications concerning the a1 note at the beginning of the bar raise serious doubts due to the sources based on [A2] being incompatible – CJ and CK. In the main text we give an interpretation of the notation of CJ, in which both visible elements – slur and short hairpin – can be quite easily and reasonably interpreted as a tenuto mark and a long accent. In turn, in CK the similarly placed yet much smaller elements actually resemble a fermata (this is how they were reproduced in EL), which is completely unjustified in this place.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources
issues: Long accents, Errors in CK
notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins