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 dynamic and agogic indications of the final four-bar section clearly differ in the particular sources. However, only two basic versions are authentic – A1 and CJ and CK (the differences between both copies based on [A2] concern insignificant details only). The close resemblance of the version of CB to the one of EL is puzzling – according to us, however, the coincidence does not point to a common source, which is contradicted by other numerous differences between these sources, but to a similar way of thinking of Balakirev and the reviser of EL, who strived for simplified notation.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: Balakirev's revisions, Revisions in EL
notation: Verbal indications