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 missing f2 crotchet in FC (→GE1) may be a result of an unfinished or failed correction of the pitch of that note – in the place where the stem of the chord ends, e2 was probably removed. Another possibility is a misrepresenting its notehead in A for a mere thickening at the end of stem. The copyist also omitted the arpeggio sign before that chord and the slur. The revision restoring a tolerably correct text in GE2 (→GE3) was most probably based on FE, which is indicated by an identical unification of the rhythmic values of the g1-b1 third (in FE the unification most probably resulted from a misunderstanding of the notation of A) and by the way the misleading notation in the previous bar was corrected.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: Different values of chord components, Inaccuracies in FE, GE revisions, Errors of FC
notation: Pitch