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=""
Main text
compare
The pencilled mark written in FES over the L.H. part may be interpreted as a slur (the range of which would mimic the one of the slur in b. 81). However, it is uncertain whether it is a slur at all, hence we signalize this possibility as an alternative version only.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Source & stylistic information
issues: Annotations in teaching copies, Annotations in FES
notation: Slurs