Talk:List of musical pieces which use extended techniques

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Classical music

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

The list, once too long, should obviously be split (presumably by instrument type). We should, however consider time and indicate techniques which used to be extended but are now standard (which would potentially shorten the list). One can't prove a negative, so it seems the only way you argue that this list would be too long is to make it so, which should be easy if there are too many examples to list. However, given so many examples, what do you think of List of extended techniques? Hyacinth (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definition[edit]

What exactly constitutes an "extended technique"? Fluttertongue? Col legno? Or does it have to be really strange? Lbark 03:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that Harmonic glissando is a bit regular. I mean, if it appears in the Firebird, can it really be considered "extended?" 98.203.234.216 (talk) 05:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does music stagnate in a pool of never changing sludge or may it be considered historically as an art and its current and past set of techniques? We don't avoid writing articles about cars because the standard for fuel efficiency changes. Hyacinth (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Which"[edit]

"Which" is used improperly here; it should be "that." Or, more simply, "List of musical pieces using extended techniques." Badagnani (talk) 05:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Badagnani: You make an assertion with no support and no suggestion(s). Hyacinth (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Helmut Lachenmann[edit]

Any piece by Helmut Lachenmann at the list? I purpose only three of his pieces, in this case for solo instruments.

1. "Pression" (1969-70) for violoncello

2. "Güero" (1970-88) for piano

3. "Toccatina" (1986) for violin solo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.254.107.184 (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional citations[edit]

Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 05:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was the editor responsible for placing that banner, on 29 December 2010, it is up to me to explain it. I merely replaced {{Unreferenced|date=November 2007}}, because a number of references had been added since that time. I can only speculate that the call for references was originally to do either with pieces vaguely named (without specifying what extended techniques were used, as in the Berio Sequenze at the head of the list), or to specific things, such as col legno, that someone thought needed justifying as an "extended" technique. I would say that the offending items ought to be marked individually, and the vague global banner be removed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Context[edit]

This list has no context. Hyacinth (talk) 02:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So help me understand. The creator of the article in 2005 today can not tell what the article is about? GB fan 02:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I said. Why should I spend time defending the words you put in my mouth? Hyacinth (talk) 03:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I guess I misunderstood what you meant with the speedy deletion request. I thought you were requesting speedy deletion using the A1 criteria. That criteria is for articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. So I didn't put any words in your mouth I took what you put into the article and interpreted it. If I misinterpreted your intentions I apologize. GB fan 04:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If one had never heard of an extended technique (or did not know that "songs" without words are "pieces") this list probably doesn't have enough context. Hyacinth (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it better now?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citation style[edit]

User:George8211 has added a flag concerning the citation style reading in part, "This article has an unclear citation style." I find no explanation here, however. What on earth is unclear about parenthetical referencing? It is almost certainly the most transparent, self-explanatory referencing format in existence. What could possibly be an improvement on this method?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jerome Kohl: oops. That's what happens when you don't think straight (undid). George8211 // Give a trout a home! 23:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are a scholar and a gentleman. May your trouts never be homeless!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria[edit]

In this comment on my user talk page, User:George8211 asked if I thought some criteria need to be established for what gets included on this list, and I agreed. Is it necessary that a reliable source states "this piece uses extended techniques", for example, or is it sufficient to cite a source (such as a published score) that specifies a technique that may plausibly be regarded as "extended" (for example: "bow on the tailpiece", or "rattle mute in the bell")? Assuming the latter is sufficient, where should the line be drawn on what constitutes an "extended" technique? Is this to be construed in an historical context (for example, tremolando on bowed strings was innovative when Purcell specified it in the "frost music" for King Arthur, but is no longer the case today)?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that entries could be marked or specified as, "a specific source said this specific piece uses extended techniques or a specific technique indicated as extended," versus, "this piece uses a technique which some source which doesn't mention the piece says is extended." It's like arguing that change doesn't happen, music is always the same and can't be considered historically, because that might be difficult. Hyacinth (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article's scope and organization[edit]

At this point (2015), there are thousands of pieces either entirely built on or pervasively using extended techniques, and hundreds more are written each year. This seems like a somewhat random assemblage (with no indication for the non-expert reader that these are a few examples of thousands). It would greatly benefit from editing by someone with the time to give attention to categorization within the page (especially by types of ext. techniques), timeline, and/or historical significance of pieces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.121.210 (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems hard to argue that accepted technique is "extended", but luckily Wikipedians can rely on citations rather than guessing. Furthermore, if a specific extended technique is so common then it deserves its own list. This is how Wikipedia doesn't collapse like a black hole but instead somehow expands. Hyacinth (talk) 05:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]