# Different Colors



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

In visual art there is a greater variety of colors that the artist can use in order to express himself. He can mix two colors together to create a new color, and the variety can be so subtle, even the slightest mixing of colors can create another color, therefore we are talking about hundreds of thousands of colors if not millions of colors.

Yet in Western classical music, there is only a predetermined very limited set of instruments (colors) that the composer can use at his palate to express himself.

I believe the reason for this difference is this:

When it comes to music, in order to generate a sound, we need an instrument, and that instrument can only generate its one particular color, the color never changed only the pitch. But there is no one single instrument that can combine two different colors to play simultaneously and therefore create different colors.

To work around this 'problem' composers began to create new tones and colors through combining different instruments to create new colors, for example the combination of a solo violin and a solo cello playing the same notes creates a new color.


But the 'problem' is not solved fully, because there are so few instruments to combine and create 'New sounds/colors', and so the composer of sound compared to the artist that deals with visual colors, is very limited in that sense.

Imagine what composers could have composed if they had the same versatility in their medium as the visual artist has at his disposal.

But could we say that the composer of sound has something else , even more beneficial then the visual artist that somehow compensates his perceived 'limitations'?

I think he does.

While the visual artist is 'armed' with physical visual colors, the composer of music has additional elements to work with, namely, Melody, Harmony, Rhythm, And Dynamics.

With his limited availability of distinct colors, the composer expands his palate with ‘Melody’, meaning that the color exiting the instrument gets additional ‘colors’ through a thoughtful and logical melody.
For a simple continuous sound even when varied by pitch is very limited, but in the context of a ‘Melody’ the Tone gets separated into smaller subtle colors and that what creates the variety and joy to the ear.

In addition to that the composer has Harmony, an additional component in expanding the context of the sound , and that generates additional colors.

Then the composer has Rhythm, where additional colors are chiseled and sparked out of the melodious and harmonious sound, and then the Dynamics which further adds more layers of colors and variations of sound.

So I believe that with these additional tools the composer can generate great amount of colors for his palate that will not fall short from the visual artist, in fact he can even supersede him.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

> While the visual artist is 'armed' with physical visual colors, the composer of music has additional elements to work with, namely, Melody, Harmony, Rhythm, And Dynamics.


What you leave out is that the visual artist is equipped with much more than a colour palette: themes, composition, style, technique, to name a few.

But the whole comparison is rather pointless anyway.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Art Rock said:


> What you leave out is that the visual artist is equipped with much more than a colour palette: themes, composition, style, technique, to name a few.
> 
> But the whole comparison is rather pointless anyway.


Those are shared by the composer as well.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Interesting . . .

For many years I have tried to find a unified theory of the arts - all in a very layman's, armchair explorer kind of way, especially between music and the visual arts as you are doing here. For me the biggest difference between music and painting is that music presents itself over a period of time whereas painting shows itself to you all at once. _ This is a severe handicap for painting!_ Whereas music can hold off it's big climax until the appropriate time, painting shows it's big climax (center of interest, area of greatest contrast, or whatever) right at first, then you slowly notice more subtleties.

It made me pretty disappointed while trying to draw or paint a visual fugue. I wish I could figure out a way around this time dimension problem for the visual arts, but don't know how to do it short of animation.

Though there are many instruments that can in fact create more than one tone color at once, from pipe organs to synthesizers, and really even cellos, guitars or pianos if played skillfully enough, I think you are correct in that music can obtain far more nuances than visual art even without combining tones because of this very timing thing.

I understand researchers have discovered that music has a greater physiological effect on us than the visual arts. So I picked a bit of a disappointing art form as a career I think.  Well, actually it picked me.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Weston said:


> Interesting . . .
> 
> For many years I have tried to find a unified theory of the arts - all in a very layman's, armchair explorer kind of way, especially between music and the visual arts as you are doing here. For me the biggest difference between music and painting is that music presents itself over a period of time whereas painting shows itself to you all at once. _ This is a severe handicap for painting!_ Whereas music can hold off it's big climax until the appropriate time, painting shows it's big climax (center of interest, area of greatest contrast, or whatever) right at first, then you slowly notice more subtleties.
> 
> ...


Weston,

I thought about the concept of time as well as a major difference between music and visual arts, good point.


----------



## karenpat (Jan 16, 2009)

The relationship between music and visual art has been a topic of discussion in art circles for centuries. In various times, various art forms have been termed the most perfect or complete; poetry has done well in that respect. Towards the end of the 19th century however, music was considered by a lot of people in the art world to be the "perfect" art form whereas visual art and painting had more limits. I think even Clement Greenberg wrote about this in the 20th century.

*takes art history student hat off*


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

In visual art there is a greater variety of colors that the artist can use in order to express himself. He can mix two colors together to create a new color, and the variety can be so subtle, even the slightest mixing of colors can create another color, therefore we are talking about hundreds of thousands of colors if not millions of colors.

Yet in Western classical music, there is only a predetermined very limited set of instruments (colors) that the composer can use at his palate to express himself.

I believe the reason for this difference is this:

When it comes to music, in order to generate a sound, we need an instrument, and that instrument can only generate its one particular color, the color never changed only the pitch. But there is no one single instrument that can combine two different colors to play simultaneously and therefore create different colors.

It would seem to me that "sound colors" of music are just as much impacted by the instrument, the note played on the instrument, and the combinations of multiple instruments. This strikes me a a means of suggesting a variety of color no less infinite than that achieved by the mixing of pigments in paint.

But the 'problem' is not solved fully, because there are so few instruments to combine and create 'New sounds/colors',

And how many colors does a painter have to choose from? Broken down to its most basic, a painter commonly employs a warm and a cool of each primary and secondary, a number of earth tones (browns, tans, ochres, grays) black and white. An artist employing modern acrylics and commercial paints may also draw upon metallic colors and fluorescents, and he or she may employ other materials such as gold, copper, and silver leaf, etc... The variety available essentially comes from the manner in which these are combined.

Imagine what composers could have composed if they had the same versatility in their medium as the visual artist has at his disposal.

Seriously, I don't see that one or the other art form has more possibilities... or less.

While the visual artist is 'armed' with physical visual colors, the composer of music has additional elements to work with, namely, Melody, Harmony, Rhythm, And Dynamics.

And all of these... or something analogous... exist for the painter. Painters deal with harmony and dissonance, contrast, rhythm, pattern, touch, gesture, motion, balance, composition, form, space, depth, illusion, abstraction, etc...

So I believe that with these additional tools the composer can generate great amount of colors for his palate that will not fall short from the visual artist, in fact he can even supersede him. 

And one might argue that such is simply the prejudice of one enamored of music over all other art forms. As Art Rock suggested, the entire comparison is pointless. Every art form has it own "limitations" which are ultimately also "strengths". Music, as has been pointed out, exists in time and unfolds in time allowing the composer to build up toward a climax... but this can ultimately be a weakness as well. Music demands time and concentration... it cannot truly be appreciated if the experience is broken up. One might read several chapters of a novel, put it down, and return to it again without any real loss. Painting exists outside time. The audience may spend as long as he or she wishes exploring the work.

For many years I have tried to find a unified theory of the arts - all in a very layman's, armchair explorer kind of way, especially between music and the visual arts as you are doing here. For me the biggest difference between music and painting is that music presents itself over a period of time whereas painting shows itself to you all at once. This is a severe handicap for painting! Whereas music can hold off it's big climax until the appropriate time, painting shows it's big climax (center of interest, area of greatest contrast, or whatever) right at first, then you slowly notice more subtleties.

It made me pretty disappointed while trying to draw or paint a visual fugue. I wish I could figure out a way around this time dimension problem for the visual arts, but don't know how to do it short of animation. 

Walter Pater argued for the superiority of music over all the arts as a result of the manner in which content and form are fully one. The written word involves abstractions representing something else. Painting, prior to abstraction, involved imagery and form. Paul Klee, who was deeply enamored of music and literature explored the influences of music on art... the possibility of creating a visual equivalent of musical forms: symphonies, suites, fugues. He even painted one well-known painting entitled "Fugue in Red". You might seek out the slim volume, entitled (I believe... I can't locate it on my shelves right now), Paul Klee and Music.

Of course I don't buy into the superiority of one artistic form over another. For every Walter Pater, you'll get a Leonardo DaVinci arguing for the superiority of painting over poetry and sculpture... to say nothing of music. Personally, I think every art form has its strengths and weaknesses that make it unique.

I have long been fascinated with the idea of merging multiple art forms myself... perhaps because I am so fond of late 19th century aesthetic ideas/critics. Surely this is what Wagner was after with his concept of the Gesamtkunstwerk. William Blake's books are a marvelous achievement of the written word and painting. Of course theater... opera... and ultimately film may provide the greatest unification or collaboration of art forms.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> In visual art there is a greater variety of colors that the artist can use in order to express himself. He can mix two colors together to create a new color, and the variety can be so subtle, even the slightest mixing of colors can create another color, therefore we are talking about hundreds of thousands of colors if not millions of colors.
> 
> Yet in Western classical music, there is only a predetermined very limited set of instruments (colors) that the composer can use at his palate to express himself.


I disagree. In visual art, all colors are derived from three primary colors: red, yellow, and blue. In Western classical music, all tonal colors are derived from three instrument groups: wind, string, and percussion. Within each of these instrument groups, there are various tonal colors depending on the construction and method of playing each instrument, as well as the different tonal colors created by different registers of the instrument. Penultimately, each note (and each figure) is given a different color based on its structural position as the ear interprets it. Finally, a different color may be achieved by combining these elements. For example, a rising flute/violin line in a mid to high register is a far different color than a rising flute/trumpet line in the same register. Polyphony and harmony also add to the composer's "palette" of colors. Ultimately, I think that music's colors are more distinctly different from each other, but there are just as many if not more combinations of colors available to a composer than to a visual artist.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Don't forget that we have quite a number of composers from more recent times who have incorporated other instruments into traditional Western classical ensembles to create different colours and vibes. In other words, the range of colours in traditional Western classical music can be broadened to include sounds coming from sources other than those types of instruments - both acoustic and electronic. Some that I can think of -

Villa-Lobos, Camargo Guarneri - two Brazilian composers who wrote works with traditional percussion instruments from their country.

Stefan Wolpe - one of his chamber pieces includes things like kitchen utensils.

Takemitsu, Ifukube - Japanese instruments.

Tan Dun, Huang Ruo - Chinese instruments.

Sculthorpe, Ross Edwards - Australian didgeridoo for the former, clapping of hands (as in Aboriginal ceremonies) in the latter.

Ravi Shankar - composed pieces combining Western instruments with Indian instruments, eg. tabla & sitar.

Cage & many other contemporary composers since - "prepared" pianos, use of turntables, radios, electronic amplification/distortion, etc.

Penderecki - His Partita for harpsichord and orchestra includes electronic guitars! - to me, this sounds harder to make sense of than anything else, it sounds less refined or integrated than the other things I described above, more of a novelty.

& the list can probably go on. This has been happening for a while now, though. Eg. Mahler's use of cowbells & Bizet's use of the saxophone in his L'Arlesienne incidental music. Composers have been questioning and expanding the traditional Western orchestra for yonks...


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Paul Klee, who was deeply enamored of music and literature explored the influences of music on art... the possibility of creating a visual equivalent of musical forms: symphonies, suites, fugues. He even painted one well-known painting entitled "Fugue in Red". You might seek out the slim volume, entitled (I believe... I can't locate it on my shelves right now), Paul Klee and Music.




Could it be this one? Painting Music?










It's a bit rare, but not impossibly so. I may give it a try. Thanks.


----------



## kmisho (Oct 22, 2009)

I don't think numbers of different colors is an issue. Having limits can be more important than having none. Most accomplished artists work with a deliberately limited palette and some select a palette work by work.

I knew one painter, a former abstractionist turned realist, that spent several years with a palette composed of nothing but red, yellow, blue and white.

A lot of early twentieth century artists discovered that having no limits can squelch inspiration. I think this is essentially the reason for the birth of minimalism, new realism, neo-classicism.

While it might sound liberating to have no limits, the reality is that total freedom has a tendency to destroy context and make progress nearly impossible.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Weston said:


> Could it be this one? Painting Music?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes... that's the book. I picked it up at the Met not so long ago for perhaps $15. It explores a lot of Klee's connections with music. His family all played musical instruments and his wife supported him early on by giving piano lessons. Klee was struck by the fact that the composer was able to draw from a palette of notes/colors and employ them abstractly without consideration for rendering the illusion of form. The book shows some of his drawings in response to music, looks at his teaching at the Bauhaus in connection with music, etc...


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré (Nov 21, 2010)

If we assume an instrument holds a single colour, and that two different instruments have a different colour for any range of sound they share, as little as one note, then we have to assume that these two different instruments have different colours.

However, certain instruments sound quite similar in a certain range. I am thinking of the example Rimsky-Korsakov wrote of in his book on orchestration: The bassoon and the horn. When used in a certain range, both have an extremely similar colour, if not the same.

How would that be possible, if they both had but a single colour? Wouldn't they then be extremely similar throughout their range?

It appears then more logical to think of an instrument as a collection of colours. In fact, colours of a same note can change within a single instrument, as is in some strings.


----------



## rgz (Mar 6, 2010)

There are an infinite number of "colors", or variations, in the way any piece can be played (or if not infinite, than as close to it as makes no difference) -- obviously, for if there were not, than there would be no need for new recordings of old pieces. No two recordings are alike -- faster tempo here, strings more stacatto there, oboe more or less pronounced in the coda, etc. It seems to me that this would be the equivalent of different colors, just as a painter using a royal blue for the sky could make a painting feel different than if they had used a baby blue or grey.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré (Nov 21, 2010)

rgz said:


> There are an infinite number of "colors", or variations, in the way any piece can be played (or if not infinite, than as close to it as makes no difference) -- obviously, for if there were not, than there would be no need for new recordings of old pieces. No two recordings are alike -- faster tempo here, strings more stacatto there, oboe more or less pronounced in the coda, etc. It seems to me that this would be the equivalent of different colors, just as a painter using a royal blue for the sky could make a painting feel different than if they had used a baby blue or grey.


I think you are not thinking of colour in the same way I understand it, regarding this topic. I think the colour of an instrument is independent of the player; playing exactly the same way will always produce the same sound. Then there are, however, variations in playing which affect the performance but do not change the colour.

It would make the analogy so: Two painters use the same colour - say royal blue - in their painting, painting the same thing, but the difference in brush strokes and perspective make the two pieces incredibly different.


----------



## chillowack (Jul 16, 2009)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> In visual art there is a greater variety of colors that the artist can use in order to express himself. He can mix two colors together to create a new color, and the variety can be so subtle, even the slightest mixing of colors can create another color, therefore we are talking about hundreds of thousands of colors if not millions of colors.
> 
> Yet in Western classical music, there is only a predetermined very limited set of instruments (colors) that the composer can use at his palate to express himself.
> 
> ...


I like this analogy, and the "synesthetic" nature of the discussion which follows it.

While reading Rimsky-Korsakov's _Principles of Orchestration_, I came across the following passage, which touches on the "infinite" range of possibilities inherent in a single class of instruments, the strings:



> "Stringed instruments possess more ways of producing sound than any other orchestral group. They can pass, better than other instruments from one shade of expression to another, the varieties being of an infinite number. Species of bowing such as legato, detached, staccato, spiccato, portamento, martellato, light staccato, saltando, attack at the nut and at the point, and (down bow and up bow), in every degree of tone, fortissimo, pianissimo, crescendo, diminuendo, sforzando, morendo-all this belongs to the natural realm of the string quartet."


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

If you compare a work like a typical Moart or Haydn symphony with say, a tone poem by Richard Strauss such as the Alpine Symphony, there is far greater variety of color in the Alpine symphony, which uses an orchestra which is not only enormous but extremely varied.
Your typical Mozart or Haydn symphony uses only pairs of woodwinds, and only Mozart's 40th uses clarinets. There are two horns and two trumpets; trombones were not used in symphonies until Beethoven introduced them in his fifth. There are tympany,but no other percussion,except in Haydn's so-called "Military" symphony, no100.
But the Alpine symphony uses an enormous number of woodwind and vbrass players, a wide variety of percussion, and even a thunder machine !
There are 8 horns, four of whom use the so-called Wagner tubas at times, qand 12 horns offstage. There are piccolos,English horn and related instrument called the Heckelphone,named after a famous maker of woodwind instruments. Bass clarinet,e flat clarinet, etc, contrabassoon, and more.
There are extra trumpets and trombones, and two bass tubas, and organ,.
The percussion includes cymbals, triangle, cow bells and many other persussion instruments. 
I haven't even listed all the instruments here; you can check Wikipedia.
The Mahler symphonies are also full of extravagent orchestral colors.
Composers such as Rimsky-Korsakov ,Scriabin and Messiaen had a strange ability called "Synaesthesia,where a person's senses are interconnected. For example,they could literally "see" sound as specific colors such as red,blue,orange etc ! '
Some musicians with synaesthesia actually hear and see different keys as representing different colors,such as C major as blue, and D major a green !
Some people with synaesthesia have at first been so disturbed by it that they have gone to docitors and psychiatrists. But there is absolutely nothing "wrong" with them.They just have a very rare sense ability !


----------

