What Did Ancient Greek Music Sound Like?: Listen to a Reconstruction That’s ‘100% Accurate’

1what_greek_music_sounded_like

Between 750 BC and 400 BC, the Ancient Greeks com­posed songs meant to be accom­pa­nied by the lyre, reed-pipes, and var­i­ous per­cus­sion instru­ments. More than 2,000 years lat­er, mod­ern schol­ars have fig­ured out–at long last–how to recon­struct and per­form these songs with (it’s claimed) 100% accu­ra­cy.

Writ­ing on the BBC web site, Armand D’An­gour, a musi­cian and tutor in clas­sics at Oxford Uni­ver­si­ty, notes:

[Ancient Greek] instru­ments are known from descrip­tions, paint­ings and archae­o­log­i­cal remains, which allow us to estab­lish the tim­bres and range of pitch­es they pro­duced.

And now, new rev­e­la­tions about ancient Greek music have emerged from a few dozen ancient doc­u­ments inscribed with a vocal nota­tion devised around 450 BC, con­sist­ing of alpha­bet­ic let­ters and signs placed above the vow­els of the Greek words.

The Greeks had worked out the math­e­mat­i­cal ratios of musi­cal inter­vals — an octave is 2:1, a fifth 3:2, a fourth 4:3, and so on.

The nota­tion gives an accu­rate indi­ca­tion of rel­a­tive pitch.

So what did Greek music sound like? Below you can hear David Creese, a clas­si­cist from the Uni­ver­si­ty of New­cas­tle, play “an ancient Greek song tak­en from stone inscrip­tions con­struct­ed on an eight-string ‘canon’ (a zither-like instru­ment) with mov­able bridges. “The tune is cred­it­ed to Seik­i­los,” says Archae­ol­o­gy Mag­a­zine.

For more infor­ma­tion on all of this, read D’An­gour’s arti­cle over at the BBC.

Note: This post first appeared on our site in 2013.

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newslet­ter, please find it here. Or fol­low our posts on Threads, Face­book and BlueSky.

If you would like to sup­port the mis­sion of Open Cul­ture, con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your con­tri­bu­tions will help us con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing the best free cul­tur­al and edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als to learn­ers every­where. You can con­tribute through Pay­Pal, Patre­on, and Ven­mo (@openculture). Thanks!

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Hear Homer’s Ili­ad Read in the Orig­i­nal Ancient Greek

Hear The Epic of Gil­gamesh Read in the Orig­i­nal Akka­di­an, the Lan­guage of Mesopotamia

Mod­ern Artists Show How the Ancient Greeks & Romans Made Coins, Vas­es & Arti­sanal Glass

The His­to­ry of West­ern Archi­tec­ture: From Ancient Greece to Roco­co (A Free Online Course)

What Shake­speare Sound­ed Like to Shake­speare: Recon­struct­ing the Bard’s Orig­i­nal Pro­nun­ci­a­tion

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 2 ) |

Why Incompetent People Think They’re Amazing: An Animated Lesson from David Dunning (of the Famous “Dunning-Kruger Effect”)

The busi­ness world has long had spe­cial jar­gon for the Kafkaesque incom­pe­tence bedev­il­ing the ranks of upper man­age­ment. There is “the Peter prin­ci­ple,” first described in a satir­i­cal book of the same name in 1968. More recent­ly, we have the pos­i­tive notion of “fail­ing upward.” The con­cept has inspired a mantra, “fail hard­er, fail faster,” as well as pop­u­lar books like The Gift of Fail­ure. Famed research pro­fes­sor, author, and TED talk­er Brené Brown has called TED “the fail­ure con­fer­ence,” and indeed, a “Fail­Con” does exist, “in over a dozen cities on 6 con­ti­nents around the globe.”

The can­dor about this most unavoid­able of human phe­nom­e­na may prove a boon to pub­lic health, low­er­ing lev­els of hyper­ten­sion by a sig­nif­i­cant mar­gin. But is there a dan­ger in prais­ing fail­ure too fer­vent­ly? (Samuel Beckett’s quote on the mat­ter, beloved by many a 21st cen­tu­ry thought leader, proves decid­ed­ly more ambigu­ous in con­text.) Might it present an even greater oppor­tu­ni­ty for peo­ple to “rise to their lev­el of incom­pe­tence”? Giv­en the preva­lence of the “Dun­ning-Kruger Effect,” a cog­ni­tive bias explained by John Cleese in a pre­vi­ous post, we may not be well-placed to know whether our efforts con­sti­tute suc­cess or fail­ure, or whether we actu­al­ly have the skills we think we do.

First described by social psy­chol­o­gists David Dun­ning (Uni­ver­si­ty of Michi­gan) and Justin Kruger (N.Y.U.) in 1999, the effect “sug­gests that we’re not very good at eval­u­at­ing our­selves accu­rate­ly.” So says the nar­ra­tor of the TED-Ed les­son above, script­ed by Dun­ning and offer­ing a sober reminder of the human propen­si­ty for self-delu­sion. “We fre­quent­ly over­es­ti­mate our own abil­i­ties,” result­ing in wide­spread “illu­so­ry supe­ri­or­i­ty” that makes “incom­pe­tent peo­ple think they’re amaz­ing.” The effect great­ly inten­si­fies at the low­er end of the scale; it is often “those with the least abil­i­ty who are most like­ly to over­rate their skills to the great­est extent.” Or as Cleese plain­ly puts it, some peo­ple “are so stu­pid, they have no idea how stu­pid they are.”

Com­bine this with the con­verse effect—the ten­den­cy of skilled indi­vid­u­als to under­rate themselves—and we have the pre­con­di­tions for an epi­dem­ic of mis­matched skill sets and posi­tions. But while imposter syn­drome can pro­duce trag­ic per­son­al results and deprive the world of tal­ent, the Dun­ning-Kruger effect’s worst casu­al­ties affect us all adverse­ly. Peo­ple “mea­sur­ably poor at log­i­cal rea­son­ing, gram­mar, finan­cial knowl­edge, math, emo­tion­al intel­li­gence, run­ning med­ical lab tests, and chess all tend to rate their exper­tise almost as favor­ably as actu­al experts do.” When such peo­ple get pro­mot­ed up the chain, they can unwit­ting­ly do a great deal of harm.

While arro­gant self-impor­tance plays its role in fos­ter­ing delu­sions of exper­tise, Dun­ning and Kruger found that most of us are sub­ject to the effect in some area of our lives sim­ply because we lack the skills to under­stand how bad we are at cer­tain things. We don’t know the rules well enough to suc­cess­ful­ly, cre­ative­ly break them. Until we have some basic under­stand­ing of what con­sti­tutes com­pe­tence in a par­tic­u­lar endeav­or, we can­not even under­stand that we’ve failed.

Real experts, on the oth­er hand, tend to assume their skills are ordi­nary and unre­mark­able. “The result is that peo­ple, whether they’re inept or high­ly skilled, are often caught in a bub­ble of inac­cu­rate self-per­cep­tion.” How can we get out? The answers won’t sur­prise you. Lis­ten to con­struc­tive feed­back and nev­er stop learn­ing, behav­ior that can require a good deal of vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty and humil­i­ty.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

John Cleese on How “Stu­pid Peo­ple Have No Idea How Stu­pid They Are” (a.k.a. the Dun­ning-Kruger Effect)

Research Finds That Intel­lec­tu­al Humil­i­ty Can Make Us Bet­ter Thinkers & Peo­ple; Good Thing There’s a Free Course on Intel­lec­tu­al Humil­i­ty

The Pow­er of Empa­thy: A Quick Ani­mat­ed Les­son That Can Make You a Bet­ter Per­son

Free Online Psy­chol­o­gy & Neu­ro­science Cours­es

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

The Van Gogh of Microsoft Excel: How a Japanese Retiree Makes Intricate Landscape Paintings with Spreadsheet Software

Just when you thought you’ve mas­tered Microsoft Excel–creating piv­ot tables, VLOOKUPs and the rest–you dis­cov­er the fea­ture you nev­er knew was there. The one that lets you cre­ate Japan­ese land­scape paint­ings. When Tat­suo Hori­uchi retired, he found that fea­ture and leaned on it, hard. Now 77 years old, he has enough land­scape paint­ings to stage an exhibition–all made with the point and click of a mouse.

So what’s the moral of this sto­ry? Maybe it’s you’re nev­er too old to make art. Or maybe it’s nev­er too late to mas­ter those hid­den fea­tures and push tech­nol­o­gy to the bleed­ing edge. In Tat­suo’s case, he’s doing both.

via Swiss Miss

Relat­ed Con­tent:

The Art of Hand-Drawn Japan­ese Ani­me: A Deep Study of How Kat­suhi­ro Otomo’s Aki­ra Uses Light

A Hyp­not­ic Look at How Japan­ese Samu­rai Swords Are Made

Down­load 2,500 Beau­ti­ful Wood­block Prints and Draw­ings by Japan­ese Mas­ters (1600–1915)

The Art of the Japan­ese Teapot: Watch a Mas­ter Crafts­man at Work, from the Begin­ning Until the Star­tling End

Enter a Dig­i­tal Archive of 213,000+ Beau­ti­ful Japan­ese Wood­block Prints

How Scientology Works: A Primer Based on a Reading of Paul Thomas Anderson’s Film, The Master

Paul Thomas Ander­son­’s The Mas­ter focus­es, with almost unbear­able inten­si­ty, on two char­ac­ters: Joaquin Phoenix’s impul­sive ex-sailor Fred­die Quell, and Philip Sey­mour Hoff­man’s Lan­cast­er Dodd, “the founder and mag­net­ic core of the Cause — a clus­ter of folk who believe, among oth­er things, that our souls, which pre­date the foun­da­tion of the Earth, are no more than tem­po­rary res­i­dents of our frail bod­i­ly hous­ing,” writes The New York­er’s Antho­ny Lane in his review of the film. “Any rela­tion to per­sons liv­ing, dead, or Sci­en­to­log­i­cal is, of course, entire­ly coin­ci­den­tal.”

Before The Mas­ter came out, rumor built up that the film mount­ed a scathing cri­tique of the Church of Sci­en­tol­ogy; now, we know that it accom­plish­es some­thing, par for the course for Ander­son, much more fas­ci­nat­ing and artis­ti­cal­ly idio­syn­crat­ic.

Few of its glo­ri­ous­ly 65-mil­lime­ter-shot scenes seem to have much to say, at least direct­ly, about Sci­en­tol­ogy or any oth­er sys­tem of thought. But per­haps the most mem­o­rable, in which Dodd, hav­ing dis­cov­ered Fred­die stown away aboard his char­tered yacht, offers him a ses­sion of “infor­mal pro­cess­ing,” does indeed have much to do with the faith found­ed by L. Ron Hub­bard — at least if you believe the analy­sis of Evan Puschak, bet­ter known as the Nerd­writer, who argues that the scene “bears an unmis­tak­able ref­er­ence to a vital activ­i­ty with­in Sci­en­tol­ogy called audit­ing.”

Just as Dodd does to Fred­die, “the audi­tor in Sci­en­tol­ogy asks ques­tions of the ‘pre­clear’ with the goal of rid­ding him of ‘engrams,’ the term for trau­mat­ic mem­o­ry stored in what’s called the ‘reac­tive mind.’ ” By thus “help­ing the pre­clear relive the expe­ri­ence that caused the trau­ma,” the audi­tor accom­plish­es a goal that, in a clip Puschak includes in the essay, Hub­bard lays out him­self: to “show a fel­low that he’s mock­ing up his own mind, there­fore his own dif­fi­cul­ties; that he is not com­plete­ly adrift in, and swamped by, a body.” Sci­en­to­log­i­cal or not, such notions do intrigue the des­per­ate, drift­ing Fred­die, and although the sto­ry of his and Dod­d’s entwine­ment, as told by Ander­son, still divides crit­i­cal opin­ion, we can say this for sure: it beats Bat­tle­field Earth.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

When William S. Bur­roughs Joined Sci­en­tol­ogy (and His 1971 Book Denounc­ing It)

The Career of Paul Thomas Ander­son: A 5‑Part Video Essay on the Auteur of Boo­gie Nights, Punch-Drunk Love, The Mas­ter, and More

Space Jazz, a Son­ic Sci-Fi Opera by L. Ron Hub­bard, Fea­tur­ing Chick Corea (1983)

Based in Seoul, Col­in Mar­shall writes and broad­casts on cities and cul­ture. His projects include the book The State­less City: a Walk through 21st-Cen­tu­ry Los Ange­les and the video series The City in Cin­e­ma. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

The Vibrant Color Wheels Designed by Goethe, Newton & Other Theorists of Color (1665–1810)

Maybe it’s the clois­tered headi­ness of Rene Descartes, or the rig­or­ous aus­ter­i­ty of Isaac New­ton; maybe it’s all the leath­ern breach­es, gray waist­coats, sal­low faces, and pow­dered wigs… but we tend not to asso­ciate Enlight­en­ment Europe with an explo­sion of col­or the­o­ry. Yet, philoso­phers of the late 17th and 18th cen­turies were obsessed with light and sight. Descartes wrote a trea­tise on optics, as did New­ton.

New­ton first described in his 1672 Opticks the “rev­o­lu­tion­ary new the­o­ry of light and colour,” the Uni­ver­si­ty of Cam­bridge Whip­ple Library writes, “in which he claimed that exper­i­ments with prisms proved that white light was com­prised of light of sev­en dis­tinct colours.” Sci­en­tists debat­ed Newton’s the­o­ry “well into the 19th cen­tu­ry.”

One ear­ly oppo­nent famous­ly illus­trat­ed his rebut­tal. Poet, writer, and sci­en­tist Johann Wolf­gang von Goethe pub­lished The­o­ry of Col­ors (see here), with its care­ful­ly hand-drawn and col­ored dia­grams and wheels, in 1809. From New­ton’s time onward, col­or the­o­rists elab­o­rat­ed pre­vail­ing con­cepts with col­or wheels, the first attrib­uted to New­ton in 1704 (and drawn in black and white, above).

Newton’s wheel “arranged red, orange, yel­low, green, blue, indi­go, and vio­let into a nat­ur­al pro­gres­sion on a rotat­ing disk.” Four years lat­er, painter Claude Boutet made his 7‑color and 12-col­or cir­cles (top), based on Newton’s the­o­ries. Artists, chemists, map­mak­ers, poets, even ento­mol­o­gists… every­one seemed to have a pet the­o­ry of col­or, gen­er­al­ly accom­pa­nied by elab­o­rate col­ored charts and dia­grams.

The col­or wheel was one among many forms—which often pre­sent­ed con­trast­ing the­o­ries, like that of Jacques-Fabi­en Gau­ti­er, who argued that black and white were pri­ma­ry col­ors. But the wheel, and Newton’s basic ideas about it, have endured almost unchanged. The wheel fur­ther up (third one from top) by British ento­mol­o­gist Moses Har­ris from 1776 shows Newton’s 7‑color scheme sim­pli­fied to the 6 pri­ma­ry and sec­ondary col­ors we usu­al­ly see, arranged in the com­ple­men­tary and anal­o­gous scheme, with ter­tiary gra­da­tions between them. Anoth­er ento­mol­o­gist, Ignaz Schif­fer­müller, drew the 12-col­or wheel right above.

Col­or is always rep­re­sen­ta­tive. Newton’s orig­i­nal wheel includ­ed “musi­cal notes cor­re­lat­ed with col­or.” By the end of the 18th cen­tu­ry, col­or the­o­ry had become increas­ing­ly tied to psy­cho­log­i­cal the­o­ries and typolo­gies, as in the wheel above, the “rose of tem­pera­ments,” made by Goethe and Friedrich Schiller in 1789 to illus­trate “human occu­pa­tions and char­ac­ter traits,” the Pub­lic Domain Review notes, includ­ing “tyrants, heroes, adven­tur­ers, hedo­nists, lovers, poets, pub­lic speak­ers, his­to­ri­ans, teach­ers, philoso­phers, pedants, rulers,” grouped into the four tem­pera­ments of humoral the­o­ry.

It’s a fair­ly short leap from these psy­cholo­gies of col­or to those used by adver­tis­ers and com­mer­cial design­ers in the 20th century—or from the artists and sci­en­tists’ col­or the­o­ries to abstract expres­sion­ism, the Bauhaus school, and the chemists and pho­tog­ra­phers who recre­at­ed the col­ors of the world on film. (Goethe’s col­or wheel, below, from The­o­ry of Col­or, illus­trates his chap­ter on “Alle­gor­i­cal, sym­bol­ic, and mys­ti­cal use of colour.”) See more ear­ly col­or wheels, like Philipp Otto Runge’s 1810 Far­benkugel, as well as oth­er con­cep­tu­al col­or schemes, at the Pub­lic Domain Review.

via Pub­lic Domain Review

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Goethe’s The­o­ry of Col­ors: The 1810 Trea­tise That Inspired Kandin­sky & Ear­ly Abstract Paint­ing

How Tech­ni­col­or Rev­o­lu­tion­ized Cin­e­ma with Sur­re­al, Elec­tric Col­ors & Changed How We See Our World

A Pre-Pan­tone Guide to Col­ors: Dutch Book From 1692 Doc­u­ments Every Col­or Under the Sun

Sir Isaac Newton’s Papers & Anno­tat­ed Prin­cip­ia Go Dig­i­tal

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

The Case for Why Kraftwerk May Be the Most Influential Band Since the Beatles

They are per­for­mance artists of self-parody—four stiff Teu­ton­ic robots (some­times played by actu­al robots), stand­ing behind drum machines and sequencers, push­ing but­tons and singing things like “Wir fahr’n fahr’n fahr’n auf der Auto­bahn” and “it’s more fun to com­pute.” As if the Beach Boys had been reimag­ined from bro­ken mem­o­ry by Ger­man androids thou­sands of years in the future. Onstage, they match or exceed the com­mit­ment of lat­er musi­cal-the­atri­cal acts they inspired like the Blue Man Group. Kraftwerk may be the most Ger­man of con­tri­bu­tions to pop­u­lar cul­ture since Wag­n­er.

For all their com­put­er­ized indus­tri­al campi­ness, they real­ly did come from the future, or they either antic­i­pat­ed or invent­ed it, depend­ing on your point of view. Kraftwerk (mean­ing “pow­er sta­tion”) “essen­tial­ly cre­at­ed the son­ic blue­print from which the British new roman­tic and tech­no-pop move­ments arose, and pro­vid­ed the essen­tial tech­nol­o­gy for much of hip-hop,” writes the Trouser Press Record Guide.

In addi­tion to birthing Depeche Mode and Soft Cell’s synth pop and the smooth robo-funk of Afri­ka Bambaataa’s sem­i­nal “Plan­et Rock,” the band built the archi­tec­ture of post-punk, tech­no, acid house, and Brit­pop with their exper­i­ments through­out the 70s and 80s, includ­ing the infa­mous “Auto­bahn.”

Kraftwerk began as two long-haired stu­dents, Ralf Hüt­ter and Flo­ri­an Schnei­der, who met in Dus­sel­dorf in 1969, play­ing exper­i­men­tal music with elec­tric, acoustic, and elec­tron­ic instru­ments and with a vari­ety of musi­cians, includ­ing gui­tarist Michael Rother and drum­mer Klaus Dinger. In Dinger’s pound­ing, repet­i­tive drum­ming, they found their mekanik sound as ear­ly as 1970 (above), but had not yet tran­si­tioned into pop, or the clean-cut suit and tie look, until ful­ly absorb­ing the influ­ence of British artists Gilbert and George and receiv­ing the guid­ance of super­pro­duc­er Con­ny Plank. The ear­ly incar­na­tion of Kraftwerk—along with oth­er so-called ear­ly “Krautrock” groups like Can, and espe­cial­ly Rother and Dinger’s huge­ly influ­en­tial, if obscure, NEU!—cre­at­ed the scaf­fold­ing for bands from Joy Divi­sion to Sui­cide to Son­ic Youth to Stere­o­lab (and the hun­dreds and hun­dreds of bands those bands inspired).

The dri­ving “motorik” beat played by Dinger, and lat­er by a drum machine, has been described by Bri­an Eno as one of the three great beats of the 70s, next to Clyde Stubblefield’s funk and Tony Allen’s Afrobeat. But the band’s oth­er, song-ori­ent­ed ele­ments are just as influ­en­tial for dif­fer­ent rea­sons. In “Auto­bahn,” they use a more typ­i­cal beat, slowed to a leisure­ly cruise. Their dead­pan sprechge­sang over an entire­ly syn­the­sized pop com­po­si­tion set the tem­plate for gen­er­a­tions. “They were the first band to embrace mod­ern technology—not only in the instru­ments they played, but in the sub­ject mat­ter of their songs,” William Cook writes at The Spec­ta­tor, who argues that the “po-faced kraut-rock­ers have become the most influ­en­tial pop group of all time.”

While “today urban alien­ation is a com­mon theme in pop music… back in the 1970s they seemed so avant-garde, it was almost impos­si­ble to take them seri­ous­ly.” Those who know lit­tle of their lega­cy may still find this to be the case. A stiff satir­i­cal joke play­ing with Ger­man stereo­types as much as Mon­ty Python telegraphed broad­ly hilar­i­ous ver­sions of Eng­lish­ness. But they are not soul­less pranksters, but bril­liant musi­cians whose finest work—like 1981’s “Com­put­er Love,” from the album of the same name—is “cold, clean and clear—and won­der­ful­ly har­mo­nious.” These haunt­ing songs con­tain all of the ennui of the inter­net-dat­ing age, before the inter­net (“I call this num­ber / For a data date.”), the musi­cal fore­bear of Her.

Cook argues that Kraftwerk did “more to shape mod­ern music than any­thing since the Bea­t­les,” an idea he shares with many oth­er crit­ics, such as the L.A. Times’ Ran­dall Roberts, who names 1977’s “Trans Europe Express” as “the most impor­tant pop album of the last 40 years” and the “first high-art elec­tron­ic pop record.” Look­ing on the album’s cov­er like com­put­er pro­gram­mers on their way to the prom, Kraftwerk, Roberts insists, was as influ­en­tial as the exper­i­ments of Steve Jobs and Steve Woz­ni­ak around the same time. Dis­miss these seem­ing­ly hyper­bol­ic com­par­isons if you will, but con­sid­er the fish who do not know what water is. If you were born in the mid-sev­en­ties or lat­er, there’s nev­er been a time in your life when you haven’t heard the ele­ments of Kraftwerk’s alien­at­ed, ultra-mod­ern, and—at its best, a lit­tle tongue-in-cheek—sound com­ing from car, home, dance club, or shop­ping mall speak­ers.

So much more than a nov­el­ty act, the band cre­at­ed the gor­geous sounds of Euro­pean elec­tron­ic pop that defined the 80s, espe­cial­ly with sin­gles like “Com­put­er Love” and “Tour de France.” Their styl­ish rev­o­lu­tion nev­er stopped, though they with­drew for a few years only to return in the 90s and 2000s with ful­ly updat­ed sounds, and always with a per­fect­ly syn­chro­nous vision. When Schnieder briefly left to pur­sue a solo career, The Inde­pen­dent remarked, “it has appar­ent­ly tak­en Schnei­der and his musi­cal part­ner Ralf Hüt­ter, four decades to dis­cov­er musi­cal dif­fer­ences.” They have con­tin­ued to tour, now in light-up, neo­prene body­suits, like robot surfers, who might be mis­tak­en for Daft Punk or any num­ber of oth­er sim­i­lar major dance music super­stars…. Except that Kraftwerk got there first, and, many a die-hard fan would argue, did it best.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Kraftwerk’s First Con­cert: The Begin­ning of the End­less­ly Influ­en­tial Band (1970)

Kraftwerk Plays a Live 40-Minute Ver­sion of their Sig­na­ture Song “Auto­bahn:” A Sound­track for a Long Road Trip (1974)

Kraftwerk’s “The Robots” Per­formed by Ger­man First Graders in Adorable Card­board Robot Out­fits

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

A Salute to Every Frame a Painting: Watch All 28 Episodes of the Finely-Crafted (and Now Concluded) Video Essay Series on Cinema

Doc­u­men­taries about film itself have exist­ed for decades, but only with the advent of short-form inter­net video — pre­ced­ed by the advents of pow­er­ful desk­top edit­ing soft­ware and high-qual­i­ty home-video for­mats — did the form of the cin­e­ma video essay that we know today emerge. Over the past few years, the Youtube chan­nel Every Frame a Paint­ing has become one of the mod­ern cin­e­ma video essay’s most respect­ed pur­vey­ors, exam­in­ing every­thing from how edi­tors think to the bland music of super­hero films to why Van­cou­ver nev­er plays itself to the sig­na­ture tech­nique of auteurs like Mar­tin Scors­ese, Jack­ie Chan, and, yes, Michael Bay.

Alas, Every Frame a Paint­ing has come to an end. “When we start­ed this YouTube project, we gave our­selves one sim­ple rule: if we ever stopped enjoy­ing the videos, we’d also stop mak­ing them,” says series co-cre­ator Tay­lor Ramos. “And one day, we woke up and felt it was time.” 

She says it in the nev­er-pro­duced script for a con­clud­ing episode, a text that takes us on a jour­ney from Every Frame a Paint­ing’s incep­tion — born, as co-cre­ator Tony Zhou puts it, out of frus­tra­tion at hav­ing to “dis­cuss visu­al ideas with non-visu­al peo­ple” — through its evo­lu­tion into a series about film form rather than con­tent (“most YouTube videos seemed to focus on sto­ry and char­ac­ter, so we went in the oppo­site direc­tion”) to its con­clu­sion.

Just as Every Frame a Paint­ing’s episodes reveal to us how movies work, this final script reveals to us how Every Frame a Paint­ing works — or more specif­i­cal­ly, what fac­tors led to its video essays look­ing and feel­ing like they do. “Near­ly every styl­is­tic deci­sion you see about the chan­nel ‚” Zhou says by way of giv­ing one exam­ple,  “was reverse-engi­neered from YouTube’s Copy­right ID,” try­ing to find ways around the plat­for­m’s auto­mat­ic copy­right-vio­la­tion detec­tion sys­tem that would occa­sion­al­ly reject even the kind of fair use they were doing. Oth­er choic­es they made more delib­er­ate­ly, such as to do old-fash­ioned library research when­ev­er pos­si­ble. “It’s very tempt­ing to use Google because it’s so quick and it’s right there,” says Zhou in a much-high­light­ed pas­sage, “but that’s exact­ly why you shouldn’t go straight to it.”

What­ev­er the ori­gins of Zhou and Ramos’ rig­or­ous process, it has end­ed up pro­duc­ing a series great­ly appre­ci­at­ed by film­go­ers and film­mak­ers alike. Binge-watch all 28 of Every Frame a Paint­ing’s episodes (up top)— which will explain to you dra­mat­ic strug­gle as seen in The Silence of the Lambs, how the movies have depict­ed tex­ting, the cin­e­mat­ic pos­si­bil­i­ties of the chair, and much more besides — and you’ll end up with, at the very least, an equiv­a­lent of a few semes­ters of film-school edu­ca­tion. And maybe, just maybe, you’ll come away with the idea for a cin­e­ma video essay series of your own.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Every Frame a Paint­ing Explains the Film­mak­ing Tech­niques of Mar­tin Scors­ese, Jack­ie Chan, and Even Michael Bay

The Alche­my of Film Edit­ing, Explored in a New Video Essay That Breaks Down Han­nah and Her Sis­ters, The Empire Strikes Back & Oth­er Films

Why Mar­vel and Oth­er Hol­ly­wood Films Have Such Bland Music: Every Frame a Paint­ing Explains the Per­ils of the “Temp Score”

How the Coen Broth­ers Put Their Remark­able Stamp on the “Shot Reverse Shot,” the Fun­da­men­tal Cin­e­mat­ic Tech­nique

Buster Keaton: The Won­der­ful Gags of the Found­ing Father of Visu­al Com­e­dy

How Orson Welles’ F for Fake Teach­es Us How to Make the Per­fect Video Essay

Van­cou­ver Nev­er Plays Itself

Based in Seoul, Col­in Mar­shall writes and broad­casts on cities and cul­ture. His projects include the book The State­less City: a Walk through 21st-Cen­tu­ry Los Ange­les and the video series The City in Cin­e­ma. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

How Technicolor Revolutionized Cinema with Surreal, Electric Colors & Changed How We See Our World

Though only one process in a very long his­to­ry of film col­or­ing tech­niques, from hand-tint­ing to chem­i­cal and mechan­i­cal means, Tech­ni­col­or has had the most influ­ence of them all. Dur­ing the Gold­en Age of cin­e­ma, the 1930s and 40s, the tech­nol­o­gy was “undoubt­ed­ly,” write Kris­ten Thomp­son and David Bor­d­well in their Film His­to­ry, “the most strik­ing inno­va­tion” of the era, and it came to dom­i­nate by way of mas­sive hit films like The Wiz­ard of Oz and Gone with the Wind. It didn’t hurt that “the Tech­ni­col­or com­pa­ny monop­o­lized the process, sup­ply­ing all cam­eras, pro­vid­ing super­vi­sors for each pro­duc­tion, and pro­cess­ing and print­ing the film.”

But Tech­ni­col­or didn’t arise overnight. Found­ed in 1914, the Tech­ni­col­or com­pa­ny pro­duced col­or films for two decades that were “still exper­i­men­tal,” notes Atlantic edi­tor Adri­enne LaFrance, “often­times to the point of being absurd.” But by the mid-30s, Tech­ni­col­or No. IV—which used prisms to split the light onto three strips of film for the three pri­ma­ry colors—could pro­duce hyper­re­al, strik­ing­ly beau­ti­ful images. By 1939, when audi­ences saw the yel­low brick road, lion, scare­crow, green-faced wicked witch, and those sparkling ruby slip­pers come alive before their eyes, Tech­ni­col­or had tri­umphed.

In the video essay above from Vox, Phil Edwards explains what this means, and how “the tech­nol­o­gy shaped the look of the twen­ti­eth cen­tu­ry,” and debunks three mis­con­cep­tions about The Wiz­ard of Oz, includ­ing the idea that it was the first Tech­ni­col­or movie. Edwards explains the ori­gins of the com­pa­ny with three col­leagues from M.I.T., from which the “Tech” part of the name derived, and how the three-strip process came into its own sev­en years before The Wiz­ard of Oz, in a 1932 Dis­ney car­toon called “Flow­ers and Trees.” This ani­ma­tion was the first to fea­ture the three-strip inno­va­tion, which used an “insane­ly dif­fi­cult” dye-trans­fer process. (In the fol­low-up video below, Edwards address­es com­ments, ques­tions, and cor­rec­tions to his essay above.)

Despite Tech­ni­col­or IV’s advance, live-action films through­out the 30s still used ear­li­er fea­tures of the tech­nique, “amp­ing up” the con­trast with a black and white lay­er of film under­neath the col­or. Oth­er tech­ni­cal lim­i­ta­tions con­tributed to Technicolor’s dis­tinc­tive, eye-pop­ping look. The Wiz­ard of Oz, for exam­ple, does not actu­al­ly move from black and white to col­or when Dorothy leaves her dis­placed Kansas house and walks into Oz. Instead, the film­mak­ers paint­ed the set sepia and used a Judy Gar­land dou­ble (also paint­ed). Mas­sive, and mas­sive­ly loud, cam­eras and a con­sid­er­able expense added more bur­dens for Tech­ni­col­or film­mak­ing, but the advan­tages out­weighed these prob­lems, Edwards argues, includ­ing the abil­i­ty to adjust the dyes to use col­or in strik­ing­ly dif­fer­ent ways from movie to movie.

Bril­liant, over­sat­u­rat­ed greens, yel­lows, and reds in films like The Wiz­ard of Oz and Sin­gin’ in the Rain led to new ways of using col­or to tell sto­ries, such as those per­fect­ed by Stan­ley Kubrick over 40 years after Tech­ni­col­or IV’s debut. “The three-col­or process,” LaFrance explains, “cre­at­ed films punc­tu­at­ed by col­ors so elec­tric they were sur­re­al.” Imag­ine the effects of these visions on young impres­sion­able audi­ences in the for­ties and fifties—who went on to design the look of the six­ties and sev­en­ties. We may for­get that the dawn of Tech­ni­col­or “was itself a reflec­tion of film process­es that cre­at­ed a rich­er, col­or-flood­ed ver­sion of the real world,” yet both film and the design of the real world came to look the way they did due in large part to Tech­ni­col­or film.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

How Film­mak­ers Like Kubrick, Jodor­owsky, Taran­ti­no, Cop­po­la & Miyaza­ki Use Col­or to Tell Their Sto­ries

The Col­or Palettes of Your Favorite Films: The Roy­al Tenen­baums, Reser­voir Dogs, A Clock­work Orange, Blade Run­ner & More

Ear­ly Exper­i­ments in Col­or Film (1895–1935)

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast
Open Culture was founded by Dan Colman.