The Spectrotone Chart PDF: for arranging, orchestration, recording and mixing. Originally created by Academy Award nominee Arthur Lange, former head of the . SAVE 25% ON SALE! The Spectrotone Chart PDF: for arranging, orchestration, recording and mixing. Originally created by Academy Award nominee Arthur. Is this an advanced version of the Spectrotone chart? I bought it from . I have also read the pdf files that came with the chart. dimtsak, Jul
|Language:||English, Spanish, German|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration Required]|
The Spectrotone Chart™, created by four-time Academy Award® nominee PDF Professional Mentor workbook, the Spectrotone Chart. Thus, the Spectrotone Chart can be used by music creators and engineers to better The 70th Anniversary Edition of the Spectrotone Chart has updated the. CP Spectrotone Chart and Orchestration Guide. Arthur Lange's analogy between visual color and tone- color. The chart portrays a graphic representation of.
What other instruments should we add? Perfect doublings by looking for other instruments with Green notes in this range. The Clarinet and Violin would work nicely in unison.
Putting the Bassoon one or two octaves below would also work. Close doublings by looking to neighboring colors namely Blue and Yellow. For example we could have the Clarinet play an octave below the Flute, or double the Flute with Viola.
Finally look at the bottom Green row for Complementary doublings. These include the Oboe and the Harp.
To be honest, studying this chart was kind of like being struck by lightning. The affinity of oboes and trumpets, or of horns and cellos, pops out at you.
The fact that Flutes, Clarinets and Oboes create an homogenous sound above the staff but blend quite poorly in the low range, is obvious from a glance at the colors of their ranges. I actually had this idea myself a long time ago, and made a similar chart but mine only covered the strings, which I know well, and it used descriptive words instead of colors.
Now some caveats: I think you have to have instrumentation and probably some orchestration under your belt before you can "grok" this chart. For me, the trouble in orchestration always comes after I've decided that this gorgeous melody will be played by horns.
Then the question is - what can I double it with in that range that will still sound good?
What instruments should carry the harmony to have a contrasting sound? Will this sound clear or muddy? With a glance at this chart actually, my Finale version of the chart which is more readable for me , those questions are answered. It's pretty amazing. So long as it doesn't actually tell you what to write, it may be cute as an educational aid thing It seems like a cool idea - and probably useful for a quick reference.
But personally, if someone's already going through the trouble collecting the data i. Sure, what you have here is much more precise than just saying "flutes and clarinets mix well" - but it's still a lot less precise than if you had the actual spectra of the instrument depending on their register and volume, which some other instrumentation texts do. And that is probably just the reason this one hasn't been more successful: Because obviously, such charts can never encompass things like the different spectral setup of different instruments such as the very strong second partial of double reeds, especially bassoons, or the clarinet spectrum which is based on strong odd partials , or the influence different dynamics have on the colour of an instrument which can be quite drastic , or the sound radiation in different registers, or the exact effects of combining more than a single instrument of a type, etc.
Such things can all be deduced from the analytical data some books give, but can't be summarized in just a single colour code.
But I guess this book isn't really meant for things like spectral composition anyways, but as an intuitive yet still informative guideline to common instrumental mixing practices. I guess it might be really good for that. I'd just be very wary of trusting such charts blindly. Also, it should of course be kept in mind that it's not always desired that instruments "melt together". Tones that are built from a clear core played by one instrument such as an oboe and surrounded by less defined "aura" or "mantle" such as played by the flute in a lower register, or a quiet horn are of course very important devices in instrumentation.
Of course this chart doesn't tell you that you have to melt stuff together, so that's not really a problem. And maybe that's even this "complementary colour" thingy - I'm not sure if I understood that right. Oh, certainly.
That's why I called it a "cool idea" in the first place! It certainly doesn't hurt to have more than one reference, with different levels of detail. R-K's rule that "a trumpet equals two horns" has never been tested by measuring decibels, so far as I know, but it's a good rule of thumb. There are many things in orchestration that are obvious e. I assume Berlioz and R-K figured out what worked and what didn't by trying it out There are some doublings I like and I've tried them out in real orchestras and they've worked that aren't indicated as possibilities at all, in this chart.
So yes - I wouldn't use it narrowly "if it's not here it's not allowed". For me, this chart is most useful in writing parts for the instruments where I'm always at a loss what to give them bassoons!
It isn't related to spectral composition, I suppose "Spectratone" was somebody's idea of a catchy brand name in s America: And if you look at who's famous today - Adams, Corigliano, Zwilich, Williams - all peerless orchestrators. It is difficult for us to perceive their complete conquest of music for the same reason someone standing in Des Moines can't see North America: Oh, sure. Berlioz, R-K, Strauss and all the other "classics" of instrumentation book authors certainly knew a lot concerning orchestration, just from experience.
But the point is that "it works" is not a very satisfying answer today. It may have been to some degree in their time, where there was some unity in what one wanted to achieve with orchestration, but it certainly isn't today.
A composer may have a very precise empirical knowledge of how an instrument sounds under which circumstances, but it's almost impossible to explain that to others in all detail without going into technical details. Summarizing timbre in a few words or colours just won't do it if you want to really know it. Unless you want to reduce it to "they mix well in this register" - which is both not perfectly clear in what it means, nor complete, since it ignores certain parameters, such as the ones I mentioned.
If you give the technical data however, everyone is free to draw her or his own conclusions, based on what one wants to achieve with a particular instrumentation - which may today go far beyond what was customary in Berlioz' times. The important question there is not whether the data was gathered scientifically even though that would give it a basic credibility right away , but whether it is conveyed in a manner that doesn't leave out potentially crucial information.
Learning by experience is still a perfectly valid method of learning orchestration, maybe an indispensable one to some degree.
But if we don't have an orchestra to experiment with daily and have to fill in the gap with books we should seek to get as much information through them as possible, no?
Oh, I wasn't mentioning Spectralism because of the name. Any kind of very detailed instrumentation that focuses on mixing instrument to achieve certain "colours" is "related to spectral composition" in a sense. But I'm not sure the orchestrator needs that specific scientific knowledge. More important forms of knowledge are: When two different sound masses from two groups of instruments are heard at the same time, which will be foregrounded?
And so on. Yeah, but the point is: There are many parameters that have an influence in the question of whether two instruments will "blend together".
To ensure that two particular instruments "blend together" in a very particular situation, playing a very particular thing, it requires the knowledge of a certain amount of "data".
But I'm sure he was unable to convey this all in that book - which is why many things turn into "rules of thumb". The -main- point however is that instrumentation isn't just about creating mixed timbres. Even if a trombone and an oboe don't sound homogenous that doesn't mean it doesn't matter what they sound like when playing in unison. Or what they sound like when played in fifths. Or what they sound like when playing from opposite corners in a room.
Or what two instruments that -do- "blend together" sound like precisely because obviously, besides "blending together", they will produce a certain sound in combination. Not every orchestrator may "need" that specific knowledge, as much as not every composer may "need" the knowledge of how to avoid parallel fifths - but it is a question of instrumentation that matters a lot in what sound finally appears, which many orchestrators may very well want to know. There simply are so many things that might matter to a particular composer of today that you can't know beforehand which knowledge he will "need" and which not.
But again: I'm not saying traditional orchestration books or this spectrotone are bad things. They definitely are very useful in many situations. The point is just that some things require more information. This is my own stick-in-the-mud moment - but I really think that no orchestrational guide is a substitute for exposure to and study of live orchestral music, and the memory of how an actual instrument sounds. Of course, orchestral guides are helpful for reference, or while developing a sense of orchestrational procedures, but in the end, I really think it's an experiential study.
Oh Weca, I'm sorry. I forget you aren't equipped to handle concepts like those Otherwise, why laugh? Yeah because popularity matters a lot in this kind of thing, lol. Likewise, "successful" is a subjective parameter. And Besides, I love how you only see the neoclassical or downright revivalist bit of the entire thing, ignoring completely very important composers like Ligeti, Pendercki, Berio, etc and what they did with orchestration.
I agree with this. First thing I think of is "Did I try this before with an orchestra? Lange's approach gives tone colors for each instrument and then shows where they blend within the same orchestral family and other families.
While I appreciate what you thought a course called Visual Orchestration would be about, I explained it. For those who want to learn orchestration by ear, Visual Orchestration 1 is the ticket because you don't have to read music to learn a lot to do a lot as it combines instrumentation, orchestration, composition and some recording information.
The focus is on the things you do by ear using the Spectrotone Chart as your visual guide. So why is it Visual Orchestration? For those who can't or poorly read music, using the 4-color Spectrotone Chart teaches you visually. So, I'm sorry you didn't read far enough, but it was explained in multiple places. The Spectrone Chart, as explained in the videos, shows three-part and five-part Span of Orchestration sub bass, low, medium, high, and very high and its application to orchestration and EQ'ing.
Not in Rimsky, by the way. As the author of the Professional Orchestration series and How Ravel Orchestrated: Mother Goose Suite, I frequently get email from folks who can't read music, do everything by ear, own a bunch of stuff and want to learn orchestration.
Since to fully learn orchestration you must be able to score read, Visual Orchestration is a gateway course that puts the person who works mostly by ear on the road to learning. As I said above, all orchestration takes place in the musical imagination and Visual Orchestration is a gateway course showing you how to learn orchestration with the aural skills you've already developed. Contrary to what you wrote above, what I covered in course 1 is not in any modern orchestration book.
I know because as I covered in Lecture 1, I have many of the orchestration books published since the s, so I know what I'm talking about. Additionally, nearly all of the orchestration books on the market today are more expensive than the course. There are three bundles with different prices. So what you wrote was wrong, and with all due respect, misleading to GearSlutz readers.
Whether you read or don't read music, you'll get gangbusters out of Visual Orchestration 2. Visual Orchestration 2 does exactly what you say it doesn't. You wrote: You expect visual demonstration with videos showing you in real time how to use different articulations in your DAW.
So first off, you DO learn the different articulations - for each orchestral section. With audio demos. The material is presented in such a way that you can use for both live performance and MIDI mock-ups. Bowings NOT articulations, how strings on the Strings are numbered, parts of the violin, violin tuning, easiest major and minor keys for the strings to perform in, the string bow, bowings by types, three bow positions, on the string bowings, two types of legato playing, multiple legato types in sample libraries, legatos and sustains, two pieces for legato study, detache: the missing bowing, detache types, staccato and staccato types, staccatos and repetitions, testing staccatos with Jupiter from the Planets, Off the string bowings, the need for testing legato bowings at various tempos, pizzicato, tremolos, measured tremolos, trills, spatial placement, two specialty bowings, briefly: divisi.