The SPECTROTONE will change your life

Instruments don't sound the same throughout their ranges. Tone color is a product not only of the instrument's timbre but also the specific pitch it's playing.

Many orchestration texts show instruments, and especially the woodwinds, divided into tonecolor ranges. Here is Rimsky-Korsakov's analysis of the flute:

For the purposes of orchestration (creating good blend and balance) the flute in these 3 octaves might as well be three different instruments. For example the flute in its third (bright, clear) octave blends well with the oboe, while flute in its lowest (breathy, soft) octave will be swamped by the oboe's sound. And so on - the same principles apply to the brass and (somewhat) to the strings.

I recently got in the mail the Lange Spectrotone Chart. This is a chart devised by an LA orchestrator/arranger in 1943.

Simply put, it's genius. Lange takes this basic idea and runs with it - all the way down the football field. He takes each pitch of each instrument (even each string of the stringed instruments) and assigns it a basic color.

For any ONE instrument this analysis is not much of a breakthrough. For example Lange divides the flute into three main registers (BLUE, GREEN, and YELLOW) whose ranges are exactly as Rimsky laid them out.

What's cool is that you can see what OTHER instruments have "blue" registers, where they are, and so on. Lange calls his chart a "thesaurus for orchestral tone-coloring" which is a pretty neat metaphor. He identified two main kinds of tone-blending. The first is:

Perfect: two instruments in the same tone color, e.g. both playing "blue" notes.

This could be unison doubling, harmony, octave doubling, doesn't matter - the notes have the same tone color so they will blend nicely.

The second kind of match is:

Close: a blue instrument plus a green or purple instrument.

But there's one more kind of match. Lange also gives you COMPLEMENTARY colors along the range of each instrument in addition to the "main" tone color. This allows a third kind of pairing:

Complementary: an instrument whose complementary tone color is the same as the MAIN tone color of another instrument.

----

To give you an example, I've put part of the chart into Finale.

The actual thing is a very pretty bar chart (spanning the range of a piano keyboard) but I find this arrangement easier to read.

The top line shows all instruments which have "Green" registers sketched out together (and the same for "Blue," "Orange," and so on).

The bottom line shows the instruments which have ranges COMPLEMENTARY to Green, or complementary to Red, Orange, etc.

Here's how you use the chart.

Let's say we have this melody for Flute:

(the "Mission" theme from NBC Nightly News)

We can see that this fits very nicely in the Green register of the Flute. What other instruments should we add?

With a glance at the chart, we can make:

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. There are so many "dos and donts" that you pick up from orchestration books, from score study and from trial & error in your own pieces, that are all united by one grand theory on this single chart. The affinity of oboes and trumpets, or of horns and cellos, pops out at you. The soundness of octave doublings like Flute/Clarinet and Trumpet/Trombone is clearly evident. 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. The fact that Lange dissected the strings down to EACH STRING is just icing on the cake.

I can't believe this thing is being sold for 12$. My orchestration textbook cost 95$.

What's REALLY weird is that it's not well-known & widely-published given the obvious utility. 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: if you do NOT know instrumentation this chart will be worth much less to you. If you ONLY go by the color-pairings you will run into trouble as the chart makes no allowance for dynamic/intensity differences (that would be a third variable that would make the chart much more complicated). I think you have to have instrumentation and probably some orchestration under your belt before you can "grok" this chart.

But for me, this handy tool is invaluable. I'm taping it right above my computer :)

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.

How did he develop this? Fourier? If it's not hogwash, I might actually be interested in this.

So long as it doesn't actually tell you what to write, it may be cute as an educational aid thing... but then again I'm not keen on colors, specially when there's no such thing as a "good orchestration" either and everything is relative.

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.e. spectral analyses) needed for this, I'd much rather have the data itself and judge it however I want. 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: The composers who -do- want to get into the details of timbre/mixing/spectral composition probably want more than just everything reduced to a single (however cleverly devised) dimension.

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.

P.S. 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 100% on that. But a quickreference for timbre would be nice, so long as it's accurate.

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.

collecting the data (i.e. spectral analyses) needed for this

Does it need to be scientific to be accurate?

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.g. difference between a clarinet's chalumeau and clarion registers) and others that are more subtle (different ranges of a horn, different timbres of cello strings).

I assume Berlioz and R-K figured out what worked and what didn't by trying it out... they shared their years of practical knowledge in their books just like this orchestrator is sharing his in his chart.

I'd just be very wary of trusting such charts blindly.

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!) or where I am least familiar with the playing technique and the difficulties/opportunities of each register (horn).

But I guess this book isn't really meant for things like spectral composition anyways

It isn't related to spectral composition, I suppose "Spectratone" was somebody's idea of a catchy brand name in 1940s America :P

there's no such thing as a "good orchestration" either and everything is relative.

Ha. Ha. Hahahaha. :D Oh SSC...

I'm not keen on colors

Your loss - the last famous+successful composer for orchestra who wasn't a gifted colorist, or didn't at least have a phase in his career where he was "keen on colors," was prolly Brahms.

And if you look at who's famous today - Adams, Corigliano, Zwilich, Williams - all peerless orchestrators.

The musical descendants of R-K, Ravel, Stravinsky, Mahler, Prokofiev, Debussy, have pretty much taken over. 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 :toothygrin:

Color is half of composition now. And more than half the appeal for me :)

I assume Berlioz and R-K figured out what worked and what didn't by trying it out... they shared their years of practical knowledge in their books just like this orchestrator is sharing his in his chart.

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? "Rules of thumb" aren't always sufficient.

It isn't related to spectral composition, I suppose "Spectratone" was somebody's idea of a catchy brand name in 1940s America :P

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.

By blending people usually mean the two sounds combine into a single heard tone with a "mixed" timbre (Fl+Cl = very homogenous, Trombone + Oboe = not homogenous at all). I imagine that describing in terms of sound waves how that actually WORKS is very complicated. But I'm not sure the orchestrator needs that specific scientific knowledge.

The colors in the chart are given descriptive names (rich, dull, bright) but I agree that like RK's "breathy" and "clear" these are close to useless unless you have actually worked with / heard the instrument a lot and have an actual sound file in your brain that you can pull up.

More important forms of knowledge are: when Instrument A and Instrument B play together will they blend or be heard distinctly? 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". Berlioz may have had a lot of this data internalised (at least as much as he needed/was interested in for his own purposes). 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.

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.

Indeed.

Ha. Ha. Hahahaha. :D Oh SSC...

Oh Weca, I'm sorry. I forget you aren't equipped to handle concepts like those... Otherwise, why laugh?

Your loss - the last famous+successful composer for orchestra who wasn't a gifted colorist, or didn't at least have a phase in his career where he was "keen on colors," was prolly Brahms.

And if you look at who's famous today - Adams, Corigliano, Zwilich, Williams - all peerless orchestrators.

The musical descendants of R-K, Ravel, Stravinsky, Mahler, Prokofiev, Debussy, have pretty much taken over. 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 :toothygrin:

Color is half of composition now. And more than half the appeal for me :)

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.

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.

I agree with this. First thing I think of is "Did I try this before with an orchestra? How did it work out?"

Ligeti, Pendercki,

...who were expert colorists?

...who were expert colorists?

Uh, ok so what are you talking about with "colorist" again? Working with actual colors (color coded notes...?) or writing for orchestra? Stop making up words. I meant I didn't like using colors on a score/whatever, as a way of teaching in general. It's a little too scholastic for my taste and it's not really necessary.

Oh i thought it was graphic like ... i dunno. It's just scales with colored noteheads? Weak.

Oh i thought it was graphic like ... i dunno. It's just scales with colored noteheads? Weak.

That's what I was getting at.

I agree with this. First thing I think of is "Did I try this before with an orchestra? How did it work out?"

...who were expert colorists?

lol @ you ignoring the entire rest of the post

(glad I could contribute)

lol @ you ignoring the entire rest of the post

(glad I could contribute)

Don't bother, he just tends to laugh when he doesn't understand things and I'd rather not have three paragraphs of LOL as a response.

lol @ you ignoring the entire rest of the post

(glad I could contribute)

The entire rest of it? You mean this?:

Indeed.

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.

There wasn't much to reply to was there?

Other than the implied bitterness: "Oh, fame and success are subjective or irrelevant, and if I refuse to acknowledge that people are famous and successful, then they mustn't be!" That's a load. It is better to learn from people who are fantastically more successful than you, than to redefine success so you feel better about your life.

I also didn't reply to the statement "there is no such thing as good orchestration either and everything is relative" that SSC posted on the last page (direct quote). Because why bother? It's just not true, it's a slight to orchestrators everywhere.

SSC acts like YC is his own little troll playground, I've put him on Ignore and just won't reply to anymore of his BS.

The entire rest of it? You mean this?:

There wasn't much to reply to was there?

Other than the implied bitterness: "Oh, fame and success are subjective or irrelevant, and if I refuse to acknowledge that people are famous and successful, then they mustn't be!" That's a load. It is better to learn from people who are fantastically more successful than you, than to redefine success so you feel better about your life.

I also didn't reply to the statement "there is no such thing as good orchestration either and everything is relative" that SSC posted on the last page (direct quote). Because why bother? It's just not true, it's a slight to orchestrators everywhere.

SSC acts like YC is his own little troll playground, I've put him on Ignore and just won't reply to anymore of his BS.

oh my God why are you a reviewer

how many times have we had this discussion?

qft

for realz

oh my God why are you a reviewer

Perhaps because he's a better reviewer than you are?

oh my God why are you a reviewer

Why do you even post? Serious question - all you ever seem to do in this forum is talk trash. What's the appeal?

You have two choices, either contribute something on topic to this thread or go troll someone else's. Otherwise I'd rather have this thread closed and report you to an admin.

Certain instruments "go well together" just like certain notes "go well together". But only because we say it does...

Is it only because we say it does? Harmonies sound different based on the ratios between note-frequencies... Tones blend or clash based on the combination of their sound waves. Two tones of radically different timbres will always be heard distinctly no matter what century it is (and like timbres will blend). Sound doesn't change... Looking back, the only real allowance we should make in evaluating orchestration is for the differing sound/technique of period instruments.

For example Beethoven is a terrible orchestrator from the POV of someone playing a modern valved horn or a modern trumpet (awful voice leading, leaps of 7ths etc) but not so from the POV of someone playing a brass instrument of the era, whose limitations are built into B's music.

At the same time, whatever orchestra plays his music, it's too obvious that Beethoven composed at the piano (just like it's obvs that Bruckner had all his ideas at the organ) and that he didn't really care, at points, whether his orchestration was idiomatic or carefully balanced. Compare with Ravel... I'd say Ravel is a "better" orchestrator than Beethoven...

Is it only because we say it does? Harmonies sound different based on the ratios between note-frequencies... Tones blend or clash based on the combination of their sound waves. Two tones of radically different timbres will always be heard distinctly no matter what century it is (and like timbres will blend). Sound doesn't change... Looking back, the only real allowance we should make in evaluating orchestration is for the differing sound/technique of period instruments.

For example Beethoven is a terrible orchestrator from the POV of someone playing a modern valved horn or a modern trumpet (awful voice leading, leaps of 7ths etc) but not so from the POV of someone playing a brass instrument of the era, whose limitations are built into B's music.

At the same time, whatever orchestra plays his music, it's too obvious that Beethoven composed at the piano (just like it's obvs that Bruckner had all his ideas at the organ) and that he didn't really care, at points, whether his orchestration was idiomatic or carefully balanced. Compare with Ravel... I'd say Ravel is a "better" orchestrator than Beethoven...

Wait, are you seriously implying that their is an objective criteria in which notes "sound good"? I guess my taste in music is objectively terrible then as I dig the sounds of major 7ths, tritones, and minor 9ths (especially in a non-tonal context).