Bose Portable PA Knowledge - User contributions [en]

Leslie loudspeakers

2006-11-13T19:35:16Z

Clifford:

(This article is incomplete, awaiting figures at least)

'''UNEARTHING THE MYSTERIES OF THE LESLIE CABINET'''

== Updated and originally composed by Clifford A. Henricksen ==

== First published in Recording Engineer/Producer magazine, April 1981. ==

'''Introduction'''

The Leslie Rotating Tremolo Speaker System has produced the same unmistakable sound for so many musicians that its sound modulation effect has become an international institution for the recording and performing musical arts. Everything from the venerable Hammond B-3 organ, to human voices and electric guitars, have been processed by the Leslie Sound, and many have ended up on big hit records. Today, Leslie is no longer in business but many are in circulation, parts are available, other kinds of speakers that do the same thing are commercially available and there are many digital Leslie simulators available, some being very convincing. These are available in software, stand-alone signal processors, part of signal processing units as a selectable option and part of complete organ tone processors for stand-alone keyboards.

This article is an attempt to explain the mysteries and operating principles of the original Leslie, and includes a discussion of the Leslie Cabinet's practical use in both stage and studio situations.

My love-hate relationship with Leslie Speaker began with the purchase of a Hammond organ during the mid-Sixties. The salesman told me I would probably end up buying a Leslie for it, a statement that I dismissed as the usual sales banter. Besides, at the time I had no idea what a Leslie was anyway. The Hammond was purchased because that's what the Animals' organist, Alan Price, used on all the group's early hits, especially "The House of the Rising Sun." I saw the band live in Schenectady, New Youk, where they put a Hammond M-102 direct into a Fender Bandmaster Amp, and I had to have this sound. I soon discovered, however, that my new musical heroes had better sound. It wasn't long before I knew that Booker T. Jones, Felix Cavaliere, Gary Brooker and Billy Preston (and many others) were all using Leslies. This was The Sound!

My first Leslie, a single-speed Model 45 with a 40-watt tube amplifier sounded great, but it literally got lost in the roar of the Boston-based rock and roll band in which I was then playing. Two big Leslie Speakers were cumbersome to move, they weren't a big improvement in level (plus 3 dB), and the high-frequency drivers broke. From then on, it was guerilla speed shop tactics (mill the heads, oversized pistons, etc.), to the point where I could finally be heard over any guitar player. As a result, I became an expert at Leslie repair, modification and special use, occasionally even letting a few guitar notes into my beloved machines. I've spent the past 15 years in and out of the Music Business, both in studios and on stage. The significant part of this time was spent in some way dealing with Leslie Speaker Systems. As you might guess, this is a rock and roll story. I might as well show my bias here and now. With this in mind, here's what I have learned over the years.

'''== Principles of Operation =='''

First and foremost, the Leslie Rotating Speaker is designed as a sound modulation device. It is not a "Hi-fi" speaker, but rather a part of a musical instrument. You use a Leslie and an amplified musical instrument; typically an electric organ; to create an instrument with a unique sound. The Leslie does not “reproduce” the organ. Rather, it delivers the composite sound of the instrument modulated by the Leslie effect as a unique tone.
The Leslie Speaker System, thoughtfully named after its inventor, Don Leslie, operates on a simple principle: two different directional sound sources (high and low frequency sources) are rotated at constant (or selectable) speed around a fixed pivot point. Althought both sources are different, they both operate on the same principle: At a listening point some distance from these whirling affairs, four things happen. First, because the sources are directional, the intensity of the sound will be at a maximum when it points at the listener (or microphone). The sound intensity will increase as the rotating source approaches dead center, and decrease as it rotates past and away from this point. This is because the source gets closer as it points at the listener, and because it gets louder because it is a directional source pointed at the listener. The combined resultant effect is called amplitude modulation (AM), which is a feature on any guitar amp with a "tremolo" modulator.
However, the second and more important modulation effect is the Leslie's ability to create frequency modulation (FM). As the source rotates toward the listener, its relative velocity will increase the pitch of any tone it produces; as it rotates away, the pitch well be lowered. This is exactly the same Doppler effect that causes a train whistle (or any other sound on the train, such as grunting pigs, or shrieking passengers), to rise and then fall in pitch as the train approaches and then passes. A third effect is reflections inside the Leslie cabinet itself. Both high and low frequency Leslie sources are housed inside a (Beautiful, when new anyway) louvered cabinet. As the sound source directs musical tones as the sources rotate, complex reflections inside the cabinet further “complicate” the resultant tone that emanates from the louvers. Leslies that are constructed without louvers have the disadvantage of not having internal cabinet reflections and do not sound as “rich” as a Leslie with louvers. Fourth and last, if you are listening in a room with any significant reverberation or objects that can reflect sound (walls, chairs, etc) , a complete spatial modulation of the sound will happen, as sound is "shot" all around and goes through multiple reflections. In conclusion, the following are the combined effects that give the Leslie its characteristic sound:

1. AM or Amplitude Modulation
2. FM or Frequency Modulation
3. Internal cabinet reflections
4. Spatial modulation in a room

If you want a real treat of all kinds of bizarre whirling horns and things, order copies of Don Leslie's original U.S. Patents: RE#23,323 and 2,622,693, available from The United States Patent Office, Washington, D.C.20231, for a fee of 50 cents per copy. These patent specifications are incredibly entertaining documents, and a must for any Leslie fan.

== '''The Real-Life Leslie''' ==

A practical and commercial manifestation of the Leslie principle may take on many forms. Indeed, the manufacturer of Leslie Speakers, Electro Music, Inc. (later a division of Hammond Organ, then out of production), produced a wide variety of models. These include models with reverberation, triple channels, and rotating-cone speakers. However, any Leslie afficionado will tell you that the Leslie Models 145, 147, and 122 are the ones with "The Sound". All three Models share the same basic innards: a 40-watt monophonic tube amplifier; an 800 Hz 16-ohm passive crossover; a rotating treble horn and a rotating “scoop”, directing mostly midbass and midrange tones from a 15” bass speaker. Both rotating speakers are available with slow and fast A.C. induction motors. (Older Models 45, 47, and 22 are identical, except for having single-speed rotors.)
Furthermore, these Leslie models are similar in that they all have components mounted in a three-compartment cabinet. The top compartment houses the rotating high-frequency horn. The middle "box" houses the high- and low-frequency drivers and crossover and also serves as a vented box for the low-frequency driver. The bottom compartment houses the low-frequency rotor scoop and amplifier(s). Louvers routed into the walls of the top and bottom compartments let out treble and bass sound respectively. All the above speaker systems are virtually identical in terms of their use and sound quality. (The larger Models 147 and 122 allegedly have a better low-end.) Both high- and low-frequency speakers operate on the same principle: a stationary driver (loudspeaker) and a rotating acoustic "projector".

== The "Treble Rotor" ==

The Leslie's high-frequency unit is largely responsible for the "Leslie Sound". Because of this, some organists actually find that the bass rotor's slower response to speed changes is distracting, and will actually disconnect the bass rotor drive - especially when playing a bass line- so that the sound of the treble rotor is all they hear. Nevertheless, the treble unit consists of a stationary 3/4-inch-throat Jensen compression driver, connected to a vertical tube that acts as a thrust bearing (Figure 1). A twin-bell, molded black bakelite horn (later, injection-molded plastic), which starts vertically but flares horizontally, sits on this bearing/tube, and rotates via a two-speed A.C. induction motor fitted with three (selectable) drive pulleys. This motor drives the treble horn at fast or slow speeds via drive belt and belt tension spring. Direct current is sometimes applied to the "fast" motor so that it will slow down more quickly; this is called a "D.C. brake". Some organists have this feature disconnected, as they enjoy the relatively slow deceleration effects. The treble horn actually looks like two horn assemblies. In fact, only one is operable as a horn. The other side, a "dummy", acts as a counterweight or dynamic balancer, providing symmetric air drag at high speed. The resulting structure rotates smoothly and without eccentric "wobble" forces. It’s also amazingly quiet when you consider how large it is.

At the mouth of the horn is “diffuser cone”, which is supposed to widen the dispersion of the horn and make a "more musically pleasing tone". Actually, it does work. Figures 2 and 3 show typical polar response charts of a Leslie Horn with and without the deflector; the results are dramatic. The "without" curve of Figure 2 is typical of a "beamy" straight horn, with a lot of sound concentrated on-axis and very little sound off-axis. The "with" polar response curve of Figure 3 is almost omnidirectional; note, however, the "lobing" at higher frequencies. Any acoustical engineer would expect this device to lobe at the high end as the source becomes more like a ring or “doublet” in the horizontal. All in all, the diffuser makes the sound even more complicated and “rich”. As a horn for distributing clear sound, it’s a nightmare. But as a musical horn, it’s a beautiful thing. As the horn revolves, the sound will actually rise and fall a number of times in the frequency range of lobing, not to mention reflecting all over inside the louvered enclosure, giving the high frequency an even more characteristic sound.

The horn's so-called coverage angle is taken from polar response charts such as these; it is the included angle between -6dB points from the horn's on-axis level. Figure 4 and 5 show such coverage angles, compiled from a series of third-octave polar response curves. Note how the beamwidth gets smaller and smaller without the deflector. This means that if the deflectors are removed the sound will be much hotter on-axis, but much softer off-axis. Therefore, the AM portion of the Leslie Sound will be much more severe and "choppy", as many a rock and roller will tell you. Many Leslies played in clubs are faced backwards, with the top and bottom rear panels and deflectors removed, because the sound "cuts" better; an effect that translates as, "You can hear it better over the guitar player". This “high-frequency beaming” process will actually raise the on-axis sensitivity of any driver, as can be seen from the frequency-response curves of a University ID-40 driver (a respectable, but typical 3/4-inch throat PA unit) mounted on a Leslie horn with and without deflectors (Figures 6 and 7). It is interesting to note the extra sensitivity above 1.5 kHz that is available with the reflectors removed. Note also that the low-end - 800 Hz to 1.5 kHz - response isn't affected by removing the reflector, and that the response is ± 5 dB from 400 Hz to 10 kHz. Now, this entire discourse is based on the treble horn measured in an anechoic or non-reflecting, highly absorbent room. In real life, the horn mounted in a louvred wooden box, which means that the picture changes somewhat with resulting internal reflections. The diffuser cone does another important thing: it shifts the apparent sound source position on the horn. With the cone in, more of the entire range of the horn will appear to come from the mouth of the horn; with it out, however, while lower frequencies still appear to come from the mouth, higher and higher frequencies will appear to come from progressively further down the throat. They therefore appear to be rotating at a smaller radius, which results in less frequency modulation effects. Note that if the directional sound source was rotating at dead center, there would be no FM effect at all. So here you are faced with a choice: leave the deflectors in place and the result will be maximum frequency modulation, and a relatively lower amplitude modulation, because of the very wide directional characteristics of the horn. Take the deflectors out and some of the FM will be lost, but you obtain very strong AM - especially at higher frequencies - due to the very narrow beam width of the naked horn. My own ears tell me that the deflectors should be kept on, but you make your choice and you take your chances!

== '''The "Bass Rotor"''' ==

In the lower compartment of the Leslie box, a horizontally-rotating wooden drum is mounted on a vertical shaft, and covered with a black scrim cloth, which provides lower aerodynamic drag on the drum at fast speed (Figure 8). It also works as intended. At the drum's center is a cylinder fitted with a "scoop" which, as in the treble unit, starts vertically (the bass driver faces downward into its entrance) and projects sound horizontally via the curved scoop surface. Like the treble rotor, the low-frequency drum assembly is driven with a two-speed motor, and ends up at approximately the same rotational speed as the treble unit. The only difference is that the drum's inertia makes it approach final speed over a much longer time period. A D.C. braking voltage can also be applied to the "fast" motor to slow down the speed more quickly when switching from fast to slow. This system works primarily as an AM device, and only for the upper two octaves or so of the bass section (200 to 800 Hz). Frequencies lower than 200 Hz are probably uneffected by a scoop of this size, since 200 Hz has a wavelength of approximately 5.5 feet. There may be some frequency-modulation effects near the 800 Hz xrossover point, but it sure sounds like AM. The result is a low-frequency "throb", which is very pleasant and especially powerful and beautiful when used in "slow" or "chorus" mode.

== '''The Complete Leslie System''' ==

With all these rotating components installed in the box, the system works as follows: an electical signal is sent into the Leslie amplifier driving a 12 dB per octave, 16-ohm crossover, which feeds the 16-ohm bass and treble drivers with the appropriate frequency bands (Figure 9). Input signal, motor controls, and A.C. line voltage (115 V, 60 Hz) are connected to the unit via special plugs and sockets, linked with the "Leslie cable". It is this latter cable that's a major problem for many who would like to use a Leslie. Most self-contained speaker systems have an A.C. cord that plugs into the wall, and an input jack for the music signal. The Leslie, however, has a "Leslie Cord". Just one of the things with which Leslie fans have to live. The amplifier chassis contains a 40-watt amplifier fitted with 6550 tubes - a wonderful choice of output tube for instruments - and motor control circuitry. Each rotor is actually driven by two separate motors (fast and slow) mounted in one package. Therefore, there are a total of four rotor motors and four pairs of wires, which all plug into the amplifier chassis. If any of these wires are removed and plugged into a live A.C. outlet, the appropriate motor will turn on safely without any problem, since this is essentially what the motor control does. These motors are probably some of the more amazing values in all of creation. I don’t think they ever break or wear out. They seem to be capable of lasting forever, without much maintenance. Input to the amplifier is via the six-pin plug. The speaker and crossover are both connected by very odd little two-pin connectors that I have never seen in use outside of a Leslie Speaker. They work, however, and seem to be very reliable over long periods of time.

'''
== Getting Music In And Out Of A Stock Leslie =='''

Picture the scene. You have just bought a used Leslie; you got a great deal on it just in time for the gig. You excitedly load it up, set up your little portable organ and then stare dubfounded at this ugly, black 6-pin Harvey-Hubble plug, the only connector visible on your Leslie. Your 1/4-inch phone plug cord hangs limply in your hand... useless... impotent. Mistress Leslie stares back coldly. You can't even plug it in the wall and watch the tubes glow!
This totally non-standard cable is a real problem. Here’s how to deal with it:
If your studio has a Hammond B3 or C3 organ with a Leslie attached, the latter will probably be a Model 22 or 122. This is a quiet, reliable and troublefree system, although you still can't plug it into the wall and operate the Leslie independently of the organ. Most big Hammonds, like the B3 and C3, will have a Leslie plug installed on them. Be careful! Only connect a Hammond Organ to a Model 122, 22, or 122RV; never connect a Hammond via a "Leslie Cord" to a Model 147 ot 145 Leslie. It will basically blow up. Inside the organ a very simple connection can be made via the RCA phono jack fitted to the "expression control box". This jack can be located by taking the back off the organ and merely plugging in. It is a line-level input that will accept most relatively high impedance signals.
An (out of production but available) accessory to the Leslie line is the Leslie Combo Preamp. These units actually boost the signal of an instrument to the required level, provide A.C. power for Leslie's amplifier and motors, and have foot switches to change speeds. It also plugs into the wall (via a real A.C. cord), connects easily to most instruments (a real 1/4-inch phone jack), and attaches the preamp to the Leslie via the standard Leslie Cord.
You may want to build a customized system for your own special use from a stock Leslie 147 or 145. (You'll probably want to modify it - this comes later.) Any modifications that involve poking around within the power amplifier should be carried out with extreme caution. Remember that the Leslie speaker is fitted with a tube amplifier, which has a power supply voltage of over 400 VDC. I've heard that, if you're a player, such a shock can improve 128th note runs, but I wouldn't recommend it. Watch where you put your fingers!
Engineering your own system is actually a simple matter, once you can locate a 6-pin plug that is compatible with the one fitted to the amplifier (or buy a Leslie Cord). Pin 1 is signal ground, and pin 6 signal "hot". Any source capable of delivering over 6 V into a load of 2.5 kohm, or less, will be able to drive the Leslie amp to full power with the "console load resistor switch" set to "open". The switch also inserts an 8-ohm, 10 watt or 16-ohm 10 watt equivalent resistor across the input, which means that a 10-watt power amp could be used to drive the Leslie, with the level control at the right setting. This is the typical setup for many organs equipped with their own power amps. A small guitar amplifier, such as a Fender Champ would do fine. The speaker should be disconnected, and the switch set to "8 ohms". Don't try it with a large power amp, however; your Leslie will sound, and smell, very bad shortly after the input resistors burn up.
Input power (115 VAC) connects via pins 3 and 4. Pins 2 and 5 connect the 115-Volt A.C. coil of the tremolo relay, which is "fast" when off, and "slow" when on. Therefore, a D.P.S.T. switch connecting pin 2 and pin 3, and pin 4 to pin 5 will activate the relay; if you only want "fast" forget pins 2 and 5. (A simpler approach would be to make a direct connection from pins 4 and 5, and use a simple S.P.D.T. switch.)

== '''Modifications To The Leslie''' ==

Ah, yes; Audio racing in the streets. Imagine thousands hearing a vocal track through a Leslie... a Leslie that can be heard over a guitar player's Marshall Stack... a clean, Hi-Fidelity Leslie. These things and more can be yours, given the cash outlay in proportion to the desired grandeur, and even more cash if you don't build it yourself. (America is loaded with local Leslie "speed shops). But you can do it yourself. Here’s how:

== '''External Mono-Amplification''' ==

The stock Leslie Models 145, 147 or 122 have a marvelous 40-watt tube amp. When you really lean on it, it sounds even lovelier, with a warm rich distortion like nothing you've heard. This great tone is heard on countless recordings and is instantly identifiable. However, in a live band situation or a club, or worse, at a concert, even a single 40-watt Leslie just doesn't cut it, even for a keyboard only. The recent rapid expansion of concert sound techniques allows quiter instruments to be miked and simply turned up at the console. I'm told that many organ players have actually installed and miked a Leslie in an isolated backstage room during large concerts and fed to monitor mixes. The result is a clean Leslie sound with no on-stage bleed from other instruments. In many cases however, a performer prefers more direct level from their own instrument.
The simplest way of enhancing the sound of a Leslie is to disable the built-in amplifier (pull out all four tubes and/or the fuse) and use the motors only, via a combo preamp, the adapter discussed earlier or simple switching you can make yourself from common domestic wall switches. The speaker system can then be connected to whatever amplifier you plan to use. This is achieved by disconnecting the crossover from the standard Leslie amplifier and patching it to a convenient input socket. A 1/4-inch phone jack, or a much-better “Speakon NL4” plug would be the answer. The only problem remaining is the power handling capablility of the Leslie Speaker System components, namely the high- and low-frequency drivers and the crossover networks. I'll discuss these as separate modifications.

== '''Treble Driver Modifications''' ==

The stock Leslie high-frequency driver is pretty fragile, and is easily overloaded with a stock 40-watt amplifier. Unless you simply must use the original Jensen driver and want to drive it at low levels, plan on getting a new driver. Choice of drivers is important, and the most expensive ones are not necessarily the best answer. The most expensive professional drivers from Altec, JBL, Electro-Voice, and others, have usable sound reproduction to within the 10 to 20 kHz octave. Such performance probably won't be needed for a Leslie - I'm told that, in fact, a very high frequency harmonic content is actually a negative, artistically. Extended-band high-frequency drivers are also rather fragile; a percussion note from a Hammond B3 can easily send a 0.002-inch thick aluminum diaphragm through its full excursion, and into the driver's phase plug. At this point, the musician is off the air, possibly during a now favorite solo, or in the middle of a take. Also, these drivers have large throats (between 1.4 and 2.0 inches in diameter), whereas the entrance hole to a Leslie treble horn is about 3/4-inch. This makes it ideally suited for the 3/4-inch throat, phenolic-resin-impregnated-cloth-diaphragm PA drivers fitted with screw mounts, such as those made by University, Electro-Voice, Atlas, etc..
Such drivers are relatively cheap, can easily reproduce up to 5 or 6 kHz, and some handle enormous amounts of power. They also have a very similar bandwidth to the stock Leslie driver, which means that the same overall musical tone will be maintained. Actually, replacing the treble driver would make a stock Leslie much more reliable for "leaned on" use with the stock 40w amp. My own personal preference is the Electro-Voice 1829 driver, a 16-ohm unit ideally suited to the Leslie crossover. I used one on stage for years at full chat with a Bogan MO-100A 100-watt tube power amp. It's still intact and has a pleasing sound. I'm told by numerous others that the have had similar good luck with an E-V 1829's sturdiness and power-handling ability. Replacement of the Leslie driver involves, first, removing the backs from the upper and middle cabinets to provide access to the driver and horn. A special adapter is necessary to fit the screw throat PA driver to the stock Leslie horn, as shown in Figure 10.

== '''Bass Driver Modification''' ==

The stock Leslie Bass Driver is a 15-inch bass speaker capable of handling about 50 watts. Supply it with 40 watts of a 30 Hz pedal tone and it shakes a lot. You may also be getting dangerously close to the driver's excursion limit, but it seems to be pretty sturdy. I've certainly heard of them breaking with "stock" use. If only a keyboard is used through the system - one without a lot of deep bass - and you protect the driver by filtering out the low-end, the unit may handle lots more as you approach its "thermal limit". If you want to avoid running the risk of breaking the bass driver, the easiest solution is to replace it with another unit capable of handling higher loads. Speaker choice is left up to the individual; since it's a matter of taste I can't really recommend any. An 18-inch speaker will fit with the following modifications: a spacer ring has to be added between the speaker and the Leslie baffle (so that the cone doesn't hit it), and part of the back panel may have to be whittled out for certain larger 18-inch speaker frames. My guess is the tone (especially the upper range) will change. Today, “1000 watt” 15” bass drivers are available and there are many to choose from.

== '''Crossover Modification''' ==

The stock Leslie crossover is a 12 dB per octave, 800 Hz unit requiring both 16-ohm high- and low-frequency drivers for correct performance. Most "mondo-power" 15-inch woofers have an impedance of 8 ohms, which tends to extend the reponse a bit higher than 800 Hz. Although this shouldn't cause any difficulties, it will make an 8-ohm high-frequency driver extend a bit lower, which will definitely cause excursion problems. The answer is to either buy a 16-ohm replacement driver, or perform the following modifications:
If the Leslie is fitted with both 8-ohm high- and low-frequency components, a stock 800 Hz crossover can be obtained from JBL, Altec, and other manufacturers. Community Light & Sound makes a very good crossover, which requires an 8-ohm bass speaker and a 16-ohm treble speaker (if you use it without its attenuation pad). The crossover handles well over 200 watts RMS, and is made from aircore coils and Mylar capacitors. Besides being a true "hi-fi" crossover, it would make an excellent choice for a super-power system. It is also possible to design and build your own crossover network from drawings and circuits published in any of the audio textbooks and cook books.
The best, most versatile and most adjustable solution would be to biamplify the Leslie. A commonly available electronic crossover and stereo power amp would be a great setup with which to experiment. Lastly, a crossover network consisting of a single series capacitor is a possibility (20 microfarad for 8-ohm units, and 10 microfarad for 16-ohm). It allows full-range sound to pass to the bass speaker, and high frequencies above 1 kHz to the treble speaker with a 6 dB per octave rolloff. Such a crossover network has been used successfully, and produces a very interesting and pleasing sound.

== '''Microphone-Prepared Stock Leslie''' ==

This technique has been used very successfully in a live-music situation. A pair of small electret lavalier microphoes are permanently fastened to opposite corners of the treble horn compartment. Output from these mikes is connected to an external stereo mixer equipped with equalization - hopefully by a permanent connector fitted to the back of the Leslie cabinet - and hence to a stereo power amp and a pair of speakers located on either side of the stage. If a stereo PA rig is being used, the mikes can be fed into two channels of the front-of-house board and panned left and right. As with anything, "good taste" in EQ and general technique is required to achieve a good sound. Actually, bad taste might work well, too; try both.
Wind noise from the horn is not a problem, and minimum mechanical isolation is needed. Lack of wind noise is probably because the cabinet corners are "stagnation" or dead-air spaces. Wind noise, if present, can be reduced by using an open-cell (reticulated Scottfoam) wind screen on the mikes.
An obvious extension of this mike technique is to do the same with the lower rotor, and obtain a mixed top and bottom left and right sound. Apparently, the "top-only" technique works very well in a live situation, but might also serve the purpose for a studio Leslie.

== '''Tandem Rotors''' ==

Slower acceleration of the lower rotor is occasionally undesirable - certainly, a matter of personal preference only. To give a more dramatic Leslie sound, the top and bottom rotors can be mechanically linked so that both will turn in sync, and the pair of horns face in the same direction. Silver Sound Systems (337 South Morris Avenue, Crum Lynn, Pennsylvania) built the little screamer with tandem rotors shown in Figure 11, which is an example of a well-prepared custom Leslie unit. It enhances the Leslie action by putting full range sound into the bass unit and only high frequencies to the treble unit. This customized unit was designed for use with electric guitars.

== '''Motor Speed Change''' ==

A really effective means of changing the rotor speed is to reach into the treble motors, and move the belt from one of the three drive pulleys to another. (Tricky, eh?) Actually, that's what they are there for; you are supposed to do it. My own preference is the middle pulley. There have been a variety of speed change controls made available for Leslie motors. None have been very successful, however, since they just lower motor voltage, with the result that the motor will usually draw more current and possibly burn out. Watch out for these things. Leslie motors are A.C. induction types and, since they have no brushes, will last practically forever. However, their speed is determined by the 60 Hz frequency input, which is the same problem as varying tape-drive speed. The only solution that makes any sense is to hook-up a 115-Volt variable-speed oscillator. This can be constructed from a generator and tube amplifier that has a 115-Volt output tap. (Just like the old days, Sonny.) Other more modern solid-state motor controls are available to do this. I am told it is really not worth the trouble though - the intermediate speed doesn't really sound very good.

== '''Studio Practice''' ==

As with just about anything, recording a Leslie is a matter of particular taste and purpose. You might want record the best possible recreation of a live Hammond B3/Leslie combination; you might also want to make it sound "better". You migh also want to use it as send and receive device, like an echo unit, with a high level send to the Leslie Amp, and a mono or stereo microphone receive. You could put it in a studio, in a reverb room (or in the bathroom) during the mix, or you might use it live. The possibilities are only limited by your level of creativity and/or insanity. However, the following are some standard techniques and descriptions of behavior.
Mono Recordings
I have recorded Leslies with a single microphone mounted as close as 1 foot from the treble horn, with very pleasing results. If the mike is placed even closer (within several inches) the severe amplitude-modulation effect becomes very annoying, and wind noise from the rotor at high speeds sounds like you have a helicopter in teh room. Which is a sound you might want. The same thing happens on the bass rotor, where up close there is also a lot of mechanical noise. A loose scrim will be real noisy; tighten it up. The sound from both rotors is mellower coming out of the louvres. By removing the back panels and miking the Leslie from the rear, the sound is more "direct" and defined.
Stereo And Multi-Mike Recording
Use of two mikes on the top and bottom of the cabinet is a very effective way of getting a good sound, bearing in mind the AM effects of close-miking. The best way I know of recording a Leslie, however, is in stereo. The left and right channels can be recorded with either a top and bottom pair of mixed mikes, or with just single mikes panned between left and right. The stereo image achieved with two pairs panned full left and right is very exciting. Many combinations are possible though, the point being that a Leslie is capable of providng a great deal of spatial information.
I spoke with a few engineers I know about such recording techniques, and here are a few of their preferences:
Jay Mark (Sigma sound, New York and Philadelphia) has been pleased with a "tight" or "direct" Leslie sound, when recording organ. His principle reason for this is because the organ is used as background and not a featured instrument; the tight sound is needed so that the organ sound is very clear and unmistakable, even when way down in a mix. Jay has used the following setup with good results: an RCA 77DX ribbon at back of the top rotor cabinet, about 8 inches from the treble horn, with the high-end rolled of to suit. He also uses, at the back of bottom rotor, a U87 with the lows rolled off, and mixed with the top mike to suit. He remembers experimenting with the top and bottom sound panned left and right, and not liking the effect. Allen Sides (Ocean Way Recording, Hollywood/Nashville) prefers a pair of tube U67s, located about 5 feet away from the Leslie, aimed midway between top and bottom rotors, and spaced 10 feet apart. The mikes are panned left and right, and recorded on two separate tracks. Allen prefers the U67's natural roll-off on the high-end for de-emphasizing the high-frequency distortion on top. He told me of recording Billy Preston, who played a Fender Rhodes electric piano with stereo vibrato, and sent each channel to two separate Leslies. Joe McSorely (Veritable Recording, Ardmore, Pennsylvania) likes to use a pair of U87s mounted relatively close in top and bottom cabinets. For a "tight" organ sound, he rolls of the lows from the bottom rotor, but records the top flat. Joe echoes a repeating problem - wind noise up close - and he always uses windscreens on the mikes. He says that most organ Leslie recordings done at Veritable are on one track, but a great "fake stereo" mixdown effect can be achieved by panning the dry track to one side, and using a Harmonizer in the "doubling" mode on a second track panned full opposite. Joe describes the resultant sound as "monstrous". In my own studio I have a setup that I like a lot. I’m using a Voce V5 to generate the Hammond B3 signals (sound great!). This signal is sent three places: First to an amplifier that drives a stock Leslie top horn with louvers, using an EV 1829 driver. Second, the signal parallels to a Dynacord CLS222 leslie simulator (signal processor). And third is direct. The top horn is mic’d with a pair of EV omni dynamics and brought up in stereo on the console, panned left and right to suit. The Dynacord is used only for the bass rotor simulation and is also brought up in stereo on the console, panned to suit. Last, the direct signal is panned up the center. Direct gives an extra measure of definition to the organ and is used by many producers for this reason. Adjusting all these, you can achieve a really fat and spacious organ sound in stereo.

== '''Several Odd Things To Try''' ==

An interesting sound results from running a full-range 15-inch speaker with a full range signal into just the bottom rotor. It should be obvious how to do this. The slow acceleration and deceleration of this massive rotor is quite different from the top unit, as is the frequency content. Try it. There's one other item. I know for a fact that certain old Leslie Cabinets have a structural resonance in the wood and probably in the louvres, but it's the real thing. The old wood is simply more resonant, and Hammond percussion notes really set it off. (It's like these guitar players running around in South Carolina pawn shops looking for the ultimate '56 Fender Strat.) I've heard Leslies on records that just have a legendary tone to them, and others that "just play regular". Go around and knock on a few new and used Leslies - especially the louvres - and see if you think I'm crazy. Anyway, the point to this was, why not try putting a piezo contact pick-up on the louvres. Experiment - see if you can bring more of the sound out of the wood.

== '''Specific Examples Of Normal Leslie Use''' ==

Normal Leslies are surgically attached to Hammond B3 or C3 organs; usually the former. There are many other brands of organs that have been played through Leslies during recording sessions, but "The Sound" which accompanies this great rock and roll Spirit of America is, pure and simple, a B3 and a Leslie. (Steinway piano, Fender Amp, Gibson, Lesl Paul, Fender Strat/Telecaster/precision Bass - all in the same breath.) The Isley Brothers used the fast Leslie all the way through their hit "Shout". Gary Brooker combined America Soul, European Bach and B3 lower drawbars through a continuous slow chorus Leslie, and made millions listen to a "Whiter Shade of Pale" with its gorgeous organ theme. Billy Preston, Booker T. Jones and Felix Cavaliere made an art of timely speeding up and slowing down of the Leslie rotor. These great artists (and many more) pioneered holding single notes (usually the root of the chord) and letting the Leslie provide the dramatics in rotor acceleration. Synthesizer players today still haven't found something as exciting. Lee Michaels had hits (“Do You Know What I Mean?”) and toured for a long time with only his B3/Leslie and drummer Frosty. The right players could make a Leslie talk, make it scream, and make you want to dance. The list goes on forever.

== '''...And Deviant Leslie Use (And Abuse)''' ==

Steppenwolf organist Goldie McJohn was able to coax an amazing sound from a stock Leslie. He connected the stock bass speaker directly ("full range") to the stock amp and ran the thing flat on 10 (actually it sounds like he found a way to get "11"). You can hear this very clearly on the classic Steppenwolf track, "Born To Be Wild". The organ solo features the glorious distortion of a grossly overdriven Leslie amp, and you can hear the big bass rotor slowly speed up and slow down throughout the take. I saw Steppenwolf live at the now physically non-existent Electric Factory in Philadelphia. Goldie used the same setup on stage, only he stacked a bunch of them up right next to him, and miked one through the PA system. Jethro Tull's Benefit album is considered by some to be the prototype Leslie-processed statement, and the hit "Teacher" from the LP is typical. Ian Anderson put both his flute and vocal through a Leslie, as did guitarist Martin Barre. It sounds like the Leslie was kept far away from distortion, a good example of a clean Leslie processing. I wish I know more about the particulars of this record, since it's another classic heavy.

== '''Guitars Through Leslies''' ==

Many guitarists have used Leslies to modify the sound of their instrument. One unusual and very successful instance was Rusty Young of Poco. Rusty achieved some marvelous sounds with Poco by putting his steel guitar through a Leslie, producing a very distinctive and attractive effect. The instrumental line in Player's hit, "Baby Come Back", and J. Geils' soulful intro to "The Usual Place" are some more typical but outstanding examples of tasty Leslie guitar. I'm sure your lists contain a lot of others.

== '''Using a Leslie as a sound source for the L1''' ==

As with any musical sound source, the best use of it with the L1 is to have the player only hear what the L1 is delivering to the stage and to the room. This allows the artist to optimally hear what all others (bandmates and audience) are hearing and thus have the best monitoring and the most control over their performance. For example, an acoustic guitar player with a pickup installed is common, but the artist gets a lot of local sound from the instrument in close proximity. It sounds warmer than it does out of the system. Same for acoustic piano v/s digital piano. Plus, the feedback will inhibit sometimes-necessary gain for performance.

The Leslie onstage is actually worse, because it's very loud, even in stock form. The best place to put the Leslie is offstage, preferrably in an acoustically-isolated room. Probably the best approach is to close-mic the top and bottom rotors, rolling the bass off in the midbass, like 150Hz or thereabouts. Last, a direct signal will give the player the definition they need, judiciously mixed with the top and bottom. If stereo is desired, mics are placed top and bottom, only 180 degrees away from each other. The L1's should be spaced far apart, like at least 10'. The further apart they are, the more unnaturally spacious the whole rig will sound. A mono L1 will actually give more definitiona and have the organ's sound originating from where the player is. If the concert is loud and the organist is playing bass pedals, add more B1's (and A1 amps) to suit. If no bass is being played, it's really helpful in the mix to keep the bass rolled off all signals so the low end of the organ doesn't compete with the drums and bass guitar. A direct signal will still help definition, especially in the low midrange and upper bass, as the rotors of the Leslie definitely diffuse the sound.

A Hammond B3 and a Leslie, miked, in an iso room and then rebroadcast with an L1 is not for the casual bar band. It's a physically-imposing project at the very least, not to mention an expensive one and, of course, you need a van for it all. A far better alternative is one of a number of stand-alone synth-sized keyboards that have Hammond tone, righteous distortion and full and authentic Leslie simulation all built into the 5-octave (same as a B3) keyboard. My favorite is the little red corvette Nord Electro. Others also sound very creditable and have strong fanbase. These include the Roland VK series, Hammond instruments, Korg and others. Most of these are available as a keyboard-less MIDI module.

== '''Possibly Useful Links:''' ==

[[http://www.dairiki.org/HammondWiki/Leslie]]
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_speaker]]
[[http://www.hammond-organ.com/Museum/leslie.htm]]

Leslie loudspeakers

2006-11-13T19:33:58Z

Clifford:

(This article is incomplete, awaiting figures at least)

'''UNEARTHING THE MYSTERIES OF THE LESLIE CABINET'''

== Updated and originally composed by Clifford A. Henricksen ==

== First published in Recording Engineer/Producer magazine, April 1981. ==

'''Introduction'''

The Leslie Rotating Tremolo Speaker System has produced the same unmistakable sound for so many musicians that its sound modulation effect has become an international institution for the recording and performing musical arts. Everything from the venerable Hammond B-3 organ, to human voices and electric guitars, have been processed by the Leslie Sound, and many have ended up on big hit records. Today, Leslie is no longer in business but many are in circulation, parts are available, other kinds of speakers that do the same thing are commercially available and there are many digital Leslie simulators available, some being very convincing. These are available in software, stand-alone signal processors, part of signal processing units as a selectable option and part of complete organ tone processors for stand-alone keyboards.

This article is an attempt to explain the mysteries and operating principles of the original Leslie, and includes a discussion of the Leslie Cabinet's practical use in both stage and studio situations.

My love-hate relationship with Leslie Speaker began with the purchase of a Hammond organ during the mid-Sixties. The salesman told me I would probably end up buying a Leslie for it, a statement that I dismissed as the usual sales banter. Besides, at the time I had no idea what a Leslie was anyway. The Hammond was purchased because that's what the Animals' organist, Alan Price, used on all the group's early hits, especially "The House of the Rising Sun." I saw the band live in Schenectady, New Youk, where they put a Hammond M-102 direct into a Fender Bandmaster Amp, and I had to have this sound. I soon discovered, however, that my new musical heroes had better sound. It wasn't long before I knew that Booker T. Jones, Felix Cavaliere, Gary Brooker and Billy Preston (and many others) were all using Leslies. This was The Sound!

My first Leslie, a single-speed Model 45 with a 40-watt tube amplifier sounded great, but it literally got lost in the roar of the Boston-based rock and roll band in which I was then playing. Two big Leslie Speakers were cumbersome to move, they weren't a big improvement in level (plus 3 dB), and the high-frequency drivers broke. From then on, it was guerilla speed shop tactics (mill the heads, oversized pistons, etc.), to the point where I could finally be heard over any guitar player. As a result, I became an expert at Leslie repair, modification and special use, occasionally even letting a few guitar notes into my beloved machines. I've spent the past 15 years in and out of the Music Business, both in studios and on stage. The significant part of this time was spent in some way dealing with Leslie Speaker Systems. As you might guess, this is a rock and roll story. I might as well show my bias here and now. With this in mind, here's what I have learned over the years.

'''== Principles of Operation =='''

First and foremost, the Leslie Rotating Speaker is designed as a sound modulation device. It is not a "Hi-fi" speaker, but rather a part of a musical instrument. You use a Leslie and an amplified musical instrument; typically an electric organ; to create an instrument with a unique sound. The Leslie does not “reproduce” the organ. Rather, it delivers the composite sound of the instrument modulated by the Leslie effect as a unique tone.
The Leslie Speaker System, thoughtfully named after its inventor, Don Leslie, operates on a simple principle: two different directional sound sources (high and low frequency sources) are rotated at constant (or selectable) speed around a fixed pivot point. Althought both sources are different, they both operate on the same principle: At a listening point some distance from these whirling affairs, four things happen. First, because the sources are directional, the intensity of the sound will be at a maximum when it points at the listener (or microphone). The sound intensity will increase as the rotating source approaches dead center, and decrease as it rotates past and away from this point. This is because the source gets closer as it points at the listener, and because it gets louder because it is a directional source pointed at the listener. The combined resultant effect is called amplitude modulation (AM), which is a feature on any guitar amp with a "tremolo" modulator.
However, the second and more important modulation effect is the Leslie's ability to create frequency modulation (FM). As the source rotates toward the listener, its relative velocity will increase the pitch of any tone it produces; as it rotates away, the pitch well be lowered. This is exactly the same Doppler effect that causes a train whistle (or any other sound on the train, such as grunting pigs, or shrieking passengers), to rise and then fall in pitch as the train approaches and then passes. A third effect is reflections inside the Leslie cabinet itself. Both high and low frequency Leslie sources are housed inside a (Beautiful, when new anyway) louvered cabinet. As the sound source directs musical tones as the sources rotate, complex reflections inside the cabinet further “complicate” the resultant tone that emanates from the louvers. Leslies that are constructed without louvers have the disadvantage of not having internal cabinet reflections and do not sound as “rich” as a Leslie with louvers. Fourth and last, if you are listening in a room with any significant reverberation or objects that can reflect sound (walls, chairs, etc) , a complete spatial modulation of the sound will happen, as sound is "shot" all around and goes through multiple reflections. In conclusion, the following are the combined effects that give the Leslie its characteristic sound:

1. AM or Amplitude Modulation
2. FM or Frequency Modulation
3. Internal cabinet reflections
4. Spatial modulation in a room

If you want a real treat of all kinds of bizarre whirling horns and things, order copies of Don Leslie's original U.S. Patents: RE#23,323 and 2,622,693, available from The United States Patent Office, Washington, D.C.20231, for a fee of 50 cents per copy. These patent specifications are incredibly entertaining documents, and a must for any Leslie fan.

== '''The Real-Life Leslie''' ==

A practical and commercial manifestation of the Leslie principle may take on many forms. Indeed, the manufacturer of Leslie Speakers, Electro Music, Inc. (later a division of Hammond Organ, then out of production), produced a wide variety of models. These include models with reverberation, triple channels, and rotating-cone speakers. However, any Leslie afficionado will tell you that the Leslie Models 145, 147, and 122 are the ones with "The Sound". All three Models share the same basic innards: a 40-watt monophonic tube amplifier; an 800 Hz 16-ohm passive crossover; a rotating treble horn and a rotating “scoop”, directing mostly midbass and midrange tones from a 15” bass speaker. Both rotating speakers are available with slow and fast A.C. induction motors. (Older Models 45, 47, and 22 are identical, except for having single-speed rotors.)
Furthermore, these Leslie models are similar in that they all have components mounted in a three-compartment cabinet. The top compartment houses the rotating high-frequency horn. The middle "box" houses the high- and low-frequency drivers and crossover and also serves as a vented box for the low-frequency driver. The bottom compartment houses the low-frequency rotor scoop and amplifier(s). Louvers routed into the walls of the top and bottom compartments let out treble and bass sound respectively. All the above speaker systems are virtually identical in terms of their use and sound quality. (The larger Models 147 and 122 allegedly have a better low-end.) Both high- and low-frequency speakers operate on the same principle: a stationary driver (loudspeaker) and a rotating acoustic "projector".

== The "Treble Rotor" ==

The Leslie's high-frequency unit is largely responsible for the "Leslie Sound". Because of this, some organists actually find that the bass rotor's slower response to speed changes is distracting, and will actually disconnect the bass rotor drive - especially when playing a bass line- so that the sound of the treble rotor is all they hear. Nevertheless, the treble unit consists of a stationary 3/4-inch-throat Jensen compression driver, connected to a vertical tube that acts as a thrust bearing (Figure 1). A twin-bell, molded black bakelite horn (later, injection-molded plastic), which starts vertically but flares horizontally, sits on this bearing/tube, and rotates via a two-speed A.C. induction motor fitted with three (selectable) drive pulleys. This motor drives the treble horn at fast or slow speeds via drive belt and belt tension spring. Direct current is sometimes applied to the "fast" motor so that it will slow down more quickly; this is called a "D.C. brake". Some organists have this feature disconnected, as they enjoy the relatively slow deceleration effects. The treble horn actually looks like two horn assemblies. In fact, only one is operable as a horn. The other side, a "dummy", acts as a counterweight or dynamic balancer, providing symmetric air drag at high speed. The resulting structure rotates smoothly and without eccentric "wobble" forces. It’s also amazingly quiet when you consider how large it is.

At the mouth of the horn is “diffuser cone”, which is supposed to widen the dispersion of the horn and make a "more musically pleasing tone". Actually, it does work. Figures 2 and 3 show typical polar response charts of a Leslie Horn with and without the deflector; the results are dramatic. The "without" curve of Figure 2 is typical of a "beamy" straight horn, with a lot of sound concentrated on-axis and very little sound off-axis. The "with" polar response curve of Figure 3 is almost omnidirectional; note, however, the "lobing" at higher frequencies. Any acoustical engineer would expect this device to lobe at the high end as the source becomes more like a ring or “doublet” in the horizontal. All in all, the diffuser makes the sound even more complicated and “rich”. As a horn for distributing clear sound, it’s a nightmare. But as a musical horn, it’s a beautiful thing. As the horn revolves, the sound will actually rise and fall a number of times in the frequency range of lobing, not to mention reflecting all over inside the louvered enclosure, giving the high frequency an even more characteristic sound.

The horn's so-called coverage angle is taken from polar response charts such as these; it is the included angle between -6dB points from the horn's on-axis level. Figure 4 and 5 show such coverage angles, compiled from a series of third-octave polar response curves. Note how the beamwidth gets smaller and smaller without the deflector. This means that if the deflectors are removed the sound will be much hotter on-axis, but much softer off-axis. Therefore, the AM portion of the Leslie Sound will be much more severe and "choppy", as many a rock and roller will tell you. Many Leslies played in clubs are faced backwards, with the top and bottom rear panels and deflectors removed, because the sound "cuts" better; an effect that translates as, "You can hear it better over the guitar player". This “high-frequency beaming” process will actually raise the on-axis sensitivity of any driver, as can be seen from the frequency-response curves of a University ID-40 driver (a respectable, but typical 3/4-inch throat PA unit) mounted on a Leslie horn with and without deflectors (Figures 6 and 7). It is interesting to note the extra sensitivity above 1.5 kHz that is available with the reflectors removed. Note also that the low-end - 800 Hz to 1.5 kHz - response isn't affected by removing the reflector, and that the response is ± 5 dB from 400 Hz to 10 kHz. Now, this entire discourse is based on the treble horn measured in an anechoic or non-reflecting, highly absorbent room. In real life, the horn mounted in a louvred wooden box, which means that the picture changes somewhat with resulting internal reflections. The diffuser cone does another important thing: it shifts the apparent sound source position on the horn. With the cone in, more of the entire range of the horn will appear to come from the mouth of the horn; with it out, however, while lower frequencies still appear to come from the mouth, higher and higher frequencies will appear to come from progressively further down the throat. They therefore appear to be rotating at a smaller radius, which results in less frequency modulation effects. Note that if the directional sound source was rotating at dead center, there would be no FM effect at all. So here you are faced with a choice: leave the deflectors in place and the result will be maximum frequency modulation, and a relatively lower amplitude modulation, because of the very wide directional characteristics of the horn. Take the deflectors out and some of the FM will be lost, but you obtain very strong AM - especially at higher frequencies - due to the very narrow beam width of the naked horn. My own ears tell me that the deflectors should be kept on, but you make your choice and you take your chances!

== '''The "Bass Rotor"''' ==

In the lower compartment of the Leslie box, a horizontally-rotating wooden drum is mounted on a vertical shaft, and covered with a black scrim cloth, which provides lower aerodynamic drag on the drum at fast speed (Figure 8). It also works as intended. At the drum's center is a cylinder fitted with a "scoop" which, as in the treble unit, starts vertically (the bass driver faces downward into its entrance) and projects sound horizontally via the curved scoop surface. Like the treble rotor, the low-frequency drum assembly is driven with a two-speed motor, and ends up at approximately the same rotational speed as the treble unit. The only difference is that the drum's inertia makes it approach final speed over a much longer time period. A D.C. braking voltage can also be applied to the "fast" motor to slow down the speed more quickly when switching from fast to slow. This system works primarily as an AM device, and only for the upper two octaves or so of the bass section (200 to 800 Hz). Frequencies lower than 200 Hz are probably uneffected by a scoop of this size, since 200 Hz has a wavelength of approximately 5.5 feet. There may be some frequency-modulation effects near the 800 Hz xrossover point, but it sure sounds like AM. The result is a low-frequency "throb", which is very pleasant and especially powerful and beautiful when used in "slow" or "chorus" mode.

== '''The Complete Leslie System''' ==

With all these rotating components installed in the box, the system works as follows: an electical signal is sent into the Leslie amplifier driving a 12 dB per octave, 16-ohm crossover, which feeds the 16-ohm bass and treble drivers with the appropriate frequency bands (Figure 9). Input signal, motor controls, and A.C. line voltage (115 V, 60 Hz) are connected to the unit via special plugs and sockets, linked with the "Leslie cable". It is this latter cable that's a major problem for many who would like to use a Leslie. Most self-contained speaker systems have an A.C. cord that plugs into the wall, and an input jack for the music signal. The Leslie, however, has a "Leslie Cord". Just one of the things with which Leslie fans have to live. The amplifier chassis contains a 40-watt amplifier fitted with 6550 tubes - a wonderful choice of output tube for instruments - and motor control circuitry. Each rotor is actually driven by two separate motors (fast and slow) mounted in one package. Therefore, there are a total of four rotor motors and four pairs of wires, which all plug into the amplifier chassis. If any of these wires are removed and plugged into a live A.C. outlet, the appropriate motor will turn on safely without any problem, since this is essentially what the motor control does. These motors are probably some of the more amazing values in all of creation. I don’t think they ever break or wear out. They seem to be capable of lasting forever, without much maintenance. Input to the amplifier is via the six-pin plug. The speaker and crossover are both connected by very odd little two-pin connectors that I have never seen in use outside of a Leslie Speaker. They work, however, and seem to be very reliable over long periods of time.

'''
== Getting Music In And Out Of A Stock Leslie =='''

Picture the scene. You have just bought a used Leslie; you got a great deal on it just in time for the gig. You excitedly load it up, set up your little portable organ and then stare dubfounded at this ugly, black 6-pin Harvey-Hubble plug, the only connector visible on your Leslie. Your 1/4-inch phone plug cord hangs limply in your hand... useless... impotent. Mistress Leslie stares back coldly. You can't even plug it in the wall and watch the tubes glow!
This totally non-standard cable is a real problem. Here’s how to deal with it:
If your studio has a Hammond B3 or C3 organ with a Leslie attached, the latter will probably be a Model 22 or 122. This is a quiet, reliable and troublefree system, although you still can't plug it into the wall and operate the Leslie independently of the organ. Most big Hammonds, like the B3 and C3, will have a Leslie plug installed on them. Be careful! Only connect a Hammond Organ to a Model 122, 22, or 122RV; never connect a Hammond via a "Leslie Cord" to a Model 147 ot 145 Leslie. It will basically blow up. Inside the organ a very simple connection can be made via the RCA phono jack fitted to the "expression control box". This jack can be located by taking the back off the organ and merely plugging in. It is a line-level input that will accept most relatively high impedance signals.
An (out of production but available) accessory to the Leslie line is the Leslie Combo Preamp. These units actually boost the signal of an instrument to the required level, provide A.C. power for Leslie's amplifier and motors, and have foot switches to change speeds. It also plugs into the wall (via a real A.C. cord), connects easily to most instruments (a real 1/4-inch phone jack), and attaches the preamp to the Leslie via the standard Leslie Cord.
You may want to build a customized system for your own special use from a stock Leslie 147 or 145. (You'll probably want to modify it - this comes later.) Any modifications that involve poking around within the power amplifier should be carried out with extreme caution. Remember that the Leslie speaker is fitted with a tube amplifier, which has a power supply voltage of over 400 VDC. I've heard that, if you're a player, such a shock can improve 128th note runs, but I wouldn't recommend it. Watch where you put your fingers!
Engineering your own system is actually a simple matter, once you can locate a 6-pin plug that is compatible with the one fitted to the amplifier (or buy a Leslie Cord). Pin 1 is signal ground, and pin 6 signal "hot". Any source capable of delivering over 6 V into a load of 2.5 kohm, or less, will be able to drive the Leslie amp to full power with the "console load resistor switch" set to "open". The switch also inserts an 8-ohm, 10 watt or 16-ohm 10 watt equivalent resistor across the input, which means that a 10-watt power amp could be used to drive the Leslie, with the level control at the right setting. This is the typical setup for many organs equipped with their own power amps. A small guitar amplifier, such as a Fender Champ would do fine. The speaker should be disconnected, and the switch set to "8 ohms". Don't try it with a large power amp, however; your Leslie will sound, and smell, very bad shortly after the input resistors burn up.
Input power (115 VAC) connects via pins 3 and 4. Pins 2 and 5 connect the 115-Volt A.C. coil of the tremolo relay, which is "fast" when off, and "slow" when on. Therefore, a D.P.S.T. switch connecting pin 2 and pin 3, and pin 4 to pin 5 will activate the relay; if you only want "fast" forget pins 2 and 5. (A simpler approach would be to make a direct connection from pins 4 and 5, and use a simple S.P.D.T. switch.)

== '''Modifications To The Leslie''' ==

Ah, yes; Audio racing in the streets. Imagine thousands hearing a vocal track through a Leslie... a Leslie that can be heard over a guitar player's Marshall Stack... a clean, Hi-Fidelity Leslie. These things and more can be yours, given the cash outlay in proportion to the desired grandeur, and even more cash if you don't build it yourself. (America is loaded with local Leslie "speed shops). But you can do it yourself. Here’s how:

== '''External Mono-Amplification''' ==

The stock Leslie Models 145, 147 or 122 have a marvelous 40-watt tube amp. When you really lean on it, it sounds even lovelier, with a warm rich distortion like nothing you've heard. This great tone is heard on countless recordings and is instantly identifiable. However, in a live band situation or a club, or worse, at a concert, even a single 40-watt Leslie just doesn't cut it, even for a keyboard only. The recent rapid expansion of concert sound techniques allows quiter instruments to be miked and simply turned up at the console. I'm told that many organ players have actually installed and miked a Leslie in an isolated backstage room during large concerts and fed to monitor mixes. The result is a clean Leslie sound with no on-stage bleed from other instruments. In many cases however, a performer prefers more direct level from their own instrument.
The simplest way of enhancing the sound of a Leslie is to disable the built-in amplifier (pull out all four tubes and/or the fuse) and use the motors only, via a combo preamp, the adapter discussed earlier or simple switching you can make yourself from common domestic wall switches. The speaker system can then be connected to whatever amplifier you plan to use. This is achieved by disconnecting the crossover from the standard Leslie amplifier and patching it to a convenient input socket. A 1/4-inch phone jack, or a much-better “Speakon NL4” plug would be the answer. The only problem remaining is the power handling capablility of the Leslie Speaker System components, namely the high- and low-frequency drivers and the crossover networks. I'll discuss these as separate modifications.

== '''Treble Driver Modifications''' ==

The stock Leslie high-frequency driver is pretty fragile, and is easily overloaded with a stock 40-watt amplifier. Unless you simply must use the original Jensen driver and want to drive it at low levels, plan on getting a new driver. Choice of drivers is important, and the most expensive ones are not necessarily the best answer. The most expensive professional drivers from Altec, JBL, Electro-Voice, and others, have usable sound reproduction to within the 10 to 20 kHz octave. Such performance probably won't be needed for a Leslie - I'm told that, in fact, a very high frequency harmonic content is actually a negative, artistically. Extended-band high-frequency drivers are also rather fragile; a percussion note from a Hammond B3 can easily send a 0.002-inch thick aluminum diaphragm through its full excursion, and into the driver's phase plug. At this point, the musician is off the air, possibly during a now favorite solo, or in the middle of a take. Also, these drivers have large throats (between 1.4 and 2.0 inches in diameter), whereas the entrance hole to a Leslie treble horn is about 3/4-inch. This makes it ideally suited for the 3/4-inch throat, phenolic-resin-impregnated-cloth-diaphragm PA drivers fitted with screw mounts, such as those made by University, Electro-Voice, Atlas, etc..
Such drivers are relatively cheap, can easily reproduce up to 5 or 6 kHz, and some handle enormous amounts of power. They also have a very similar bandwidth to the stock Leslie driver, which means that the same overall musical tone will be maintained. Actually, replacing the treble driver would make a stock Leslie much more reliable for "leaned on" use with the stock 40w amp. My own personal preference is the Electro-Voice 1829 driver, a 16-ohm unit ideally suited to the Leslie crossover. I used one on stage for years at full chat with a Bogan MO-100A 100-watt tube power amp. It's still intact and has a pleasing sound. I'm told by numerous others that the have had similar good luck with an E-V 1829's sturdiness and power-handling ability. Replacement of the Leslie driver involves, first, removing the backs from the upper and middle cabinets to provide access to the driver and horn. A special adapter is necessary to fit the screw throat PA driver to the stock Leslie horn, as shown in Figure 10.

== '''Bass Driver Modification''' ==

The stock Leslie Bass Driver is a 15-inch bass speaker capable of handling about 50 watts. Supply it with 40 watts of a 30 Hz pedal tone and it shakes a lot. You may also be getting dangerously close to the driver's excursion limit, but it seems to be pretty sturdy. I've certainly heard of them breaking with "stock" use. If only a keyboard is used through the system - one without a lot of deep bass - and you protect the driver by filtering out the low-end, the unit may handle lots more as you approach its "thermal limit". If you want to avoid running the risk of breaking the bass driver, the easiest solution is to replace it with another unit capable of handling higher loads. Speaker choice is left up to the individual; since it's a matter of taste I can't really recommend any. An 18-inch speaker will fit with the following modifications: a spacer ring has to be added between the speaker and the Leslie baffle (so that the cone doesn't hit it), and part of the back panel may have to be whittled out for certain larger 18-inch speaker frames. My guess is the tone (especially the upper range) will change. Today, “1000 watt” 15” bass drivers are available and there are many to choose from.

== '''Crossover Modification''' ==

The stock Leslie crossover is a 12 dB per octave, 800 Hz unit requiring both 16-ohm high- and low-frequency drivers for correct performance. Most "mondo-power" 15-inch woofers have an impedance of 8 ohms, which tends to extend the reponse a bit higher than 800 Hz. Although this shouldn't cause any difficulties, it will make an 8-ohm high-frequency driver extend a bit lower, which will definitely cause excursion problems. The answer is to either buy a 16-ohm replacement driver, or perform the following modifications:
If the Leslie is fitted with both 8-ohm high- and low-frequency components, a stock 800 Hz crossover can be obtained from JBL, Altec, and other manufacturers. Community Light & Sound makes a very good crossover, which requires an 8-ohm bass speaker and a 16-ohm treble speaker (if you use it without its attenuation pad). The crossover handles well over 200 watts RMS, and is made from aircore coils and Mylar capacitors. Besides being a true "hi-fi" crossover, it would make an excellent choice for a super-power system. It is also possible to design and build your own crossover network from drawings and circuits published in any of the audio textbooks and cook books.
The best, most versatile and most adjustable solution would be to biamplify the Leslie. A commonly available electronic crossover and stereo power amp would be a great setup with which to experiment. Lastly, a crossover network consisting of a single series capacitor is a possibility (20 microfarad for 8-ohm units, and 10 microfarad for 16-ohm). It allows full-range sound to pass to the bass speaker, and high frequencies above 1 kHz to the treble speaker with a 6 dB per octave rolloff. Such a crossover network has been used successfully, and produces a very interesting and pleasing sound.

== '''Microphone-Prepared Stock Leslie''' ==

This technique has been used very successfully in a live-music situation. A pair of small electret lavalier microphoes are permanently fastened to opposite corners of the treble horn compartment. Output from these mikes is connected to an external stereo mixer equipped with equalization - hopefully by a permanent connector fitted to the back of the Leslie cabinet - and hence to a stereo power amp and a pair of speakers located on either side of the stage. If a stereo PA rig is being used, the mikes can be fed into two channels of the front-of-house board and panned left and right. As with anything, "good taste" in EQ and general technique is required to achieve a good sound. Actually, bad taste might work well, too; try both.
Wind noise from the horn is not a problem, and minimum mechanical isolation is needed. Lack of wind noise is probably because the cabinet corners are "stagnation" or dead-air spaces. Wind noise, if present, can be reduced by using an open-cell (reticulated Scottfoam) wind screen on the mikes.
An obvious extension of this mike technique is to do the same with the lower rotor, and obtain a mixed top and bottom left and right sound. Apparently, the "top-only" technique works very well in a live situation, but might also serve the purpose for a studio Leslie.

== '''Tandem Rotors''' ==

Slower acceleration of the lower rotor is occasionally undesirable - certainly, a matter of personal preference only. To give a more dramatic Leslie sound, the top and bottom rotors can be mechanically linked so that both will turn in sync, and the pair of horns face in the same direction. Silver Sound Systems (337 South Morris Avenue, Crum Lynn, Pennsylvania) built the little screamer with tandem rotors shown in Figure 11, which is an example of a well-prepared custom Leslie unit. It enhances the Leslie action by putting full range sound into the bass unit and only high frequencies to the treble unit. This customized unit was designed for use with electric guitars.

== '''Motor Speed Change''' ==

A really effective means of changing the rotor speed is to reach into the treble motors, and move the belt from one of the three drive pulleys to another. (Tricky, eh?) Actually, that's what they are there for; you are supposed to do it. My own preference is the middle pulley. There have been a variety of speed change controls made available for Leslie motors. None have been very successful, however, since they just lower motor voltage, with the result that the motor will usually draw more current and possibly burn out. Watch out for these things. Leslie motors are A.C. induction types and, since they have no brushes, will last practically forever. However, their speed is determined by the 60 Hz frequency input, which is the same problem as varying tape-drive speed. The only solution that makes any sense is to hook-up a 115-Volt variable-speed oscillator. This can be constructed from a generator and tube amplifier that has a 115-Volt output tap. (Just like the old days, Sonny.) Other more modern solid-state motor controls are available to do this. I am told it is really not worth the trouble though - the intermediate speed doesn't really sound very good.

== '''Studio Practice''' ==

As with just about anything, recording a Leslie is a matter of particular taste and purpose. You might want record the best possible recreation of a live Hammond B3/Leslie combination; you might also want to make it sound "better". You migh also want to use it as send and receive device, like an echo unit, with a high level send to the Leslie Amp, and a mono or stereo microphone receive. You could put it in a studio, in a reverb room (or in the bathroom) during the mix, or you might use it live. The possibilities are only limited by your level of creativity and/or insanity. However, the following are some standard techniques and descriptions of behavior.
Mono Recordings
I have recorded Leslies with a single microphone mounted as close as 1 foot from the treble horn, with very pleasing results. If the mike is placed even closer (within several inches) the severe amplitude-modulation effect becomes very annoying, and wind noise from the rotor at high speeds sounds like you have a helicopter in teh room. Which is a sound you might want. The same thing happens on the bass rotor, where up close there is also a lot of mechanical noise. A loose scrim will be real noisy; tighten it up. The sound from both rotors is mellower coming out of the louvres. By removing the back panels and miking the Leslie from the rear, the sound is more "direct" and defined.
Stereo And Multi-Mike Recording
Use of two mikes on the top and bottom of the cabinet is a very effective way of getting a good sound, bearing in mind the AM effects of close-miking. The best way I know of recording a Leslie, however, is in stereo. The left and right channels can be recorded with either a top and bottom pair of mixed mikes, or with just single mikes panned between left and right. The stereo image achieved with two pairs panned full left and right is very exciting. Many combinations are possible though, the point being that a Leslie is capable of providng a great deal of spatial information.
I spoke with a few engineers I know about such recording techniques, and here are a few of their preferences:
Jay Mark (Sigma sound, New York and Philadelphia) has been pleased with a "tight" or "direct" Leslie sound, when recording organ. His principle reason for this is because the organ is used as background and not a featured instrument; the tight sound is needed so that the organ sound is very clear and unmistakable, even when way down in a mix. Jay has used the following setup with good results: an RCA 77DX ribbon at back of the top rotor cabinet, about 8 inches from the treble horn, with the high-end rolled of to suit. He also uses, at the back of bottom rotor, a U87 with the lows rolled off, and mixed with the top mike to suit. He remembers experimenting with the top and bottom sound panned left and right, and not liking the effect. Allen Sides (Ocean Way Recording, Hollywood/Nashville) prefers a pair of tube U67s, located about 5 feet away from the Leslie, aimed midway between top and bottom rotors, and spaced 10 feet apart. The mikes are panned left and right, and recorded on two separate tracks. Allen prefers the U67's natural roll-off on the high-end for de-emphasizing the high-frequency distortion on top. He told me of recording Billy Preston, who played a Fender Rhodes electric piano with stereo vibrato, and sent each channel to two separate Leslies. Joe McSorely (Veritable Recording, Ardmore, Pennsylvania) likes to use a pair of U87s mounted relatively close in top and bottom cabinets. For a "tight" organ sound, he rolls of the lows from the bottom rotor, but records the top flat. Joe echoes a repeating problem - wind noise up close - and he always uses windscreens on the mikes. He says that most organ Leslie recordings done at Veritable are on one track, but a great "fake stereo" mixdown effect can be achieved by panning the dry track to one side, and using a Harmonizer in the "doubling" mode on a second track panned full opposite. Joe describes the resultant sound as "monstrous". In my own studio I have a setup that I like a lot. I’m using a Voce V5 to generate the Hammond B3 signals (sound great!). This signal is sent three places: First to an amplifier that drives a stock Leslie top horn with louvers, using an EV 1829 driver. Second, the signal parallels to a Dynacord CLS222 leslie simulator (signal processor). And third is direct. The top horn is mic’d with a pair of EV omni dynamics and brought up in stereo on the console, panned left and right to suit. The Dynacord is used only for the bass rotor simulation and is also brought up in stereo on the console, panned to suit. Last, the direct signal is panned up the center. Direct gives an extra measure of definition to the organ and is used by many producers for this reason. Adjusting all these, you can achieve a really fat and spacious organ sound in stereo.

== '''Several Odd Things To Try''' ==

An interesting sound results from running a full-range 15-inch speaker with a full range signal into just the bottom rotor. It should be obvious how to do this. The slow acceleration and deceleration of this massive rotor is quite different from the top unit, as is the frequency content. Try it. There's one other item. I know for a fact that certain old Leslie Cabinets have a structural resonance in the wood and probably in the louvres, but it's the real thing. The old wood is simply more resonant, and Hammond percussion notes really set it off. (It's like these guitar players running around in South Carolina pawn shops looking for the ultimate '56 Fender Strat.) I've heard Leslies on records that just have a legendary tone to them, and others that "just play regular". Go around and knock on a few new and used Leslies - especially the louvres - and see if you think I'm crazy. Anyway, the point to this was, why not try putting a piezo contact pick-up on the louvres. Experiment - see if you can bring more of the sound out of the wood.

== '''Specific Examples Of Normal Leslie Use''' ==

Normal Leslies are surgically attached to Hammond B3 or C3 organs; usually the former. There are many other brands of organs that have been played through Leslies during recording sessions, but "The Sound" which accompanies this great rock and roll Spirit of America is, pure and simple, a B3 and a Leslie. (Steinway piano, Fender Amp, Gibson, Lesl Paul, Fender Strat/Telecaster/precision Bass - all in the same breath.) The Isley Brothers used the fast Leslie all the way through their hit "Shout". Gary Brooker combined America Soul, European Bach and B3 lower drawbars through a continuous slow chorus Leslie, and made millions listen to a "Whiter Shade of Pale" with its gorgeous organ theme. Billy Preston, Booker T. Jones and Felix Cavaliere made an art of timely speeding up and slowing down of the Leslie rotor. These great artists (and many more) pioneered holding single notes (usually the root of the chord) and letting the Leslie provide the dramatics in rotor acceleration. Synthesizer players today still haven't found something as exciting. Lee Michaels had hits (“Do You Know What I Mean?”) and toured for a long time with only his B3/Leslie and drummer Frosty. The right players could make a Leslie talk, make it scream, and make you want to dance. The list goes on forever.

== '''...And Deviant Leslie Use (And Abuse)''' ==

Steppenwolf organist Goldie McJohn was able to coax an amazing sound from a stock Leslie. He connected the stock bass speaker directly ("full range") to the stock amp and ran the thing flat on 10 (actually it sounds like he found a way to get "11"). You can hear this very clearly on the classic Steppenwolf track, "Born To Be Wild". The organ solo features the glorious distortion of a grossly overdriven Leslie amp, and you can hear the big bass rotor slowly speed up and slow down throughout the take. I saw Steppenwolf live at the now physically non-existent Electric Factory in Philadelphia. Goldie used the same setup on stage, only he stacked a bunch of them up right next to him, and miked one through the PA system. Jethro Tull's Benefit album is considered by some to be the prototype Leslie-processed statement, and the hit "Teacher" from the LP is typical. Ian Anderson put both his flute and vocal through a Leslie, as did guitarist Martin Barre. It sounds like the Leslie was kept far away from distortion, a good example of a clean Leslie processing. I wish I know more about the particulars of this record, since it's another classic heavy.

== '''Guitars Through Leslies''' ==

Many guitarists have used Leslies to modify the sound of their instrument. One unusual and very successful instance was Rusty Young of Poco. Rusty achieved some marvelous sounds with Poco by putting his steel guitar through a Leslie, producing a very distinctive and attractive effect. The instrumental line in Player's hit, "Baby Come Back", and J. Geils' soulful intro to "The Usual Place" are some more typical but outstanding examples of tasty Leslie guitar. I'm sure your lists contain a lot of others.

== '''Using a Leslie as a sound source for the L1''' ==

As with any musical sound source, the best use of it with the L1 is to have the player only hear what the L1 is delivering to the stage and to the room. This allows the artist to optimally hear what all others (bandmates and audience) are hearing and thus have the best monitoring and the most control over their performance. For example, an acoustic guitar player with a pickup installed is common, but the artist gets a lot of local sound from the instrument in close proximity. It sounds warmer than it does out of the system. Same for acoustic piano v/s digital piano. Plus, the feedback will inhibit sometimes-necessary gain for performance.

The Leslie onstage is actually worse, because it's very loud, even in stock form. The best place to put the Leslie is offstage, preferrably in an acoustically-isolated room. Probably the best approach is to close-mic the top and bottom rotors, rolling the bass off in the midbass, like 150Hz or thereabouts. Last, a direct signal will give the player the definition they need, judiciously mixed with the top and bottom. If stereo is desired, mics are placed top and bottom, only 180 degrees away from each other. The L1's should be spaced far apart, like at least 10'. The further apart they are, the more unnaturally spacious the whole rig will sound. A mono L1 will actually give more definitiona and have the organ's sound originating from where the player is. If the concert is loud and the organist is playing bass pedals, add more B1's (and A1 amps) to suit. If no bass is being played, it's really helpful in the mix to keep the bass rolled off all signals so the low end of the organ doesn't compete with the drums and bass guitar. A direct signal will still help definition, especially in the low midrange and upper bass, as the rotors of the Leslie definitely diffuse the sound.

A Hammond B3 and a Leslie, miked, in an iso room and then rebroadcast with an L1 is not for the casual bar band. It's a physically-imposing project at the very least, not to mention an expensive one and, of course, you need a van for it all. A far better alternative is one of a number of stand-alone synth-sized keyboards that have Hammond tone, righteous distortion and full and authentic Leslie simulation all built into the 5-octave (same as a B3) keyboard. My favorite is the little red corvette Nord Electro. Others also sound very creditable and have strong fanbase. These include the Roland VK series, Hammond instruments, Korg and others. Most of these are available as a keyboard-less MIDI module.

Links:

[[http://www.dairiki.org/HammondWiki/Leslie]]
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_speaker]]
[[http://www.hammond-organ.com/Museum/leslie.htm]]

Leslie loudspeakers

2006-11-13T19:33:36Z

Clifford:

(This article is incomplete, awaiting figures at least)

'''UNEARTHING THE MYSTERIES OF THE LESLIE CABINET'''

== Updated and originally composed by Clifford A. Henricksen ==

== First published in Recording Engineer/Producer magazine, April 1981. ==

'''Introduction'''

The Leslie Rotating Tremolo Speaker System has produced the same unmistakable sound for so many musicians that its sound modulation effect has become an international institution for the recording and performing musical arts. Everything from the venerable Hammond B-3 organ, to human voices and electric guitars, have been processed by the Leslie Sound, and many have ended up on big hit records. Today, Leslie is no longer in business but many are in circulation, parts are available, other kinds of speakers that do the same thing are commercially available and there are many digital Leslie simulators available, some being very convincing. These are available in software, stand-alone signal processors, part of signal processing units as a selectable option and part of complete organ tone processors for stand-alone keyboards.

This article is an attempt to explain the mysteries and operating principles of the original Leslie, and includes a discussion of the Leslie Cabinet's practical use in both stage and studio situations.

My love-hate relationship with Leslie Speaker began with the purchase of a Hammond organ during the mid-Sixties. The salesman told me I would probably end up buying a Leslie for it, a statement that I dismissed as the usual sales banter. Besides, at the time I had no idea what a Leslie was anyway. The Hammond was purchased because that's what the Animals' organist, Alan Price, used on all the group's early hits, especially "The House of the Rising Sun." I saw the band live in Schenectady, New Youk, where they put a Hammond M-102 direct into a Fender Bandmaster Amp, and I had to have this sound. I soon discovered, however, that my new musical heroes had better sound. It wasn't long before I knew that Booker T. Jones, Felix Cavaliere, Gary Brooker and Billy Preston (and many others) were all using Leslies. This was The Sound!

My first Leslie, a single-speed Model 45 with a 40-watt tube amplifier sounded great, but it literally got lost in the roar of the Boston-based rock and roll band in which I was then playing. Two big Leslie Speakers were cumbersome to move, they weren't a big improvement in level (plus 3 dB), and the high-frequency drivers broke. From then on, it was guerilla speed shop tactics (mill the heads, oversized pistons, etc.), to the point where I could finally be heard over any guitar player. As a result, I became an expert at Leslie repair, modification and special use, occasionally even letting a few guitar notes into my beloved machines. I've spent the past 15 years in and out of the Music Business, both in studios and on stage. The significant part of this time was spent in some way dealing with Leslie Speaker Systems. As you might guess, this is a rock and roll story. I might as well show my bias here and now. With this in mind, here's what I have learned over the years.

'''== Principles of Operation =='''

First and foremost, the Leslie Rotating Speaker is designed as a sound modulation device. It is not a "Hi-fi" speaker, but rather a part of a musical instrument. You use a Leslie and an amplified musical instrument; typically an electric organ; to create an instrument with a unique sound. The Leslie does not “reproduce” the organ. Rather, it delivers the composite sound of the instrument modulated by the Leslie effect as a unique tone.
The Leslie Speaker System, thoughtfully named after its inventor, Don Leslie, operates on a simple principle: two different directional sound sources (high and low frequency sources) are rotated at constant (or selectable) speed around a fixed pivot point. Althought both sources are different, they both operate on the same principle: At a listening point some distance from these whirling affairs, four things happen. First, because the sources are directional, the intensity of the sound will be at a maximum when it points at the listener (or microphone). The sound intensity will increase as the rotating source approaches dead center, and decrease as it rotates past and away from this point. This is because the source gets closer as it points at the listener, and because it gets louder because it is a directional source pointed at the listener. The combined resultant effect is called amplitude modulation (AM), which is a feature on any guitar amp with a "tremolo" modulator.
However, the second and more important modulation effect is the Leslie's ability to create frequency modulation (FM). As the source rotates toward the listener, its relative velocity will increase the pitch of any tone it produces; as it rotates away, the pitch well be lowered. This is exactly the same Doppler effect that causes a train whistle (or any other sound on the train, such as grunting pigs, or shrieking passengers), to rise and then fall in pitch as the train approaches and then passes. A third effect is reflections inside the Leslie cabinet itself. Both high and low frequency Leslie sources are housed inside a (Beautiful, when new anyway) louvered cabinet. As the sound source directs musical tones as the sources rotate, complex reflections inside the cabinet further “complicate” the resultant tone that emanates from the louvers. Leslies that are constructed without louvers have the disadvantage of not having internal cabinet reflections and do not sound as “rich” as a Leslie with louvers. Fourth and last, if you are listening in a room with any significant reverberation or objects that can reflect sound (walls, chairs, etc) , a complete spatial modulation of the sound will happen, as sound is "shot" all around and goes through multiple reflections. In conclusion, the following are the combined effects that give the Leslie its characteristic sound:

1. AM or Amplitude Modulation
2. FM or Frequency Modulation
3. Internal cabinet reflections
4. Spatial modulation in a room

If you want a real treat of all kinds of bizarre whirling horns and things, order copies of Don Leslie's original U.S. Patents: RE#23,323 and 2,622,693, available from The United States Patent Office, Washington, D.C.20231, for a fee of 50 cents per copy. These patent specifications are incredibly entertaining documents, and a must for any Leslie fan.

== '''The Real-Life Leslie''' ==

A practical and commercial manifestation of the Leslie principle may take on many forms. Indeed, the manufacturer of Leslie Speakers, Electro Music, Inc. (later a division of Hammond Organ, then out of production), produced a wide variety of models. These include models with reverberation, triple channels, and rotating-cone speakers. However, any Leslie afficionado will tell you that the Leslie Models 145, 147, and 122 are the ones with "The Sound". All three Models share the same basic innards: a 40-watt monophonic tube amplifier; an 800 Hz 16-ohm passive crossover; a rotating treble horn and a rotating “scoop”, directing mostly midbass and midrange tones from a 15” bass speaker. Both rotating speakers are available with slow and fast A.C. induction motors. (Older Models 45, 47, and 22 are identical, except for having single-speed rotors.)
Furthermore, these Leslie models are similar in that they all have components mounted in a three-compartment cabinet. The top compartment houses the rotating high-frequency horn. The middle "box" houses the high- and low-frequency drivers and crossover and also serves as a vented box for the low-frequency driver. The bottom compartment houses the low-frequency rotor scoop and amplifier(s). Louvers routed into the walls of the top and bottom compartments let out treble and bass sound respectively. All the above speaker systems are virtually identical in terms of their use and sound quality. (The larger Models 147 and 122 allegedly have a better low-end.) Both high- and low-frequency speakers operate on the same principle: a stationary driver (loudspeaker) and a rotating acoustic "projector".

== The "Treble Rotor" ==

The Leslie's high-frequency unit is largely responsible for the "Leslie Sound". Because of this, some organists actually find that the bass rotor's slower response to speed changes is distracting, and will actually disconnect the bass rotor drive - especially when playing a bass line- so that the sound of the treble rotor is all they hear. Nevertheless, the treble unit consists of a stationary 3/4-inch-throat Jensen compression driver, connected to a vertical tube that acts as a thrust bearing (Figure 1). A twin-bell, molded black bakelite horn (later, injection-molded plastic), which starts vertically but flares horizontally, sits on this bearing/tube, and rotates via a two-speed A.C. induction motor fitted with three (selectable) drive pulleys. This motor drives the treble horn at fast or slow speeds via drive belt and belt tension spring. Direct current is sometimes applied to the "fast" motor so that it will slow down more quickly; this is called a "D.C. brake". Some organists have this feature disconnected, as they enjoy the relatively slow deceleration effects. The treble horn actually looks like two horn assemblies. In fact, only one is operable as a horn. The other side, a "dummy", acts as a counterweight or dynamic balancer, providing symmetric air drag at high speed. The resulting structure rotates smoothly and without eccentric "wobble" forces. It’s also amazingly quiet when you consider how large it is.

At the mouth of the horn is “diffuser cone”, which is supposed to widen the dispersion of the horn and make a "more musically pleasing tone". Actually, it does work. Figures 2 and 3 show typical polar response charts of a Leslie Horn with and without the deflector; the results are dramatic. The "without" curve of Figure 2 is typical of a "beamy" straight horn, with a lot of sound concentrated on-axis and very little sound off-axis. The "with" polar response curve of Figure 3 is almost omnidirectional; note, however, the "lobing" at higher frequencies. Any acoustical engineer would expect this device to lobe at the high end as the source becomes more like a ring or “doublet” in the horizontal. All in all, the diffuser makes the sound even more complicated and “rich”. As a horn for distributing clear sound, it’s a nightmare. But as a musical horn, it’s a beautiful thing. As the horn revolves, the sound will actually rise and fall a number of times in the frequency range of lobing, not to mention reflecting all over inside the louvered enclosure, giving the high frequency an even more characteristic sound.

The horn's so-called coverage angle is taken from polar response charts such as these; it is the included angle between -6dB points from the horn's on-axis level. Figure 4 and 5 show such coverage angles, compiled from a series of third-octave polar response curves. Note how the beamwidth gets smaller and smaller without the deflector. This means that if the deflectors are removed the sound will be much hotter on-axis, but much softer off-axis. Therefore, the AM portion of the Leslie Sound will be much more severe and "choppy", as many a rock and roller will tell you. Many Leslies played in clubs are faced backwards, with the top and bottom rear panels and deflectors removed, because the sound "cuts" better; an effect that translates as, "You can hear it better over the guitar player". This “high-frequency beaming” process will actually raise the on-axis sensitivity of any driver, as can be seen from the frequency-response curves of a University ID-40 driver (a respectable, but typical 3/4-inch throat PA unit) mounted on a Leslie horn with and without deflectors (Figures 6 and 7). It is interesting to note the extra sensitivity above 1.5 kHz that is available with the reflectors removed. Note also that the low-end - 800 Hz to 1.5 kHz - response isn't affected by removing the reflector, and that the response is ± 5 dB from 400 Hz to 10 kHz. Now, this entire discourse is based on the treble horn measured in an anechoic or non-reflecting, highly absorbent room. In real life, the horn mounted in a louvred wooden box, which means that the picture changes somewhat with resulting internal reflections. The diffuser cone does another important thing: it shifts the apparent sound source position on the horn. With the cone in, more of the entire range of the horn will appear to come from the mouth of the horn; with it out, however, while lower frequencies still appear to come from the mouth, higher and higher frequencies will appear to come from progressively further down the throat. They therefore appear to be rotating at a smaller radius, which results in less frequency modulation effects. Note that if the directional sound source was rotating at dead center, there would be no FM effect at all. So here you are faced with a choice: leave the deflectors in place and the result will be maximum frequency modulation, and a relatively lower amplitude modulation, because of the very wide directional characteristics of the horn. Take the deflectors out and some of the FM will be lost, but you obtain very strong AM - especially at higher frequencies - due to the very narrow beam width of the naked horn. My own ears tell me that the deflectors should be kept on, but you make your choice and you take your chances!

== '''The "Bass Rotor"''' ==

In the lower compartment of the Leslie box, a horizontally-rotating wooden drum is mounted on a vertical shaft, and covered with a black scrim cloth, which provides lower aerodynamic drag on the drum at fast speed (Figure 8). It also works as intended. At the drum's center is a cylinder fitted with a "scoop" which, as in the treble unit, starts vertically (the bass driver faces downward into its entrance) and projects sound horizontally via the curved scoop surface. Like the treble rotor, the low-frequency drum assembly is driven with a two-speed motor, and ends up at approximately the same rotational speed as the treble unit. The only difference is that the drum's inertia makes it approach final speed over a much longer time period. A D.C. braking voltage can also be applied to the "fast" motor to slow down the speed more quickly when switching from fast to slow. This system works primarily as an AM device, and only for the upper two octaves or so of the bass section (200 to 800 Hz). Frequencies lower than 200 Hz are probably uneffected by a scoop of this size, since 200 Hz has a wavelength of approximately 5.5 feet. There may be some frequency-modulation effects near the 800 Hz xrossover point, but it sure sounds like AM. The result is a low-frequency "throb", which is very pleasant and especially powerful and beautiful when used in "slow" or "chorus" mode.

== '''The Complete Leslie System''' ==

With all these rotating components installed in the box, the system works as follows: an electical signal is sent into the Leslie amplifier driving a 12 dB per octave, 16-ohm crossover, which feeds the 16-ohm bass and treble drivers with the appropriate frequency bands (Figure 9). Input signal, motor controls, and A.C. line voltage (115 V, 60 Hz) are connected to the unit via special plugs and sockets, linked with the "Leslie cable". It is this latter cable that's a major problem for many who would like to use a Leslie. Most self-contained speaker systems have an A.C. cord that plugs into the wall, and an input jack for the music signal. The Leslie, however, has a "Leslie Cord". Just one of the things with which Leslie fans have to live. The amplifier chassis contains a 40-watt amplifier fitted with 6550 tubes - a wonderful choice of output tube for instruments - and motor control circuitry. Each rotor is actually driven by two separate motors (fast and slow) mounted in one package. Therefore, there are a total of four rotor motors and four pairs of wires, which all plug into the amplifier chassis. If any of these wires are removed and plugged into a live A.C. outlet, the appropriate motor will turn on safely without any problem, since this is essentially what the motor control does. These motors are probably some of the more amazing values in all of creation. I don’t think they ever break or wear out. They seem to be capable of lasting forever, without much maintenance. Input to the amplifier is via the six-pin plug. The speaker and crossover are both connected by very odd little two-pin connectors that I have never seen in use outside of a Leslie Speaker. They work, however, and seem to be very reliable over long periods of time.

'''
== Getting Music In And Out Of A Stock Leslie =='''

Picture the scene. You have just bought a used Leslie; you got a great deal on it just in time for the gig. You excitedly load it up, set up your little portable organ and then stare dubfounded at this ugly, black 6-pin Harvey-Hubble plug, the only connector visible on your Leslie. Your 1/4-inch phone plug cord hangs limply in your hand... useless... impotent. Mistress Leslie stares back coldly. You can't even plug it in the wall and watch the tubes glow!
This totally non-standard cable is a real problem. Here’s how to deal with it:
If your studio has a Hammond B3 or C3 organ with a Leslie attached, the latter will probably be a Model 22 or 122. This is a quiet, reliable and troublefree system, although you still can't plug it into the wall and operate the Leslie independently of the organ. Most big Hammonds, like the B3 and C3, will have a Leslie plug installed on them. Be careful! Only connect a Hammond Organ to a Model 122, 22, or 122RV; never connect a Hammond via a "Leslie Cord" to a Model 147 ot 145 Leslie. It will basically blow up. Inside the organ a very simple connection can be made via the RCA phono jack fitted to the "expression control box". This jack can be located by taking the back off the organ and merely plugging in. It is a line-level input that will accept most relatively high impedance signals.
An (out of production but available) accessory to the Leslie line is the Leslie Combo Preamp. These units actually boost the signal of an instrument to the required level, provide A.C. power for Leslie's amplifier and motors, and have foot switches to change speeds. It also plugs into the wall (via a real A.C. cord), connects easily to most instruments (a real 1/4-inch phone jack), and attaches the preamp to the Leslie via the standard Leslie Cord.
You may want to build a customized system for your own special use from a stock Leslie 147 or 145. (You'll probably want to modify it - this comes later.) Any modifications that involve poking around within the power amplifier should be carried out with extreme caution. Remember that the Leslie speaker is fitted with a tube amplifier, which has a power supply voltage of over 400 VDC. I've heard that, if you're a player, such a shock can improve 128th note runs, but I wouldn't recommend it. Watch where you put your fingers!
Engineering your own system is actually a simple matter, once you can locate a 6-pin plug that is compatible with the one fitted to the amplifier (or buy a Leslie Cord). Pin 1 is signal ground, and pin 6 signal "hot". Any source capable of delivering over 6 V into a load of 2.5 kohm, or less, will be able to drive the Leslie amp to full power with the "console load resistor switch" set to "open". The switch also inserts an 8-ohm, 10 watt or 16-ohm 10 watt equivalent resistor across the input, which means that a 10-watt power amp could be used to drive the Leslie, with the level control at the right setting. This is the typical setup for many organs equipped with their own power amps. A small guitar amplifier, such as a Fender Champ would do fine. The speaker should be disconnected, and the switch set to "8 ohms". Don't try it with a large power amp, however; your Leslie will sound, and smell, very bad shortly after the input resistors burn up.
Input power (115 VAC) connects via pins 3 and 4. Pins 2 and 5 connect the 115-Volt A.C. coil of the tremolo relay, which is "fast" when off, and "slow" when on. Therefore, a D.P.S.T. switch connecting pin 2 and pin 3, and pin 4 to pin 5 will activate the relay; if you only want "fast" forget pins 2 and 5. (A simpler approach would be to make a direct connection from pins 4 and 5, and use a simple S.P.D.T. switch.)

== '''Modifications To The Leslie''' ==

Ah, yes; Audio racing in the streets. Imagine thousands hearing a vocal track through a Leslie... a Leslie that can be heard over a guitar player's Marshall Stack... a clean, Hi-Fidelity Leslie. These things and more can be yours, given the cash outlay in proportion to the desired grandeur, and even more cash if you don't build it yourself. (America is loaded with local Leslie "speed shops). But you can do it yourself. Here’s how:

== '''External Mono-Amplification''' ==

The stock Leslie Models 145, 147 or 122 have a marvelous 40-watt tube amp. When you really lean on it, it sounds even lovelier, with a warm rich distortion like nothing you've heard. This great tone is heard on countless recordings and is instantly identifiable. However, in a live band situation or a club, or worse, at a concert, even a single 40-watt Leslie just doesn't cut it, even for a keyboard only. The recent rapid expansion of concert sound techniques allows quiter instruments to be miked and simply turned up at the console. I'm told that many organ players have actually installed and miked a Leslie in an isolated backstage room during large concerts and fed to monitor mixes. The result is a clean Leslie sound with no on-stage bleed from other instruments. In many cases however, a performer prefers more direct level from their own instrument.
The simplest way of enhancing the sound of a Leslie is to disable the built-in amplifier (pull out all four tubes and/or the fuse) and use the motors only, via a combo preamp, the adapter discussed earlier or simple switching you can make yourself from common domestic wall switches. The speaker system can then be connected to whatever amplifier you plan to use. This is achieved by disconnecting the crossover from the standard Leslie amplifier and patching it to a convenient input socket. A 1/4-inch phone jack, or a much-better “Speakon NL4” plug would be the answer. The only problem remaining is the power handling capablility of the Leslie Speaker System components, namely the high- and low-frequency drivers and the crossover networks. I'll discuss these as separate modifications.

== '''Treble Driver Modifications''' ==

The stock Leslie high-frequency driver is pretty fragile, and is easily overloaded with a stock 40-watt amplifier. Unless you simply must use the original Jensen driver and want to drive it at low levels, plan on getting a new driver. Choice of drivers is important, and the most expensive ones are not necessarily the best answer. The most expensive professional drivers from Altec, JBL, Electro-Voice, and others, have usable sound reproduction to within the 10 to 20 kHz octave. Such performance probably won't be needed for a Leslie - I'm told that, in fact, a very high frequency harmonic content is actually a negative, artistically. Extended-band high-frequency drivers are also rather fragile; a percussion note from a Hammond B3 can easily send a 0.002-inch thick aluminum diaphragm through its full excursion, and into the driver's phase plug. At this point, the musician is off the air, possibly during a now favorite solo, or in the middle of a take. Also, these drivers have large throats (between 1.4 and 2.0 inches in diameter), whereas the entrance hole to a Leslie treble horn is about 3/4-inch. This makes it ideally suited for the 3/4-inch throat, phenolic-resin-impregnated-cloth-diaphragm PA drivers fitted with screw mounts, such as those made by University, Electro-Voice, Atlas, etc..
Such drivers are relatively cheap, can easily reproduce up to 5 or 6 kHz, and some handle enormous amounts of power. They also have a very similar bandwidth to the stock Leslie driver, which means that the same overall musical tone will be maintained. Actually, replacing the treble driver would make a stock Leslie much more reliable for "leaned on" use with the stock 40w amp. My own personal preference is the Electro-Voice 1829 driver, a 16-ohm unit ideally suited to the Leslie crossover. I used one on stage for years at full chat with a Bogan MO-100A 100-watt tube power amp. It's still intact and has a pleasing sound. I'm told by numerous others that the have had similar good luck with an E-V 1829's sturdiness and power-handling ability. Replacement of the Leslie driver involves, first, removing the backs from the upper and middle cabinets to provide access to the driver and horn. A special adapter is necessary to fit the screw throat PA driver to the stock Leslie horn, as shown in Figure 10.

== '''Bass Driver Modification''' ==

The stock Leslie Bass Driver is a 15-inch bass speaker capable of handling about 50 watts. Supply it with 40 watts of a 30 Hz pedal tone and it shakes a lot. You may also be getting dangerously close to the driver's excursion limit, but it seems to be pretty sturdy. I've certainly heard of them breaking with "stock" use. If only a keyboard is used through the system - one without a lot of deep bass - and you protect the driver by filtering out the low-end, the unit may handle lots more as you approach its "thermal limit". If you want to avoid running the risk of breaking the bass driver, the easiest solution is to replace it with another unit capable of handling higher loads. Speaker choice is left up to the individual; since it's a matter of taste I can't really recommend any. An 18-inch speaker will fit with the following modifications: a spacer ring has to be added between the speaker and the Leslie baffle (so that the cone doesn't hit it), and part of the back panel may have to be whittled out for certain larger 18-inch speaker frames. My guess is the tone (especially the upper range) will change. Today, “1000 watt” 15” bass drivers are available and there are many to choose from.

== '''Crossover Modification''' ==

The stock Leslie crossover is a 12 dB per octave, 800 Hz unit requiring both 16-ohm high- and low-frequency drivers for correct performance. Most "mondo-power" 15-inch woofers have an impedance of 8 ohms, which tends to extend the reponse a bit higher than 800 Hz. Although this shouldn't cause any difficulties, it will make an 8-ohm high-frequency driver extend a bit lower, which will definitely cause excursion problems. The answer is to either buy a 16-ohm replacement driver, or perform the following modifications:
If the Leslie is fitted with both 8-ohm high- and low-frequency components, a stock 800 Hz crossover can be obtained from JBL, Altec, and other manufacturers. Community Light & Sound makes a very good crossover, which requires an 8-ohm bass speaker and a 16-ohm treble speaker (if you use it without its attenuation pad). The crossover handles well over 200 watts RMS, and is made from aircore coils and Mylar capacitors. Besides being a true "hi-fi" crossover, it would make an excellent choice for a super-power system. It is also possible to design and build your own crossover network from drawings and circuits published in any of the audio textbooks and cook books.
The best, most versatile and most adjustable solution would be to biamplify the Leslie. A commonly available electronic crossover and stereo power amp would be a great setup with which to experiment. Lastly, a crossover network consisting of a single series capacitor is a possibility (20 microfarad for 8-ohm units, and 10 microfarad for 16-ohm). It allows full-range sound to pass to the bass speaker, and high frequencies above 1 kHz to the treble speaker with a 6 dB per octave rolloff. Such a crossover network has been used successfully, and produces a very interesting and pleasing sound.

== '''Microphone-Prepared Stock Leslie''' ==

This technique has been used very successfully in a live-music situation. A pair of small electret lavalier microphoes are permanently fastened to opposite corners of the treble horn compartment. Output from these mikes is connected to an external stereo mixer equipped with equalization - hopefully by a permanent connector fitted to the back of the Leslie cabinet - and hence to a stereo power amp and a pair of speakers located on either side of the stage. If a stereo PA rig is being used, the mikes can be fed into two channels of the front-of-house board and panned left and right. As with anything, "good taste" in EQ and general technique is required to achieve a good sound. Actually, bad taste might work well, too; try both.
Wind noise from the horn is not a problem, and minimum mechanical isolation is needed. Lack of wind noise is probably because the cabinet corners are "stagnation" or dead-air spaces. Wind noise, if present, can be reduced by using an open-cell (reticulated Scottfoam) wind screen on the mikes.
An obvious extension of this mike technique is to do the same with the lower rotor, and obtain a mixed top and bottom left and right sound. Apparently, the "top-only" technique works very well in a live situation, but might also serve the purpose for a studio Leslie.

== '''Tandem Rotors''' ==

Slower acceleration of the lower rotor is occasionally undesirable - certainly, a matter of personal preference only. To give a more dramatic Leslie sound, the top and bottom rotors can be mechanically linked so that both will turn in sync, and the pair of horns face in the same direction. Silver Sound Systems (337 South Morris Avenue, Crum Lynn, Pennsylvania) built the little screamer with tandem rotors shown in Figure 11, which is an example of a well-prepared custom Leslie unit. It enhances the Leslie action by putting full range sound into the bass unit and only high frequencies to the treble unit. This customized unit was designed for use with electric guitars.

== '''Motor Speed Change''' ==

A really effective means of changing the rotor speed is to reach into the treble motors, and move the belt from one of the three drive pulleys to another. (Tricky, eh?) Actually, that's what they are there for; you are supposed to do it. My own preference is the middle pulley. There have been a variety of speed change controls made available for Leslie motors. None have been very successful, however, since they just lower motor voltage, with the result that the motor will usually draw more current and possibly burn out. Watch out for these things. Leslie motors are A.C. induction types and, since they have no brushes, will last practically forever. However, their speed is determined by the 60 Hz frequency input, which is the same problem as varying tape-drive speed. The only solution that makes any sense is to hook-up a 115-Volt variable-speed oscillator. This can be constructed from a generator and tube amplifier that has a 115-Volt output tap. (Just like the old days, Sonny.) Other more modern solid-state motor controls are available to do this. I am told it is really not worth the trouble though - the intermediate speed doesn't really sound very good.

== '''Studio Practice''' ==

As with just about anything, recording a Leslie is a matter of particular taste and purpose. You might want record the best possible recreation of a live Hammond B3/Leslie combination; you might also want to make it sound "better". You migh also want to use it as send and receive device, like an echo unit, with a high level send to the Leslie Amp, and a mono or stereo microphone receive. You could put it in a studio, in a reverb room (or in the bathroom) during the mix, or you might use it live. The possibilities are only limited by your level of creativity and/or insanity. However, the following are some standard techniques and descriptions of behavior.
Mono Recordings
I have recorded Leslies with a single microphone mounted as close as 1 foot from the treble horn, with very pleasing results. If the mike is placed even closer (within several inches) the severe amplitude-modulation effect becomes very annoying, and wind noise from the rotor at high speeds sounds like you have a helicopter in teh room. Which is a sound you might want. The same thing happens on the bass rotor, where up close there is also a lot of mechanical noise. A loose scrim will be real noisy; tighten it up. The sound from both rotors is mellower coming out of the louvres. By removing the back panels and miking the Leslie from the rear, the sound is more "direct" and defined.
Stereo And Multi-Mike Recording
Use of two mikes on the top and bottom of the cabinet is a very effective way of getting a good sound, bearing in mind the AM effects of close-miking. The best way I know of recording a Leslie, however, is in stereo. The left and right channels can be recorded with either a top and bottom pair of mixed mikes, or with just single mikes panned between left and right. The stereo image achieved with two pairs panned full left and right is very exciting. Many combinations are possible though, the point being that a Leslie is capable of providng a great deal of spatial information.
I spoke with a few engineers I know about such recording techniques, and here are a few of their preferences:
Jay Mark (Sigma sound, New York and Philadelphia) has been pleased with a "tight" or "direct" Leslie sound, when recording organ. His principle reason for this is because the organ is used as background and not a featured instrument; the tight sound is needed so that the organ sound is very clear and unmistakable, even when way down in a mix. Jay has used the following setup with good results: an RCA 77DX ribbon at back of the top rotor cabinet, about 8 inches from the treble horn, with the high-end rolled of to suit. He also uses, at the back of bottom rotor, a U87 with the lows rolled off, and mixed with the top mike to suit. He remembers experimenting with the top and bottom sound panned left and right, and not liking the effect. Allen Sides (Ocean Way Recording, Hollywood/Nashville) prefers a pair of tube U67s, located about 5 feet away from the Leslie, aimed midway between top and bottom rotors, and spaced 10 feet apart. The mikes are panned left and right, and recorded on two separate tracks. Allen prefers the U67's natural roll-off on the high-end for de-emphasizing the high-frequency distortion on top. He told me of recording Billy Preston, who played a Fender Rhodes electric piano with stereo vibrato, and sent each channel to two separate Leslies. Joe McSorely (Veritable Recording, Ardmore, Pennsylvania) likes to use a pair of U87s mounted relatively close in top and bottom cabinets. For a "tight" organ sound, he rolls of the lows from the bottom rotor, but records the top flat. Joe echoes a repeating problem - wind noise up close - and he always uses windscreens on the mikes. He says that most organ Leslie recordings done at Veritable are on one track, but a great "fake stereo" mixdown effect can be achieved by panning the dry track to one side, and using a Harmonizer in the "doubling" mode on a second track panned full opposite. Joe describes the resultant sound as "monstrous". In my own studio I have a setup that I like a lot. I’m using a Voce V5 to generate the Hammond B3 signals (sound great!). This signal is sent three places: First to an amplifier that drives a stock Leslie top horn with louvers, using an EV 1829 driver. Second, the signal parallels to a Dynacord CLS222 leslie simulator (signal processor). And third is direct. The top horn is mic’d with a pair of EV omni dynamics and brought up in stereo on the console, panned left and right to suit. The Dynacord is used only for the bass rotor simulation and is also brought up in stereo on the console, panned to suit. Last, the direct signal is panned up the center. Direct gives an extra measure of definition to the organ and is used by many producers for this reason. Adjusting all these, you can achieve a really fat and spacious organ sound in stereo.

== '''Several Odd Things To Try''' ==

An interesting sound results from running a full-range 15-inch speaker with a full range signal into just the bottom rotor. It should be obvious how to do this. The slow acceleration and deceleration of this massive rotor is quite different from the top unit, as is the frequency content. Try it. There's one other item. I know for a fact that certain old Leslie Cabinets have a structural resonance in the wood and probably in the louvres, but it's the real thing. The old wood is simply more resonant, and Hammond percussion notes really set it off. (It's like these guitar players running around in South Carolina pawn shops looking for the ultimate '56 Fender Strat.) I've heard Leslies on records that just have a legendary tone to them, and others that "just play regular". Go around and knock on a few new and used Leslies - especially the louvres - and see if you think I'm crazy. Anyway, the point to this was, why not try putting a piezo contact pick-up on the louvres. Experiment - see if you can bring more of the sound out of the wood.

== '''Specific Examples Of Normal Leslie Use''' ==

Normal Leslies are surgically attached to Hammond B3 or C3 organs; usually the former. There are many other brands of organs that have been played through Leslies during recording sessions, but "The Sound" which accompanies this great rock and roll Spirit of America is, pure and simple, a B3 and a Leslie. (Steinway piano, Fender Amp, Gibson, Lesl Paul, Fender Strat/Telecaster/precision Bass - all in the same breath.) The Isley Brothers used the fast Leslie all the way through their hit "Shout". Gary Brooker combined America Soul, European Bach and B3 lower drawbars through a continuous slow chorus Leslie, and made millions listen to a "Whiter Shade of Pale" with its gorgeous organ theme. Billy Preston, Booker T. Jones and Felix Cavaliere made an art of timely speeding up and slowing down of the Leslie rotor. These great artists (and many more) pioneered holding single notes (usually the root of the chord) and letting the Leslie provide the dramatics in rotor acceleration. Synthesizer players today still haven't found something as exciting. Lee Michaels had hits (“Do You Know What I Mean?”) and toured for a long time with only his B3/Leslie and drummer Frosty. The right players could make a Leslie talk, make it scream, and make you want to dance. The list goes on forever.

== '''...And Deviant Leslie Use (And Abuse)''' ==

Steppenwolf organist Goldie McJohn was able to coax an amazing sound from a stock Leslie. He connected the stock bass speaker directly ("full range") to the stock amp and ran the thing flat on 10 (actually it sounds like he found a way to get "11"). You can hear this very clearly on the classic Steppenwolf track, "Born To Be Wild". The organ solo features the glorious distortion of a grossly overdriven Leslie amp, and you can hear the big bass rotor slowly speed up and slow down throughout the take. I saw Steppenwolf live at the now physically non-existent Electric Factory in Philadelphia. Goldie used the same setup on stage, only he stacked a bunch of them up right next to him, and miked one through the PA system. Jethro Tull's Benefit album is considered by some to be the prototype Leslie-processed statement, and the hit "Teacher" from the LP is typical. Ian Anderson put both his flute and vocal through a Leslie, as did guitarist Martin Barre. It sounds like the Leslie was kept far away from distortion, a good example of a clean Leslie processing. I wish I know more about the particulars of this record, since it's another classic heavy.

== '''Guitars Through Leslies''' ==

Many guitarists have used Leslies to modify the sound of their instrument. One unusual and very successful instance was Rusty Young of Poco. Rusty achieved some marvelous sounds with Poco by putting his steel guitar through a Leslie, producing a very distinctive and attractive effect. The instrumental line in Player's hit, "Baby Come Back", and J. Geils' soulful intro to "The Usual Place" are some more typical but outstanding examples of tasty Leslie guitar. I'm sure your lists contain a lot of others.

== '''Using a Leslie as a sound source for the L1''' ==

As with any musical sound source, the best use of it with the L1 is to have the player only hear what the L1 is delivering to the stage and to the room. This allows the artist to optimally hear what all others (bandmates and audience) are hearing and thus have the best monitoring and the most control over their performance. For example, an acoustic guitar player with a pickup installed is common, but the artist gets a lot of local sound from the instrument in close proximity. It sounds warmer than it does out of the system. Same for acoustic piano v/s digital piano. Plus, the feedback will inhibit sometimes-necessary gain for performance.

The Leslie onstage is actually worse, because it's very loud, even in stock form. The best place to put the Leslie is offstage, preferrably in an acoustically-isolated room. Probably the best approach is to close-mic the top and bottom rotors, rolling the bass off in the midbass, like 150Hz or thereabouts. Last, a direct signal will give the player the definition they need, judiciously mixed with the top and bottom. If stereo is desired, mics are placed top and bottom, only 180 degrees away from each other. The L1's should be spaced far apart, like at least 10'. The further apart they are, the more unnaturally spacious the whole rig will sound. A mono L1 will actually give more definitiona and have the organ's sound originating from where the player is. If the concert is loud and the organist is playing bass pedals, add more B1's (and A1 amps) to suit. If no bass is being played, it's really helpful in the mix to keep the bass rolled off all signals so the low end of the organ doesn't compete with the drums and bass guitar. A direct signal will still help definition, especially in the low midrange and upper bass, as the rotors of the Leslie definitely diffuse the sound.

A Hammond B3 and a Leslie, miked, in an iso room and then rebroadcast with an L1 is not for the casual bar band. It's a physically-imposing project at the very least, not to mention an expensive one and, of course, you need a van for it all. A far better alternative is one of a number of stand-alone synth-sized keyboards that have Hammond tone, righteous distortion and full and authentic Leslie simulation all built into the 5-octave (same as a B3) keyboard. My favorite is the little red corvette Nord Electro. Others also sound very creditable and have strong fanbase. These include the Roland VK series, Hammond instruments, Korg and others. Most of these are available as a keyboard-less MIDI module.

Links:

[[http://www.dairiki.org/HammondWiki/Leslie]]
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_speaker]]
http://www.hammond-organ.com/Museum/leslie.htm

Leslie loudspeakers

2006-11-13T19:26:20Z

Clifford:

Leslie loudspeakers

2006-11-13T16:02:16Z

Clifford:

Making a Living with the L1®

2006-11-09T15:14:33Z

Clifford:

'''Making a Living With the L1'''
by Cliff Henricksen

==Introduction==

When I was a full-time musician playing in restaurants and clubs in the early 1970's, I and everyone else doing the same were making $50-$100 a night playing in bands, 4 or 5 piece. I also played in a rock and roll duo with a big PA, singing drummer who occasionally played left-hand Rhodes bass. It was a musical circus, sounded good and we made even more money than most individually. My musical colleagues all nod in agreement to this level of income figure. It is a very good indication that live music performance is dramatically devalued (by its customers) since 1972. This makes me very sad, and it is indeed a "sad situation". The music performance is devalued, but not the musical instruments, the equipment,the transportation costs, clothing or anything else. That's all gone up. But we are still in a time warp on pay.

Today, club gigs pay about the same and the better or perhaps more "connected" players (the ones with long-time local connections) might get $200. Party, wedding, bar mitzvah, corporate and the like gigs will pay more, but they always have. Such gigs require production rivalling big pop concerts (including costumes, sets and big sound systems), a wide variety of musical styles and typically require pro-level performers who often are required to travel extensively. On these shows, original music is basically out of the question. In general, it's rare that a musician in 2006 can make a respectable living simply by performing music in local venues. You must have other work. It seems that inflation has passed most musicians by, indicating that the services of musicians have declined steadily since the 1970's. Why would this be? Here are some possible reasons:

# Musicians have played so loud that audiences have been bludgeoned into staying away, staying home (with the TV, video games or the internet for entertainment), going to church, going to the movies or generally seeking more pleasant entertainment and entertainment environments.
# The proliferation of amplified musical equipment and instruments has expanded so greatly that there is an ever-growing community of musicians who will do anything to get a gig, including playing for free. And so, the market demand for performing musicians and performing bands is totally swamped by the growing availability of bands and players. This forces wages down.
# Musical artists, like all artists, are generally not business-minded by nature. Or so it seems. They don't think like business people for the most part because they mostly think about music, its composition and its performance. Any musician, especially composer/performers, will acknowledge that the brain can get totally consumed with music, shoving all but bare essentials out of consciousness. There's the "right brain" and "left brain" explanation of this too, but I forget which is which. And so, artists and musicians in general make bad business decisions (possibly because they don't want to deal with it), or simply accept the wages that are offered them without comment, complaint or some proactive strategy.
# Triple system amplification tends to make all bands sound similar, so that any artistic excellence is lost in sonic clutter created by this. Thus, a "great" band can't really demonstrate their competence effectively and thus differentiate themselves on excellence of performance. The triple system tends to make all bands playing in small to medium venues sound alike (blurry, indestinct vocals, etc) and thus it seems to lump all such bands as "mediochre" or "annoying" because of excessive levels and chaotic fidelity presented.
# Most musicians today seem to have other employment, because they can't support themselves playing. This contributes to wages going down.
# The American Federation of Musicians was once a powerful force in helping musicians achieve an honorable wage and get group discounts on "benefits" such as insurance and medical coverage. Today it is almost nonexistent, other than for very high-profile work such as Broadway plays, symphony orchestras, some casino gigs and movie film score work. I may even be wrongly optimistic about this.
# Bands playing original compositions seem to be doomed to a life of scraping for gigs that pay nothing, unless they have some kind of recording that is distributed by legitimate means (a "record label", whatever this means in 2006). Popular bands playing popular music will occasionally trick an audience by inserting their original into a set. But if it is announced ("...and here's one of our original tunes..."), the audience mostly gets glassy-eyed and bored. I think this is because the music isn't recognizable.
# Bands "creating" (or attempting to create) original music have a zillion different "music composition" software packages to choose from, many with prefabricated song "templates" in common song formats (A/B/A/B/C/A/B, ETC), or with sampled drum (and other instrument) loops. Some are even free to be downloaded. And so, budding artists or complete bands will use these to "create" new songs by playing them and possibly shouting or screaming lyrics without melody over the chord changes. My opinion is that this is not only a severe limitation on songwriting, it tends to be not-songwriting. I think it discourages the creation of a real song. The great, enduring songs we all love and can sing to ourselves (from Bessy Smith to Sinatra, Ellington, the Beatles, Pearl Jam, Van Halen, Outkast, ...), I believe, started with either a story to tell or with a melody, not with a fully-produced, full-production music track that you insert your-lyric-here into. My children, some of them musicians but all of them music lovers and appreciators, complain that modern music isn't melodic or satisfying in many ways. And so, they seem to prefer music from the '60's thru the '80's. I think that instant gratification afforded by instant-songwriting packages has imposed a severe restriction on new songwriters, including a deep spiritual one.

New music is the lifeblood of the musical community. Not everyone can compose, or, better, not everyone does compose, but the musical community needs new music to stay inspired and fresh, including for their audiences. I think that modern musical technologies in the form of equipment and software has spawned an unprecedentedly large community of musicians who seem to enjoy instant "success" without "doing the work". And so, I think this has given the difficult craft of songwriting ("originals") a bad name and a black eye. It's not to be trusted any more.

Of course, this is dangerous ground here. "Art" in general is often thought of as an unassailable topic, especially within the artistic community. I mean, who (including the author) is to say what's good and bad art, what's the best way to make it and so forth? Critics think they know, but artists often keep a distance from such opinions. Also, a colleague reading this said it borders on Old Fartism. Like "when I was your age, sonny, we made REAL music with sticks, leaves and a wire recorder". Beyond all this, I think that prepackaged compositions are like paint-by-numbers. You end up with something, but by nature you were severely limited in your choices. I think the best art is that which starts from scratch. Make your own frame, stretch the canvas and put on your own gesso. Doing so, it gives the artist an infinite set of possibilities to craft their work from. If you're a piano player, you're limited right off the bat, as opposed to if you could compose for any combination of instruments. I didn't want this to make music-by-numbers users feel like they were bad people. I merely aimed to point out the limitations imposed by such methods. And, agreed, you have to start somewhere. Your early compositions will not be good ones. I think you get better the more you try and the more you write. Music by numbers might be a great way to learn, like riding a 2-wheel bicycle with training wheels. I wrote some songs using "Drum Drops" records (thereby dating me back to the vinyl age) that had the typical pop-tune format and was actually happy with some results. One of those tunes still exists on my made-the-cut list.

On the other hand, here are what I believe are facts about live music:

# Humans need music, almost like they need oxygen. They will be very unhappy without it, in general.
# Humans respond very positively and in a fundamental way to good, soulful and touching music played live by well-intended and accomplished players with excellent-sounding instruments and equipment. Soulful harmonic music vibrates other humans in ways we don't even understand, but it does this at any rate. Every human knows good music and good sound quality. This is easily proven by the volume of sound recordings purchased every day worldwide and what appears to be a convergence of sound quality of music-delivering appliances from reputable manufacturers. Therefore, excellent music is evidently very valuable to most humans. I belive that live music is even more valuable, and I believe it is seriously undervalued as a profession.
# From personal experience, I know that the L1 system is the first commercially-available live music concept that allows musicians to "live in the mix" that they deliver to an audience. I know personally, as a musician, that it dramatically improves any ensemble's experience onstage and it contributes dramatically to improving ensemble communication, performance and the regularity of it. I know personally that with this system and expert musicians, a superior performance is both encouraged and expected. The sonic delivery of this performance is unprecedented in its excellence and attractiveness to an audience.

And so, now that the system has been available for over 3 years, I believe that its use should contribute to musicians' wages if they are willing to devote the time and effort to play in tune, play correctly and serve any audience with what they want. The L1 should set any ensemble apart from any others using conventional equipment. It should also separate those who can play from those who can't, simply by exposing every note that is played, for better or for worse. It is my belief that the use of the L1 system can be a catalyst in making live amplified music in the year 2006 and beyond far more valuable that it was in 1972. And so, it must follow that musicians' wages should surpass those of 1972, only in 2006 dollars (5x or 6x higher, plus). I believe all this from my personal experience with the system, both as a player onstage and as an audience member. These experiences have been unprecedented for me personally.

With all this as an introduction and background, I will herein begin exploration on how musicians can use the L1 in their musical lives to actually make an honorable, equitable living and wage.

'''The L1 system and its new "toolbox" for the professional musician'''

The following are new tools that the L1 system gives to the musical artist. These are tools that have never before been available to musical artists in the history of live amplified music or, for that matter, public music performances of any kind.

# Combining common musical instruments with the L1 system creates a totally new kind of musical instrument that has unprecedented qualities of connecting artists with audiences and with their instruments.
* When a musician crafts an airborn tone using instrument, ToneMatch preset and L1 system, a never-before-available complete and totally new musical instrument is created. The human race has never before had such an instrument. This is not a marketing-and-sales statement from the Bose Corporation. It is a statement of, in my mind, profound fact, especially for any musician to consider. Here are some examples:
** Human voice is the most familiar-sounding musical instrument in all of our experience. We know how it sounds live and we know how it sounds witin an ensemble, including from good recordings made with microphones. Human voice loses volume when the distance from the singer or speaker is increased. It is crisp (sibilants) in front of the head and dull in back of the head. Sound systems for voice (using microphones) have the same characteristics of volume change, plus the vocalist or talker can't hear what his audience is hearing. This is not as much a problem for a "speaker" who is simply delivering information to an audience, as it is to a vocalist who is delivering their heart and soul to an audience. The L1 system puts both vocalist and audience in the same soundfield. The tone and level delivered is very uniform. When the vocalist understands this and accepts it, a profound change takes place in the delivery of their performance. The realization that they can live in the delivery creates a bond and connection to the audience that simply was never possible before in the history of delivering vocal to an audience. It is empowering and deeply spiritual. And from this realization comes a change in the depth of the performance. The performer digs deep and connects to their audience like never before. It's true, it's real.
** Acoustic guitars have a familar tone, a tone we as a species have lived with and loved for many centuries, both live and through recordings. A normal acoustic or "Spanish" guitar behaves exactly like human voice: its sound level falls off rapidly (inverse square of the distance) and its tone varies depending on where you are in the audience. Certainly, the player gets a totally different tone than anyone in the audience. When an acoustic guitar, or a guitar-like instrument whose electrical signal emulates or is that of a real guitar's recording, is played through the L1, the player and the audience are put in the same soundfield and, exactly like the example of human voice, an unprecedented connection of the artist, to and through their instrument and to their audience, is made. Properly configured, the "totally new instrument" here has all the tone and soul of a "real" guitar, but it connects to an audience in a way never before possible. Thus, the artist is empowered and actually encouraged to perform at peak level.
** The same is true for all other "amplifyable" instruments, like horns, all kinds of string instruments, pianos, and so on.
** Electric guitar seems to benefit greatly from being combined with the L1 system. Electric guitar on recordings have delighted jazz, rock and blues fans since the invention of these artforms. Electric guitar amps, unfortunately, are very loud and shrill in front of them, loud and dull off to the side, softer but still shrill in the audience section in front of the amps onstage and dull and soft off to the side areas of the audience. In large concerts, amplifying electric guitar tone by placing a microphone pickup in the "right" place is good for the audience but the artist never hears the tone at the play position. In fact, NO ONE, hears this tone but the player. When electric guitar tone is send to the L1 system, everyone onstage and in the audience hears the intended tone and it's more uniform than ever before. And so, like voice and other instruments discussed, the use of electric guitar with the L1 creates, or rather redefines, the electric guitar as a new kind of musical instrument.

* Localized and spatially-distributed ensemble sound and "Stereo" everywhere

** A typical ensemble using a front-of-house PA in a small venue has most of the sound of the band heard from the nearest PA speaker. Plus, those close to the speaker can get toxic and damaging sound levels. The L1 system, properly used (one per player), gives a sonic perspective from anywhere in the room, as the sound coming from every player is easily heard coming from their location onstage. The ensemble will sound full and spacious and vocals from all members will take on a quality of spacious beauty never possible before.

**Musical arrangements employing this tool can produce spectacular "pingpong" musical effects with vocal and/or instrumental exchanges that treat audiences to the musical equivalent of a very good professional tennis match. Plus, the simple soundstage, distributed and spread across a stage, sounds full and rich and allows much more subtlty to be heard from individual instruments than ever before. This is a very powerful tool that will encourage new kinds of musical arrangements that create new and spatial sound scapes for audiences.

** Your bandmates will hear you AND The Mix. And so, you will be able to play so that the song is served. Can't hear the vocal? It's the one thing that sells both the song and your ensemble. Protect it with all your might. Turn it up or, most likely, turn everything else down. This usually translates to playing right within the song. This forces you to listen and play together better than ever.

* Playing in the same soundfield as your audience invites much more considerate performances

** Let's say you had an electrode connected to your finger tip and so did all the people in an audience, and let's say you had a control whereby you could change the voltage, same for everybody including you. Turn it up a little and it's actually interesting and could even be construed as pleasant. Turn it all the way up and everyone's electrocuted. At some level, it gets painful. So naturally, you would turn it up, maybe play a bit with it, but you would definitely back off when it got uncomfortable. That's sort-of like an L1 system. Now, take your electrode off. That's like the triple amplification system.
** Let's say you're in a hot tub with a lot of people...ah, forget all this. You know what I'm getting at. The L1 system puts you, your bandmates and the audience in the same pool, the same soundfield, for the first time. I suppose some musicians want to abuse their audiences, and maybe themselves at the same time. You know; hate and angst music. The L1 is perfect for this. But most audiences want to feel the love, get transported to a better place, feel good, feel God, all that. And so, the L1 system is best used for this kind of thing, in my opinion. It invites a soulful connection, subtlty, dynamics and good musicianship.

* Nowhere to hide
** This is a blessing and a curse.
** Performing is no joke. For most serious and conscientious artists, it is life and death. You practice practice practice so that you can perform without thinking and without making bad notes. When you just play (and don't think), you connect best with your audience. The L1 system, properly used, places you as bare and naked as can be in front of an audience. If you talk to them through your microphone and mumble, they'll tell you. Make a lot of bad notes or play out of tune and they'll let you know (by not applauding, or by not coming back as your customers). There's no place to hide. This is the curse part.
** The blessing is that you are as bare and naked as you can be. And so, the blessing to you is that it forces you to get your act together, to sing in tune, to connect with your own muse and to put on your best performance.

* Lookin good

The L1 tends to disappear visually from most stages. Audiences often forget they are there. This draws attention to you and your beautiful instruments, and maybe your thoughtfully feng-shue'd-out set. It sure gives you more moving room, compared to a stumble-disaser stage full of wedges and amps. Your show will focus on the players and instruments and not on the equipment. This is also a big advantage in events like weddings, barmitzvahs, corporate events, etc (money events) where the event planners want everything to look slick and polished. They love how L1-equipped bands look. It's a selling point for you to them and for them to their clients.

* No Toxic Sound Zone

PA speakers have a toxic sound zone. No one wants to sit or stand there. At the very least, like at a wedding, it becomes a zone for annoyance, where you can't hold a conversation. With an L1-equipped band, wedding planners (for instance) can have tables in very intimate proximity to the band. In a night club, it allows much more seating by having the best seats right on top of the band, not the worse seats as with a normal PA. More seating means more revenue for the club owner and, hopefully the band.

In Review, here are the brand-new tools you will have at your disposal with the L1 system:

# Use of a brand new musical instrument, based on your voice and/or your instrument of choice. This instrument will put you in close touch with your audiences and with all the subtleties and details of your performance.
# A new, detailed and highly spatial sound stage for your ensemble to work with and within. This allows and encourages new musical arrangements that feature spatial motion and clear instrument/vocal detail.
# Close musical communication with your bandmates. Everyone hears the mix that goes to the audience.
# A playing environment that encourages considerate performance by putting performers and audience members in the same soundfield.
# A clean, good-looking performance area that draws more visual attention to performers and instruments and allows unobtrusive setup devoid of equipment clutter.
# The ability to set up anywhere, including inside an audience, without toxic acoustic levels. This appeals to situations that have limited seating areas or that prefer to maximize seating capacity. It also can lead to very intimate performer/audience contact, as in a "house concert" or the like.

Given these new tools to work with, what is then required of the performer? Here are some requirements:

# You must have the desire to reach an audience and to engage them intimately. This may be a new experience for some performers. Once you get to this, you will love it and so will your audience.
# Instruments must be in tune and mechanically and electrically excellent. Any flaws will show up very clearly in performance.
# Playing must progress from playing with a monitor mix to playing with the entire ensemble and producing one's performance in the ensemble so that the mix is right. For instance, if you can hear your instrument above the level of the lead vocal, you're playing too loud and must turn down. In playing soccer, beginners look at their feet and the ball. Expert players experience the entire game, head up, and have a full-spectrum view of the playing field. Playing music from a monitor mix is like the neophyte soccer player while playing within a full L1 system allows all players to hear the full mix, the game, like an expert soccer player. Most players will have to learn how to listen to everyone and play accordingly, possibly all over again. Thus, the player must play differently than he or she ever has. Fortunately, this draws on good but latent skills that every musician has. The comment that "musicians can't mix themselves" is totally wrong. And anyway, it's not mixing; it's "playing together". It's Ensemble 101 in music school. Everyone knows how to do it. With the L1 system in place, such skills are quickly brought forward and enjoyed.
# Work on arrangements, especially given the spectacular soundstage the L1 system offers. Work on multiple-lead interplay, big lush multi-instrumental crescendos, call-and-response vocal fun, and so on. Make each song a jewel and play with dynamics. The system encourages this.
# Playing must serve the song. Everyone must realize that the lead vocal or the lead instrument is selling the song and the band. And so, the rest of the band must support this effort to make the song reach its full potential. Listen to the great recordings of music of any kind. Note where the vocal is in the mix and make this happen at your own show.
# Look good. Since your stage will be clean and uncluttered, your audience will naturally focus on you and your instruments naturally. Give them something entertaining or attractive to look at, because they won't have much equipment clutter to look at.

Working for a Living

So, if you do all this, you will, in time, be empowered and inspired as a musician and as an ensemble and your show will be far more attractive than any using conventional equipment, guaranteed. All the new tools you have to work with are simply not available using the usual triple-system gear. You'll be producing live music performance with unprecedented beauty and clarity and soul. So then, how is this going to allow you, at long last, to be able to make a respectable wage and not 1970 wages, 1/5 or lower than you should be making at $100/player per show?

# First clue: DJ's feature the L1 system in their advertisements. By this time, word has gotten out, mostly through their promotion, that the Bose system is the hippest and highest-quality system for any event. And event planners know that they will have to pay a premium for this at their event. It comes with the "Deluxe Package" because it sounds best, doesn't blast people near it and can be set up with both audio and visual unobtrusiveness. DJ's make more money this way. Why don't musicians? My guess is that DJ's are more enterpreneurial than musicians. They are, obviously, better at business. I can't think of a good reason why, other than the fact that musicians simply don't think along these lines.

Actually, that's not true. Musicians who are in big slick "outside" bands can get as much as national attractions at concerts, $10,000, $15,000 and more for an event, featuring 6-10 players and more. But, these bands are full of expert players and national-level singers who wear tuxedos and lovely evening gowns, or elaborate costumes of all kinds. They play popular songs as well as classic rock and favorite standards with equal expertness. And they travel all over for their dates, not something everyone wants to do.

Most musicians, in America anyway, play in 50-200 seat performing arts centers, restaurants and night clubs for money. Church musicians, I think, are not paid. They volunteer, but nevertheless play in similar venues. So, it's the vast number of musicians in the first category that I am addressing. I believe that this is the overwhelming majority of musicians playing for money in America.

How do you rise above simply accepting the current wage scale for most players? I guess, as I write this (it's just coming out as you see it), you first have to decide that it's unacceptable. This might mean turning down gigs because the pay is disrespectful. Remember; you ought to be getting paid at least $500 for a show, or you're not making enough to keep up with inflation. If you play for 3 hours with some breaks and spend another 2 hours commuting, setting up and breaking down, you will make $100 per hour. Not bad. Competent "shop time" costs $60-$75 per hour. Factor in rehearsals, promotion and paying an agent and you're getting into a reasonable hourly wage. Something you can be proud of.

I'm stopping to think about all this, peparing to go on. I myself have a pretty bad business sense as a musician, so it's a pretty demanding load on my brain right now. This is also because it's a huge problem based on how many musicians accept the wages they get and how the entire business of live music has settled into what I think is a rut.

However, like all problems, there is a solution. Identifying the problem is often the biggest step. The rest is merely work.

Making a Living with the L1®

2006-11-09T15:06:10Z

Clifford:

'''Making a Living With the L1'''
by Cliff Henricksen

==Introduction==

When I was a full-time musician playing in restaurants and clubs in the early 1970's, I and everyone else doing the same were making $50-$100 a night playing in bands, 4 or 5 piece. I also played in a rock and roll duo with a big PA, singing drummer who occasionally played left-hand Rhodes bass. It was a musical circus, sounded good and we made even more money than most individually. My musical colleagues all nod in agreement to this level of income figure. It is a very good indication that live music is dramatically devalued since 1972. This makes me very sad, and it is indeed a "sad situation". The music is devalued, but not the musical instruments, the equipment,the transportation costs, clothing or anything else. That's all gone up. But we are still in a time warp on pay.

Today, club gigs pay about the same and the better or perhaps more "connected" players (the ones with long-time local connections) might get $200. Party, wedding, bar mitzvah, corporate and the like gigs will pay more, but they always have. Such gigs require production rivalling big pop concerts (including costumes, sets and big sound systems), a wide variety of musical styles and typically require pro-level performers who often are required to travel extensively. On these shows, original music is basically out of the question. In general, it's rare that a musician in 2006 can make a respectable living simply by performing music in local venues. You must have other work. It seems that inflation has passed most musicians by, indicating that the services of musicians have declined steadily since the 1970's. Why would this be? Here are some possible reasons:

# Musicians have played so loud that audiences have been bludgeoned into staying away, staying home (with the TV, video games or the internet for entertainment), going to church, going to the movies or generally seeking more pleasant entertainment and entertainment environments.
# The proliferation of amplified musical equipment and instruments has expanded so greatly that there is an ever-growing community of musicians who will do anything to get a gig, including playing for free. And so, the market demand for performing musicians and performing bands is totally swamped by the growing availability of bands and players. This forces wages down.
# Musical artists, like all artists, are generally not business-minded by nature. Or so it seems. They don't think like business people for the most part because they mostly think about music, its composition and its performance. Any musician, especially composer/performers, will acknowledge that the brain can get totally consumed with music, shoving all but bare essentials out of consciousness. There's the "right brain" and "left brain" explanation of this too, but I forget which is which. And so, artists and musicians in general make bad business decisions (possibly because they don't want to deal with it), or simply accept the wages that are offered them without comment, complaint or some proactive strategy.
# Triple system amplification tends to make all bands sound similar, so that any artistic excellence is lost in sonic clutter created by this. Thus, a "great" band can't really demonstrate their competence effectively and thus differentiate themselves on excellence of performance. The triple system tends to make all bands playing in small to medium venues sound alike (blurry, indestinct vocals, etc) and thus it seems to lump all such bands as "mediochre" or "annoying" because of excessive levels and chaotic fidelity presented.
# Most musicians today seem to have other employment, because they can't support themselves playing. This contributes to wages going down.
# The American Federation of Musicians was once a powerful force in helping musicians achieve an honorable wage and get group discounts on "benefits" such as insurance and medical coverage. Today it is almost nonexistent, other than for very high-profile work such as Broadway plays, symphony orchestras, some casino gigs and movie film score work. I may even be wrongly optimistic about this.
# Bands playing original compositions seem to be doomed to a life of scraping for gigs that pay nothing, unless they have some kind of recording that is distributed by legitimate means (a "record label", whatever this means in 2006). Popular bands playing popular music will occasionally trick an audience by inserting their original into a set. But if it is announced ("...and here's one of our original tunes..."), the audience mostly gets glassy-eyed and bored. I think this is because the music isn't recognizable.
# Bands "creating" (or attempting to create) original music have a zillion different "music composition" software packages to choose from, many with prefabricated song "templates" in common song formats (A/B/A/B/C/A/B, ETC), or with sampled drum (and other instrument) loops. Some are even free to be downloaded. And so, budding artists or complete bands will use these to "create" new songs by playing them and possibly shouting or screaming lyrics without melody over the chord changes. My opinion is that this is not only a severe limitation on songwriting, it tends to be not-songwriting. I think it discourages the creation of a real song. The great, enduring songs we all love and can sing to ourselves (from Bessy Smith to Sinatra, Ellington, the Beatles, Pearl Jam, Van Halen, Outkast, ...), I believe, started with either a story to tell or with a melody, not with a fully-produced, full-production music track that you insert your-lyric-here into. My children, some of them musicians but all of them music lovers and appreciators, complain that modern music isn't melodic or satisfying in many ways. And so, they seem to prefer music from the '60's thru the '80's. I think that instant gratification afforded by instant-songwriting packages has imposed a severe restriction on new songwriters, including a deep spiritual one.

New music is the lifeblood of the musical community. Not everyone can compose, or, better, not everyone does compose, but the musical community needs new music to stay inspired and fresh, including for their audiences. I think that modern musical technologies in the form of equipment and software has spawned an unprecedentedly large community of musicians who seem to enjoy instant "success" without "doing the work". And so, I think this has given the difficult craft of songwriting ("originals") a bad name and a black eye. It's not to be trusted any more.

Of course, this is dangerous ground here. "Art" in general is often thought of as an unassailable topic, especially within the artistic community. I mean, who (including the author) is to say what's good and bad art, what's the best way to make it and so forth? Critics think they know, but artists often keep a distance from such opinions. Also, a colleague reading this said it borders on Old Fartism. Like "when I was your age, sonny, we made REAL music with sticks, leaves and a wire recorder". Beyond all this, I think that prepackaged compositions are like paint-by-numbers. You end up with something, but by nature you were severely limited in your choices. I think the best art is that which starts from scratch. Make your own frame, stretch the canvas and put on your own gesso. Doing so, it gives the artist an infinite set of possibilities to craft their work from. If you're a piano player, you're limited right off the bat, as opposed to if you could compose for any combination of instruments. I didn't want this to make music-by-numbers users feel like they were bad people. I merely aimed to point out the limitations imposed by such methods. And, agreed, you have to start somewhere. Your early compositions will not be good ones. I think you get better the more you try and the more you write. Music by numbers might be a great way to learn, like riding a 2-wheel bicycle with training wheels. I wrote some songs using "Drum Drops" records (thereby dating me back to the vinyl age) that had the typical pop-tune format and was actually happy with some results. One of those tunes still exists on my made-the-cut list.

On the other hand, here are what I believe are facts about live music:

# Humans need music, almost like they need oxygen. They will be very unhappy without it, in general.
# Humans respond very positively and in a fundamental way to good, soulful and touching music played live by well-intended and accomplished players with excellent-sounding instruments and equipment. Soulful harmonic music vibrates other humans in ways we don't even understand, but it does this at any rate. Every human knows good music and good sound quality. This is easily proven by the volume of sound recordings purchased every day worldwide and what appears to be a convergence of sound quality of music-delivering appliances from reputable manufacturers. Therefore, excellent music is evidently very valuable to most humans. I belive that live music is even more valuable, and I believe it is seriously undervalued as a profession.
# From personal experience, I know that the L1 system is the first commercially-available live music concept that allows musicians to "live in the mix" that they deliver to an audience. I know personally, as a musician, that it dramatically improves any ensemble's experience onstage and it contributes dramatically to improving ensemble communication, performance and the regularity of it. I know personally that with this system and expert musicians, a superior performance is both encouraged and expected. The sonic delivery of this performance is unprecedented in its excellence and attractiveness to an audience.

And so, now that the system has been available for over 3 years, I believe that its use should contribute to musicians' wages if they are willing to devote the time and effort to play in tune, play correctly and serve any audience with what they want. The L1 should set any ensemble apart from any others using conventional equipment. It should also separate those who can play from those who can't, simply by exposing every note that is played, for better or for worse. It is my belief that the use of the L1 system can be a catalyst in making live amplified music in the year 2006 and beyond far more valuable that it was in 1972. And so, it must follow that musicians' wages should surpass those of 1972, only in 2006 dollars (5x or 6x higher, plus). I believe all this from my personal experience with the system, both as a player onstage and as an audience member. These experiences have been unprecedented for me personally.

With all this as an introduction and background, I will herein begin exploration on how musicians can use the L1 in their musical lives to actually make an honorable, equitable living and wage.

'''The L1 system and its new "toolbox" for the professional musician'''

The following are new tools that the L1 system gives to the musical artist. These are tools that have never before been available to musical artists in the history of live amplified music or, for that matter, public music performances of any kind.

# Combining common musical instruments with the L1 system creates a totally new kind of musical instrument that has unprecedented qualities of connecting artists with audiences and with their instruments.
* When a musician crafts an airborn tone using instrument, ToneMatch preset and L1 system, a never-before-available complete and totally new musical instrument is created. The human race has never before had such an instrument. This is not a marketing-and-sales statement from the Bose Corporation. It is a statement of, in my mind, profound fact, especially for any musician to consider. Here are some examples:
** Human voice is the most familiar-sounding musical instrument in all of our experience. We know how it sounds live and we know how it sounds witin an ensemble, including from good recordings made with microphones. Human voice loses volume when the distance from the singer or speaker is increased. It is crisp (sibilants) in front of the head and dull in back of the head. Sound systems for voice (using microphones) have the same characteristics of volume change, plus the vocalist or talker can't hear what his audience is hearing. This is not as much a problem for a "speaker" who is simply delivering information to an audience, as it is to a vocalist who is delivering their heart and soul to an audience. The L1 system puts both vocalist and audience in the same soundfield. The tone and level delivered is very uniform. When the vocalist understands this and accepts it, a profound change takes place in the delivery of their performance. The realization that they can live in the delivery creates a bond and connection to the audience that simply was never possible before in the history of delivering vocal to an audience. It is empowering and deeply spiritual. And from this realization comes a change in the depth of the performance. The performer digs deep and connects to their audience like never before. It's true, it's real.
** Acoustic guitars have a familar tone, a tone we as a species have lived with and loved for many centuries, both live and through recordings. A normal acoustic or "Spanish" guitar behaves exactly like human voice: its sound level falls off rapidly (inverse square of the distance) and its tone varies depending on where you are in the audience. Certainly, the player gets a totally different tone than anyone in the audience. When an acoustic guitar, or a guitar-like instrument whose electrical signal emulates or is that of a real guitar's recording, is played through the L1, the player and the audience are put in the same soundfield and, exactly like the example of human voice, an unprecedented connection of the artist, to and through their instrument and to their audience, is made. Properly configured, the "totally new instrument" here has all the tone and soul of a "real" guitar, but it connects to an audience in a way never before possible. Thus, the artist is empowered and actually encouraged to perform at peak level.
** The same is true for all other "amplifyable" instruments, like horns, all kinds of string instruments, pianos, and so on.
** Electric guitar seems to benefit greatly from being combined with the L1 system. Electric guitar on recordings have delighted jazz, rock and blues fans since the invention of these artforms. Electric guitar amps, unfortunately, are very loud and shrill in front of them, loud and dull off to the side, softer but still shrill in the audience section in front of the amps onstage and dull and soft off to the side areas of the audience. In large concerts, amplifying electric guitar tone by placing a microphone pickup in the "right" place is good for the audience but the artist never hears the tone at the play position. In fact, NO ONE, hears this tone but the player. When electric guitar tone is send to the L1 system, everyone onstage and in the audience hears the intended tone and it's more uniform than ever before. And so, like voice and other instruments discussed, the use of electric guitar with the L1 creates, or rather redefines, the electric guitar as a new kind of musical instrument.

* Localized and spatially-distributed ensemble sound and "Stereo" everywhere

** A typical ensemble using a front-of-house PA in a small venue has most of the sound of the band heard from the nearest PA speaker. Plus, those close to the speaker can get toxic and damaging sound levels. The L1 system, properly used (one per player), gives a sonic perspective from anywhere in the room, as the sound coming from every player is easily heard coming from their location onstage. The ensemble will sound full and spacious and vocals from all members will take on a quality of spacious beauty never possible before.

**Musical arrangements employing this tool can produce spectacular "pingpong" musical effects with vocal and/or instrumental exchanges that treat audiences to the musical equivalent of a very good professional tennis match. Plus, the simple soundstage, distributed and spread across a stage, sounds full and rich and allows much more subtlty to be heard from individual instruments than ever before. This is a very powerful tool that will encourage new kinds of musical arrangements that create new and spatial sound scapes for audiences.

** Your bandmates will hear you AND The Mix. And so, you will be able to play so that the song is served. Can't hear the vocal? It's the one thing that sells both the song and your ensemble. Protect it with all your might. Turn it up or, most likely, turn everything else down. This usually translates to playing right within the song. This forces you to listen and play together better than ever.

* Playing in the same soundfield as your audience invites much more considerate performances

** Let's say you had an electrode connected to your finger tip and so did all the people in an audience, and let's say you had a control whereby you could change the voltage, same for everybody including you. Turn it up a little and it's actually interesting and could even be construed as pleasant. Turn it all the way up and everyone's electrocuted. At some level, it gets painful. So naturally, you would turn it up, maybe play a bit with it, but you would definitely back off when it got uncomfortable. That's sort-of like an L1 system. Now, take your electrode off. That's like the triple amplification system.
** Let's say you're in a hot tub with a lot of people...ah, forget all this. You know what I'm getting at. The L1 system puts you, your bandmates and the audience in the same pool, the same soundfield, for the first time. I suppose some musicians want to abuse their audiences, and maybe themselves at the same time. You know; hate and angst music. The L1 is perfect for this. But most audiences want to feel the love, get transported to a better place, feel good, feel God, all that. And so, the L1 system is best used for this kind of thing, in my opinion. It invites a soulful connection, subtlty, dynamics and good musicianship.

* Nowhere to hide
** This is a blessing and a curse.
** Performing is no joke. For most serious and conscientious artists, it is life and death. You practice practice practice so that you can perform without thinking and without making bad notes. When you just play (and don't think), you connect best with your audience. The L1 system, properly used, places you as bare and naked as can be in front of an audience. If you talk to them through your microphone and mumble, they'll tell you. Make a lot of bad notes or play out of tune and they'll let you know (by not applauding, or by not coming back as your customers). There's no place to hide. This is the curse part.
** The blessing is that you are as bare and naked as you can be. And so, the blessing to you is that it forces you to get your act together, to sing in tune, to connect with your own muse and to put on your best performance.

* Lookin good

The L1 tends to disappear visually from most stages. Audiences often forget they are there. This draws attention to you and your beautiful instruments, and maybe your thoughtfully feng-shue'd-out set. It sure gives you more moving room, compared to a stumble-disaser stage full of wedges and amps. Your show will focus on the players and instruments and not on the equipment. This is also a big advantage in events like weddings, barmitzvahs, corporate events, etc (money events) where the event planners want everything to look slick and polished. They love how L1-equipped bands look. It's a selling point for you to them and for them to their clients.

* No Toxic Sound Zone

PA speakers have a toxic sound zone. No one wants to sit or stand there. At the very least, like at a wedding, it becomes a zone for annoyance, where you can't hold a conversation. With an L1-equipped band, wedding planners (for instance) can have tables in very intimate proximity to the band. In a night club, it allows much more seating by having the best seats right on top of the band, not the worse seats as with a normal PA. More seating means more revenue for the club owner and, hopefully the band.

In Review, here are the brand-new tools you will have at your disposal with the L1 system:

# Use of a brand new musical instrument, based on your voice and/or your instrument of choice. This instrument will put you in close touch with your audiences and with all the subtleties and details of your performance.
# A new, detailed and highly spatial sound stage for your ensemble to work with and within. This allows and encourages new musical arrangements that feature spatial motion and clear instrument/vocal detail.
# Close musical communication with your bandmates. Everyone hears the mix that goes to the audience.
# A playing environment that encourages considerate performance by putting performers and audience members in the same soundfield.
# A clean, good-looking performance area that draws more visual attention to performers and instruments and allows unobtrusive setup devoid of equipment clutter.
# The ability to set up anywhere, including inside an audience, without toxic acoustic levels. This appeals to situations that have limited seating areas or that prefer to maximize seating capacity. It also can lead to very intimate performer/audience contact, as in a "house concert" or the like.

Given these new tools to work with, what is then required of the performer? Here are some requirements:

# You must have the desire to reach an audience and to engage them intimately. This may be a new experience for some performers. Once you get to this, you will love it and so will your audience.
# Instruments must be in tune and mechanically and electrically excellent. Any flaws will show up very clearly in performance.
# Playing must progress from playing with a monitor mix to playing with the entire ensemble and producing one's performance in the ensemble so that the mix is right. For instance, if you can hear your instrument above the level of the lead vocal, you're playing too loud and must turn down. In playing soccer, beginners look at their feet and the ball. Expert players experience the entire game, head up, and have a full-spectrum view of the playing field. Playing music from a monitor mix is like the neophyte soccer player while playing within a full L1 system allows all players to hear the full mix, the game, like an expert soccer player. Most players will have to learn how to listen to everyone and play accordingly, possibly all over again. Thus, the player must play differently than he or she ever has. Fortunately, this draws on good but latent skills that every musician has. The comment that "musicians can't mix themselves" is totally wrong. And anyway, it's not mixing; it's "playing together". It's Ensemble 101 in music school. Everyone knows how to do it. With the L1 system in place, such skills are quickly brought forward and enjoyed.
# Work on arrangements, especially given the spectacular soundstage the L1 system offers. Work on multiple-lead interplay, big lush multi-instrumental crescendos, call-and-response vocal fun, and so on. Make each song a jewel and play with dynamics. The system encourages this.
# Playing must serve the song. Everyone must realize that the lead vocal or the lead instrument is selling the song and the band. And so, the rest of the band must support this effort to make the song reach its full potential. Listen to the great recordings of music of any kind. Note where the vocal is in the mix and make this happen at your own show.
# Look good. Since your stage will be clean and uncluttered, your audience will naturally focus on you and your instruments naturally. Give them something entertaining or attractive to look at, because they won't have much equipment clutter to look at.

Working for a Living

So, if you do all this, you will, in time, be empowered and inspired as a musician and as an ensemble and your show will be far more attractive than any using conventional equipment, guaranteed. All the new tools you have to work with are simply not available using the usual triple-system gear. You'll be producing live music performance with unprecedented beauty and clarity and soul. So then, how is this going to allow you, at long last, to be able to make a respectable wage and not 1970 wages, 1/5 or lower than you should be making at $100/player per show?

# First clue: DJ's feature the L1 system in their advertisements. By this time, word has gotten out, mostly through their promotion, that the Bose system is the hippest and highest-quality system for any event. And event planners know that they will have to pay a premium for this at their event. It comes with the "Deluxe Package" because it sounds best, doesn't blast people near it and can be set up with both audio and visual unobtrusiveness. DJ's make more money this way. Why don't musicians? My guess is that DJ's are more enterpreneurial than musicians. They are, obviously, better at business. I can't think of a good reason why, other than the fact that musicians simply don't think along these lines.

Actually, that's not true. Musicians who are in big slick "outside" bands can get as much as national attractions at concerts, $10,000, $15,000 and more for an event, featuring 6-10 players and more. But, these bands are full of expert players and national-level singers who wear tuxedos and lovely evening gowns, or elaborate costumes of all kinds. They play popular songs as well as classic rock and favorite standards with equal expertness. And they travel all over for their dates, not something everyone wants to do.

Most musicians, in America anyway, play in 50-200 seat performing arts centers, restaurants and night clubs for money. Church musicians, I think, are not paid. They volunteer, but nevertheless play in similar venues. So, it's the vast number of musicians in the first category that I am addressing. I believe that this is the overwhelming majority of musicians playing for money in America.

How do you rise above simply accepting the current wage scale for most players? I guess, as I write this (it's just coming out as you see it), you first have to decide that it's unacceptable. This might mean turning down gigs because the pay is disrespectful. Remember; you ought to be getting paid at least $500 for a show, or you're not making enough to keep up with inflation. If you play for 3 hours with some breaks and spend another 2 hours commuting, setting up and breaking down, you will make $100 per hour. Not bad. Competent "shop time" costs $60-$75 per hour. Factor in rehearsals, promotion and paying an agent and you're getting into a reasonable hourly wage. Something you can be proud of.

I'm stopping to think about all this, peparing to go on. I myself have a pretty bad business sense as a musician, so it's a pretty demanding load on my brain right now. This is also because it's a huge problem based on how many musicians accept the wages they get and how the entire business of live music has settled into what I think is a rut.

However, like all problems, there is a solution. Identifying the problem is often the biggest step. The rest is merely work.

Making a Living with the L1®

2006-11-09T14:31:23Z

Clifford: I think I've taken this section up to identifying the problem and tools to use. Now I have to come up with a strategy for all musicians, including myself.

'''Making a Living With the L1'''
by Cliff Henricksen

==Introduction==

When I was a full-time musician playing in restaurants and clubs in the early 1970's, I and everyone else doing the same were making $50-$100 a night playing in bands, 4 or 5 piece. I also played in a rock and roll duo with a big PA, singing drummer who occasionally played left-hand Rhodes bass. It was a musical circus, sounded good and we made even more money than most individually. My musical colleagues all nod in agreement to this level of income figure. It is a very good indication that live music is dramatically devalued since 1972. This makes me very sad, and it is indeed a "sad situation". The music is devalued, but not the musical instruments, the equipment,the transportation costs, clothing or anything else. That's all gone up. But we are still in a time warp on pay.

Today, club gigs pay about the same and the better or perhaps more "connected" players (the ones with long-time local connections) might get $200. Party, wedding, bar mitzvah, corporate and the like gigs will pay more, but they always have. Such gigs require production rivalling big pop concerts (including costumes, sets and big sound systems), a wide variety of musical styles and typically require pro-level performers who often are required to travel extensively. On these shows, original music is basically out of the question. In general, it's rare that a musician in 2006 can make a respectable living simply by performing music in local venues. You must have other work. It seems that inflation has passed most musicians by, indicating that the services of musicians have declined steadily since the 1970's. Why would this be? Here are some possible reasons:

# Musicians have played so loud that audiences have been bludgeoned into staying away, staying home (with the TV, video games or the internet for entertainment), going to church, going to the movies or generally seeking more pleasant entertainment and entertainment environments.
# The proliferation of amplified musical equipment and instruments has expanded so greatly that there is an ever-growing community of musicians who will do anything to get a gig, including playing for free. And so, the market demand for performing musicians and performing bands is totally swamped by the growing availability of bands and players. This forces wages down.
# Musical artists, like all artists, are generally not business-minded by nature. Of so it seems. They don't think like business people for the most part because they mostly think about music, its composition and its performance. I forget the "right brain" and "left brain" explanation of this. And so, artists and musicians in general make bad business decisions (possibly because they don't want to deal with it), or simply accept the wages that are offered them without comment, complaint or some proactive strategy.
# Triple system amplification tends to make all bands sound similar, so that any artistic excellence is lost in sonic clutter created by this. Thus, a "great" band can't really demonstrate their excellence. The triple system tends to make all bands playing in small to medium venues sound alike (blurry) and thus it seems to lump all bands as "mediochre" or "annoying" because of excessive levels and chaotic fidelity presented.
# Most musicians today seem to have other employment, because they can't support themselves playing. This contributes to wages going down.
# The American Federation of Musicians was once a powerful force in helping musicians achieve an honorable wage. Today it is almost nonexistent, other than for very high-profile work such as Broadway plays, symphony orchestras, some casino gigs and movie film score work. I may even be wrong about this.
# Bands playing original compositions seem to be doomed to a life of scraping for gigs that pay nothing, unless they have some kind of recording that is distributed by legitimate means (a "record label", whatever this means in 2006). Popular bands playing popular music will occasionally trick an audience by inserting their original into a set. But if it is announced ("...and here's one of our original tunes..."), the audience mostly gets glassy-eyed and bored.
# Bands "creating" (or attempting to create) original music have a zillion different "music composition" software packages to choose from, many with prefabricated song "templates" in common song formats (A/B/A/B/C/A/B, ETC), or with sampled drum (and other instrument) loops. And so, budding artists or complete bands will use these to "create" new songs by playing them and possibly shouting or screaming lyrics without melody over the chord changes. My opinion is that this is not only a severe limitation on songwriting, it tends to be not-songwriting or discourage the creation of a real song. The great, enduring songs we all love and can sing to ourselves (from Bessy Smith to Sinatra, Ellington, the Beatles, Pearl Jam, Van Halen, Outkast, ...), I believe, started with either a story to tell or with a melody, not with a fully-produced, full-production music track that you insert your-lyric-here into. My children, some of them musicians but all of them music lovers and appreciators, complain that modern music isn't melodic or satisfying in many ways. And so, they seem to prefer music from the '60's thru the '80's. I think that instant gratification afforded by instant-songwriting packages has imposed a severe restriction on new songwriters, including a deep spiritual one. New music is the lifeblood of the musical community. Not everyone can compose, or, better, not everyone does compose, but the musical community needs new music to stay inspired and fresh, including for their audiences. I think that modern musical technologies in the form of equipment and software has spawned an unprecedentedly large community of musicians who seem to enjoy instant "success" without "doing the work". And so, I think this has given the difficult craft of songwriting ("originals") a bad name and a black eye. It's not to be trusted any more.

Of course, this is dangerous ground here. "Art" in general is often thought of as an unassailable topic, especially within the artistic community. I mean, who (including the author) is to say what's good and bad art, what's the best way to make it and so forth. Critics think they know, but artists often keep a distance from such opinions. Also, a colleague reading this said it borders on Old Fartism. Like "when I was your age, sonny, we made REAL music with sticks, leaves and a wire recorder". Beyond all this, I think that prepackaged compositions are like paint-by-numbers. You end up with something, but by nature you were severely limited in your choices. I think the best art is that which starts from scratch. Doing so, it gives the artist an infinite set of possibilities to craft their work from. If you're a piano player, you're limited right off the bat, as opposed to if you could compose for any combination of instruments. I didn't want this to make music-by-numbers users feel like they were bad people, merely to point out the limitations imposed by such methods. And, agreed, you have to start somewhere. Also, your early composition will not be good ones. I think you get better the more you try and the more you write. Music by numbers might be a great way to learn, like with training wheels. I wrote some songs using "Drum Drops" records that had the typical pop-tune format and was actually happy. One of those tunes still exists on my made-the-cut list.

On the other hand, here are what I believe are facts about live music:

# Humans need music, almost like they need oxygen. They will be very unhappy without it, in general.
# Humans respond very positively and in a fundamental way to good, soulful and touching music played live by well-intended and accomplished players with excellent-sounding instruments and equipment. Every human knows good music and good sound quality. This is easily proven by the volume of sound recordings purchased every day worldwide. Therefore, excellent live music is evidently very valuable to most humans. I belive it is seriously undervalued.
# From personal experience, I know that the L1 system is the first commercially-available live music concept that allows musicians to "live in the mix" that they deliver to an audience. I know personally, as a musician, that it dramatically improves any ensemble's experience onstage and it contributes dramatically to improving ensemble communication, performance and the regularity of it. I know personally that with this system and expert musicians, a superior performance is both encouraged and expected. The sonic delivery of this performance is unprecedented in its excellence and attractiveness to an audience.

And so, now that the system has been available for over 3 years, I believe that its use should contribute to musicians' wages if they are willing to devote the time and effort to play in tune, play correctly and serve any audience with what they want. The L1 should set any ensemble apart from any others using conventional equipment. It should also separate those who can play from those who can't, simply by exposing every note that is played, for better or for worse. It is my belief that the use of the L1 system can be a catalyst in making live amplified music in the year 2006 and beyond far more valuable that it was in 1972. And so, it must follow that musicians' wages should surpass those of 1972, only in 2006 dollars (5x or 6x higher, plus). I believe all this from my personal experience with the system, both as a player onstage and as an audience member. These experiences have been unprecedented for me personally.

With all this as an introduction and background, I will herein begin exploration on how musicians can use the L1 in their musical lives to actually make an honorable, equitable living and wage.

'''The L1 system and its new "toolbox" for the professional musician'''

The following are new tools that the L1 system gives the musical artist, that they have never had before in the history of live amplified music.

# Combining common musical instruments with the L1 creates a totally new kind of musical instrument that has unprecedented qualities of connecting artists with audiences and with their instruments.
* When a musician crafts an airborn tone using instrument, ToneMatch preset and L1 system, a never-before available complete and totally new musical instrument is created. The human race has never before had such an instrument. This is not a marketing-and-sales statement from the Bose Corporation. It is a statement of, in my mind, profound fact, especially for any musician to consider. Here are some examples:
** Human voice is the most familiar-sounding musical instrument in all of our experience. We know how it sounds live and we know how it sounds witin an ensemble, including from good recordings made with microphones. Human voice loses volume when the distance from the singer or speaker is increased. It is crisp (sibilants) in front of the head and dull in back of the head. Sound systems for voice (using microphones) have the same characteristics of volume change, plus the vocalist or talker can't hear what his audience is hearing. This is not as much a problem for a "speaker" who is simply delivering information to an audience, as it is to a vocalist who is delivering their heart and soul to an audience. The L1 system puts both vocalist and audience in the same soundfield. The tone and level delivered is very uniform. When the vocalist understands this and accepts it, a profound change takes place in the delivery of their performance. The realization that they can live in the delivery creates a bond and connection to the audience that simply was never possible before in the history of delivering vocal to an audience. It is empowering and deeply spiritual. And from this realization comes a change in the depth of the performance. The performer digs deep and connects to their audience like never before. It's true, it's real.
** Acoustic guitars have a familar tone, a tone we as a species have lived with and loved for many centuries, both live and through recordings. A normal acoustic or "Spanish" guitar behaves exactly like human voice: its sound level falls off rapidly (inverse square of the distance) and its tone varies depending on where you are in the audience. Certainly, the player gets a totally different tone than anyone in the audience. When an acoustic guitar, or a guitar-like instrument whose electrical signal emulates or is that of a real guitar's recording, is played through the L1, the player and the audience are put in the same soundfield and, exactly like the example of human voice, an unprecedented connection of the artist, to and through their instrument and to their audience, is made. Properly configured, the "totally new instrument" here has all the tone and soul of a "real" guitar, but it connects to an audience in a way never before possible. Thus, the artist is empowered and actually encouraged to perform at peak level.
** The same is true for all other "amplifyable" instruments, like horns, all kinds of string instruments, pianos, and so on.
** Electric guitar seems to benefit greatly from being combined with the L1 system. Electric guitar on recordings have delighted jazz, rock and blues fans since the invention of these artforms. Electric guitar amps, unfortunately, are very loud and shrill in front of them, loud and dull off to the side, softer but still shrill in the audience section in front of the amps onstage and dull and soft off to the side areas of the audience. In large concerts, amplifying electric guitar tone by placing a microphone pickup in the "right" place is good for the audience but the artist never hears the tone at the play position. In fact, NO ONE, hears this tone but the player. When electric guitar tone is send to the L1 system, everyone onstage and in the audience hears the intended tone and it's more uniform than ever before. And so, like voice and other instruments discussed, the use of electric guitar with the L1 creates, or rather redefines, the electric guitar as a new kind of musical instrument.

* Localized and spatially-distributed ensemble sound and "Stereo" everywhere

** A typical ensemble using a front-of-house PA in a small venue has most of the sound of the band heard from the nearest PA speaker. Plus, those close to the speaker can get toxic and damaging sound levels. The L1 system, properly used (one per player), gives a sonic perspective from anywhere in the room, as the sound coming from every player is easily heard coming from their location onstage. The ensemble will sound full and spacious and vocals from all members will take on a quality of spacious beauty never possible before.

**Musical arrangements employing this tool can produce spectacular "pingpong" musical effects with vocal and/or instrumental exchanges that treat audiences to the musical equivalent of a very good professional tennis match. Plus, the simple soundstage, distributed and spread across a stage, sounds full and rich and allows much more subtlty to be heard from individual instruments than ever before. This is a very powerful tool that will encourage new kinds of musical arrangements that create new and spatial sound scapes for audiences.

** Your bandmates will hear you AND The Mix. And so, you will be able to play so that the song is served. Can't hear the vocal? It's the one thing that sells both the song and your ensemble. Protect it with all your might. Turn it up or, most likely, turn everything else down. This usually translates to playing right within the song. This forces you to listen and play together better than ever.

* Playing in the same soundfield as your audience invites much more considerate performances

** Let's say you had an electrode connected to your finger tip and so did all the people in an audience, and let's say you had a control whereby you could change the voltage, same for everybody including you. Turn it up a little and it's actually interesting and could even be construed as pleasant. Turn it all the way up and everyone's electrocuted. At some level, it gets painful. So naturally, you would turn it up, maybe play a bit with it, but you would definitely back off when it got uncomfortable. That's sort-of like an L1 system. Now, take your electrode off. That's like the triple amplification system.
** Let's say you're in a hot tub with a lot of people...ah, forget all this. You know what I'm getting at. The L1 system puts you, your bandmates and the audience in the same pool, the same soundfield, for the first time. I suppose some musicians want to abuse their audiences, and maybe themselves at the same time. You know; hate and angst music. The L1 is perfect for this. But most audiences want to feel the love, get transported to a better place, feel good, feel God, all that. And so, the L1 system is best used for this kind of thing, in my opinion. It invites a soulful connection, subtlty, dynamics and good musicianship.

* Nowhere to hide
** This is a blessing and a curse.
** Performing is no joke. For most serious and conscientious artists, it is life and death. You practice practice practice so that you can perform without thinking and without making bad notes. When you just play (and don't think), you connect best with your audience. The L1 system, properly used, places you as bare and naked as can be in front of an audience. If you talk to them through your microphone and mumble, they'll tell you. Make a lot of bad notes or play out of tune and they'll let you know (by not applauding, or by not coming back as your customers). There's no place to hide. This is the curse part.
** The blessing is that you are as bare and naked as you can be. And so, the blessing to you is that it forces you to get your act together, to sing in tune, to connect with your own muse and to put on your best performance.

* Lookin good

The L1 tends to disappear visually from most stages. Audiences often forget they are there. This draws attention to you and your beautiful instruments, and maybe your thoughtfully feng-shue'd-out set. It sure gives you more moving room, compared to a stumble-disaser stage full of wedges and amps. Your show will focus on the players and instruments and not on the equipment. This is also a big advantage in events like weddings, barmitzvahs, corporate events, etc (money events) where the event planners want everything to look slick and polished. They love how L1-equipped bands look. It's a selling point for you to them and for them to their clients.

* No Toxic Sound Zone

PA speakers have a toxic sound zone. No one wants to sit or stand there. At the very least, like at a wedding, it becomes a zone for annoyance, where you can't hold a conversation. With an L1-equipped band, wedding planners (for instance) can have tables in very intimate proximity to the band. In a night club, it allows much more seating by having the best seats right on top of the band, not the worse seats as with a normal PA. More seating means more revenue for the club owner and, hopefully the band.

In Review, here are the brand-new tools you will have at your disposal with the L1 system:

# Use of a brand new musical instrument, based on your voice and/or your instrument of choice. This instrument will put you in close touch with your audiences and with all the subtleties and details of your performance.
# A new, detailed and highly spatial sound stage for your ensemble to work with and within. This allows and encourages new musical arrangements that feature spatial motion and clear instrument/vocal detail.
# Close musical communication with your bandmates. Everyone hears the mix.
# A playing environment that encourages considerate performance by putting performers and audience in the same soundfield.
# A clean, good-looking performance area that draws more visual attention to performers and instruments and allows unobtrusive setup devoid of equipment clutter.
# The ability to set up anywhere, including inside an audience, without toxic acoustic levels. This appeals to situations that have limited seating areas or that prefer to maximize seating capacity. It also can lead to very intimate performer/audience contact, as in a "house concert" or the like.

Given these new tools to work with, what is then required of the performer? Here are some requirements:

# You must have the desire to reach an audience and to engage them intimately. This may be a new experience for some performers. Once you get to this, you will love it and so will your audience.
# Instruments must be in tune and mechanically and electrically excellent. Any flaws will show up very clearly in performance.
# Playing must progress from playing with a monitor mix to playing with the entire ensemble and producing one's performance in the ensemble so that the mix is right. For instance, if you can hear your instrument above the level of the lead vocal, you're playing too loud and must turn down. In playing soccer, beginners look at their feet and the ball. Expert players experience the entire game, head up, and have a full-spectrum view of the playing field. Playing music from a monitor mix is like the neophyte soccer player while playing within a full L1 system allows all players to hear the full mix, the game, like an expert soccer player. Most players will have to learn how to listen to everyone and play accordingly, possibly all over again. Thus, the player must play differently than he or she ever has. Fortunately, this draws on good but latent skills that every musician has. The comment that "musicians can't mix themselves" is totally wrong. And anyway, it's not mixing; it's "playing together". It's Ensemble 101 in music school. Everyone knows how to do it. With the L1 system in place, such skills are quickly brought forward and enjoyed.
# Work on arrangements, especially given the spectacular soundstage the L1 system offers. Work on multiple-lead interplay, big lush multi-instrumental crescendos, call-and-response vocal fun, and so on. Make each song a jewel and play with dynamics. The system encourages this.
# Playing must serve the song. Everyone must realize that the lead vocal or the lead instrument is selling the song and the band. And so, the rest of the band must support this effort to make the song reach its full potential. Listen to the great recordings of music of any kind. Note where the vocal is in the mix and make this happen at your own show.
# Look good. Since your stage will be clean and uncluttered, your audience will naturally focus on you and your instruments naturally. Give them something entertaining or attractive to look at, because they won't have much equipment clutter to look at.

Working for a Living

So, if you do all this, you will, in time, be empowered and inspired as a musician and as an ensemble and your show will be far more attractive than any using conventional equipment, guaranteed. All the new tools you have to work with are simply not available using the usual triple-system gear. You'll be producing music with unprecedented beauty and clarity and soul. So then, how is this going to allow you, at long last, to be able to make a respectable wage and not 1970 wages, 1/5 or lower than you should be making at $100/player per show?

# First clue: DJ's feature the L1 system in their advertisements. By this time, word has gotten out, mostly through their promotion, that the Bose system is the hippest and highest-quality system for any event. And event planners know that they will have to pay a premium for this at their event. It comes with the "Deluxe Package" because it sounds best, doesn't blast people near it and can be set up with both audio and visual unobtrusiveness. DJ's make more money this way. Why don't musicians? My guess is that DJ's are more enterpreneurial than musicians. They are, obviously, better at business. I can't think of a good reason why, other than the fact that musicians simply don't think along these lines.

Actually, that's not true. Musicians who are in big slick "outside" bands can get as much as national attractions at concerts, $10,000, $15,000 and more for an event, featuring 6-10 players and more. But, these bands are full of expert players and national-level singers who wear tuxedos and lovely evening gowns, or elaborate costumes of all kinds. They play popular songs as well as classic rock and favorite standards with equal expertness. And they travel all over for their dates, not something everyone wants to do.

Most musicians, in America anyway, play in 50-200 seat performing arts centers, restaurants and night clubs for money. Church musicians, I think, are not paid. They volunteer, but nevertheless play in similar venues. So, it's the vast number of musicians in the first category that I am addressing. I believe that this is the overwhelming majority of musicians playing for money in America.

How do you rise above simply accepting the current wage scale for most players? I guess, as I write this (it's just coming out as you see it), you first have to decide that it's unacceptable. This might mean turning down gigs because the pay is disrespectful. Remember; you ought to be getting paid at least $500 for a show, or you're not making enough to keep up with inflation. I'm stopping to think about all this, peparing to go on. I myself have a pretty bad business sense as a musician, so it's a pretty demanding load on my brain right now. However, like all problems, there is a solution. Identifying the problem is often the biggest step. The rest is merely work.

Making a Living with the L1®

2006-11-08T21:54:38Z

Clifford:

'''Making a Living With the L1'''
by Cliff Henricksen

==Introduction==

When I was a full-time musician playing in restaurants and clubs in the early 1970's, I and everyone else doing the same were making $50-$100 a night playing in bands, 4 or 5 piece. I also played in a rock and roll duo with a big PA, singing drummer who occasionally played left-hand Rhodes bass. It was a musical circus, sounded good and we made even more money than most individually. My musical colleagues all nod in agreement to this level of income figure. It is a very good indication that live music is dramatically devalued since 1972. This makes me very sad, and it is indeed a "sad situation". The music is devalued, but not the musical instruments, the equipment,the transportation costs, clothing or anything else. That's all gone up. But we are still in a time warp on pay.

Today, club gigs pay about the same and the better or perhaps more "connected" players (the ones with long-time local connections) might get $200. Party, wedding, bar mitzvah, corporate and the like gigs will pay more, but they always have. Such gigs require production rivalling big pop concerts (including costumes, sets and big sound systems), a wide variety of musical styles and typically require pro-level performers who often are required to travel extensively. On these shows, original music is basically out of the question. In general, it's rare that a musician in 2006 can make a respectable living simply by performing music in local venues. You must have other work. It seems that inflation has passed most musicians by, indicating that the services of musicians have declined steadily since the 1970's. Why would this be? Here are some possible reasons:

# Musicians have played so loud that audiences have been bludgeoned into staying away, staying home (with the TV, video games or the internet for entertainment), going to church, going to the movies or generally seeking more pleasant entertainment and entertainment environments.
# The proliferation of amplified musical equipment and instruments has expanded so greatly that there is an ever-growing community of musicians who will do anything to get a gig, including playing for free. And so, the market demand for performing musicians and performing bands is totally swamped by the growing availability of bands and players. This forces wages down.
# Musical artists, like all artists, are generally not business-minded by nature. Of so it seems. They don't think like business people for the most part because they mostly think about music, its composition and its performance. I forget the "right brain" and "left brain" explanation of this. And so, artists and musicians in general make bad business decisions (possibly because they don't want to deal with it), or simply accept the wages that are offered them without comment, complaint or some proactive strategy.
# Triple system amplification tends to make all bands sound similar, so that any artistic excellence is lost in sonic clutter created by this. Thus, a "great" band can't really demonstrate their excellence. The triple system tends to make all bands playing in small to medium venues sound alike (blurry) and thus it seems to lump all bands as "mediochre" or "annoying" because of excessive levels and chaotic fidelity presented.
# Most musicians today seem to have other employment, because they can't support themselves playing. This contributes to wages going down.
# The American Federation of Musicians was once a powerful force in helping musicians achieve an honorable wage. Today it is almost nonexistant, other than for very high-profile work such as Broadway plays, symphony orchestras, some casino gigs and movie film score work. I may even be wrong about this.
# Bands playing original compositions seem to be doomed to a life of scraping for gigs that pay nothing, unless they have some kind of recording that is distributed by legitimate means (a "record label", whatever this means in 2006). Popular bands playing popular music will occasionally trick an audience by inserting their original into a set. But if it is announced ("...and here's one of our original tunes..."), the audience mostly gets glassy-eyed and bored.
# Bands "creating" (or attempting to create) original music have a zillion different "music composition" software packages to choose from, many with prefabricated song "templates" in common song formats (A/B/A/B/C/A/B, ETC), or with sampled drum (and other instrument) loops. And so, budding artists or complete bands will use these to "create" new songs by playing them and possibly shouting or screaming lyrics without melody over the chord changes. My opinion is that this is not only a severe limitation on songwriting, it tends to be not-songwriting or discourage the creation of a real song. The great, enduring songs we all love and can sing to ourselves (from Bessy Smith to Sinatra, Ellington, the Beatles, Pearl Jam, Van Halen, Outkast, ...), I believe, started with either a story to tell or with a melody, not with a fully-produced, full-production music track that you insert your-lyric-here into. My children, some of them musicians but all of them music lovers and appreciators, complain that modern music isn't melodic or satisfying in many ways. And so, they seem to prefer music from the '60's thru the '80's. I think that instant gratification afforded by instant-songwriting packages has imposed a severe restriction on new songwriters, including a deep spiritual one. New music is the lifeblood of the musical community. Not everyone can compose, or, better, not everyone does compose, but the musical community needs new music to stay inspired and fresh, including for their audiences. I think that modern musical technologies in the form of equipment and software has spawned an unprecedentedly large community of musicians who seem to enjoy instant "success" without "doing the work". And so, I think this has given the difficult craft of songwriting ("originals") a bad name and a black eye. It's not to be trusted any more.

On the other hand, here are what I believe are facts about live music:

# Humans need music, almost like they need oxygen. They will be very unhappy without it, in general.
# Humans respond very positively and in a fundamental way to good, soulful and touching music played live by well-intended and accomplished players with excellent-sounding instruments and equipment. Every human knows good music and good sound quality. This is easily proven by the volume of sound recordings purchased every day worldwide. Therefore, excellent live music is evidently very valuable to most humans. I belive it is seriously undervalued.
# From personal experience, I know that the L1 system is the first commercially-available live music concept that allows musicians to "live in the mix" that they deliver to an audience. I know personally, as a musician, that it dramatically improves any ensemble's experience onstage and it contributes dramatically to improving ensemble communication, performance and the regularity of it. I know personally that with this system and expert musicians, a superior performance is both encouraged and expected. The sonic delivery of this performance is unprecedented in its excellence and attractiveness to an audience.

And so, now that the system has been available for over 3 years, I believe that its use should contribute to musicians' wages if they are willing to devote the time and effort to play in tune, play correctly and serve any audience with what they want. The L1 should set any ensemble apart from any others using conventional equipment. It should also separate those who can play from those who can't, simply by exposing every note that is played, for better or for worse. It is my belief that the use of the L1 system can be a catalyst in making live amplified music in the year 2006 and beyond far more valuable that it was in 1972. And so, it must follow that musicians' wages should surpass those of 1972, only in 2006 dollars (5x or 6x higher, plus). I believe all this from my personal experience with the system, both as a player onstage and as an audience member. These experiences have been unprecedented for me personally.

With all this as an introduction and background, I will herein begin exploration on how musicians can use the L1 in their musical lives to actually make an honorable, equitable living and wage.

'''The L1 system and its new "toolbox" for the professional musician'''

The following are new tools that the L1 system gives the musical artist, that they have never had before in the history of live amplified music.

# Combining common musical instruments with the L1 creates a totally new kind of musical instrument that has unprecedented qualities of connecting artists with audiences and with their instruments.
* When a musician crafts an airborn tone using instrument, ToneMatch preset and L1 system, a never-before available complete and totally new musical instrument is created. The human race has never before had such an instrument. This is not a marketing-and-sales statement from the Bose Corporation. It is a statement of, in my mind, profound fact, especially for any musician to consider. Here are some examples:
** Human voice is the most familiar-sounding musical instrument in all of our experience. We know how it sounds live and we know how it sounds witin an ensemble, including from good recordings made with microphones. Human voice loses volume when the distance from the singer or speaker is increased. It is crisp (sibilants) in front of the head and dull in back of the head. Sound systems for voice (using microphones) have the same characteristics of volume change, plus the vocalist or talker can't hear what his audience is hearing. This is not as much a problem for a "speaker" who is simply delivering information to an audience, as it is to a vocalist who is delivering their heart and soul to an audience. The L1 system puts both vocalist and audience in the same soundfield. The tone and level delivered is very uniform. When the vocalist understands this and accepts it, a profound change takes place in the delivery of their performance. The realization that they can live in the delivery creates a bond and connection to the audience that simply was never possible before in the history of delivering vocal to an audience. It is empowering and deeply spiritual. And from this realization comes a change in the depth of the performance. The performer digs deep and connects to their audience like never before. It's true, it's real.
** Acoustic guitars have a familar tone, a tone we as a species have lived with and loved for many centuries, both live and through recordings. A normal acoustic or "Spanish" guitar behaves exactly like human voice: its sound level falls off rapidly (inverse square of the distance) and its tone varies depending on where you are in the audience. Certainly, the player gets a totally different tone than anyone in the audience. When an acoustic guitar, or a guitar-like instrument whose electrical signal emulates or is that of a real guitar's recording, is played through the L1, the player and the audience are put in the same soundfield and, exactly like the example of human voice, an unprecedented connection of the artist, to and through their instrument and to their audience, is made. Properly configured, the "totally new instrument" here has all the tone and soul of a "real" guitar, but it connects to an audience in a way never before possible. Thus, the artist is empowered and actually encouraged to perform at peak level.
** The same is true for all other "amplifyable" instruments, like horns, all kinds of string instruments, pianos, and so on.
** Electric guitar seems to benefit greatly from being combined with the L1 system. Electric guitar on recordings have delighted jazz, rock and blues fans since the invention of these artforms. Electric guitar amps, unfortunately, are very loud and shrill in front of them, loud and dull off to the side, softer but still shrill in the audience section in front of the amps onstage and dull and soft off to the side areas of the audience. In large concerts, amplifying electric guitar tone by placing a microphone pickup in the "right" place is good for the audience but the artist never hears the tone at the play position. In fact, NO ONE, hears this tone but the player. When electric guitar tone is send to the L1 system, everyone onstage and in the audience hears the intended tone and it's more uniform than ever before. And so, like voice and other instruments discussed, the use of electric guitar with the L1 creates, or rather redefines, the electric guitar as a new kind of musical instrument.

* Localized and spatially-distributed ensemble sound and "Stereo" everywhere

** A typical ensemble using a front-of-house PA in a small venue has most of the sound of the band heard from the nearest PA speaker. Plus, those close to the speaker can get toxic and damaging sound levels. The L1 system, properly used (one per player), gives a sonic perspective from anywhere in the room, as the sound coming from every player is easily heard coming from their location onstage. The ensemble will sound full and spacious and vocals from all members will take on a quality of spacious beauty never possible before.

**Musical arrangements employing this tool can produce spectacular "pingpong" musical effects with vocal and/or instrumental exchanges that treat audiences to the musical equivalent of a very good professional tennis match. Plus, the simple soundstage, distributed and spread across a stage, sounds full and rich and allows much more subtlty to be heard from individual instruments than ever before. This is a very powerful tool that will encourage new kinds of musical arrangements that create new and spatial sound scapes for audiences.

** Your bandmates will hear you AND The Mix. And so, you will be able to play so that the song is served. Can't hear the vocal? It's the one thing that sells both the song and your ensemble. Protect it with all your might. Turn it up or, most likely, turn everything else down. This usually translates to playing right within the song. This forces you to listen and play together better than ever.

* Playing in the same soundfield as your audience invites much more considerate performances

** Let's say you had an electrode connected to your finger tip and so did all the people in an audience, and let's say you had a control whereby you could change the voltage, same for everybody including you. Turn it up a little and it's actually interesting and could even be construed as pleasant. Turn it all the way up and everyone's electrocuted. At some level, it gets painful. So naturally, you would turn it up, maybe play a bit with it, but you would definitely back off when it got uncomfortable. That's sort-of like an L1 system. Now, take your electrode off. That's like the triple amplification system.
** Let's say you're in a hot tub with a lot of people...ah, forget all this. You know what I'm getting at. The L1 system puts you, your bandmates and the audience in the same pool, the same soundfield, for the first time. I suppose some musicians want to abuse their audiences, and maybe themselves at the same time. You know; hate and angst music. The L1 is perfect for this. But most audiences want to feel the love, get transported to a better place, feel good, feel God, all that. And so, the L1 system is best used for this kind of thing, in my opinion. It invites a soulful connection, subtlty, dynamics and good musicianship.

* Nowhere to hide
** This is a blessing and a curse.
** Performing is no joke. For most serious and conscientious artists, it is life and death. You practice practice practice so that you can perform without thinking and without making bad notes. When you just play (and don't think), you connect best with your audience. The L1 system, properly used, places you as bare and naked as can be in front of an audience. If you talk to them through your microphone and mumble, they'll tell you. Make a lot of bad notes or play out of tune and they'll let you know (by not applauding, or by not coming back as your customers). There's no place to hide. This is the curse part.
** The blessing is that you are as bare and naked as you can be. And so, the blessing to you is that it forces you to get your act together, to sing in tune, to connect with your own muse and to put on your best performance.

* Lookin good

The L1 tends to disappear visually from most stages. Audiences often forget they are there. This draws attention to you and your beautiful instruments, and maybe your thoughtfully feng-shue'd-out set. It sure gives you more moving room, compared to a stumble-disaser stage full of wedges and amps. Your show will focus on the players and instruments and not on the equipment. This is also a big advantage in events like weddings, barmitzvahs, corporate events, etc (money events) where the event planners want everything to look slick and polished. They love how L1-equipped bands look. It's a selling point for you to them and for them to their clients.

* No Toxic Sound Zone

PA speakers have a toxic sound zone. No one wants to sit or stand there. At the very least, like at a wedding, it becomes a zone for annoyance, where you can't hold a conversation. With an L1-equipped band, wedding planners (for instance) can have tables in very intimate proximity to the band. In a night club, it allows much more seating by having the best seats right on top of the band, not the worse seats as with a normal PA. More seating means more revenue for the club owner and, hopefully the band.

In Review, here are the brand-new tools you will have at your disposal with the L1 system:

# Use of a brand new musical instrument, based on your voice and/or your instrument of choice. This instrument will put you in close touch with your audiences and with all the subtleties and details of your performance.
# A new, detailed and highly spatial sound stage for your ensemble to work with and within. This allows and encourages new musical arrangements that feature spatial motion and clear instrument/vocal detail.
# Close musical communication with your bandmates. Everyone hears the mix.
# A playing environment that encourages considerate performance by putting performers and audience in the same soundfield.
# A clean, good-looking performance area that draws more visual attention to performers and instruments and allows unobtrusive setup devoid of equipment clutter.
# The ability to set up anywhere, including inside an audience, without toxic acoustic levels. This appeals to situations that have limited seating areas or that prefer to maximize seating capacity. It also can lead to very intimate performer/audience contact, as in a "house concert" or the like.

Given these new tools to work with, what is then required of the performer? Here are some requirements:

# You must have the desire to reach an audience and to engage them intimately. This may be a new experience for some performers. Once you get to this, you will love it and so will your audience.
# Instruments must be in tune and mechanically and electrically excellent. Any flaws will show up very clearly in performance.
# Playing must progress from playing with a monitor mix to playing with the entire ensemble and producing one's performance in the ensemble so that the mix is right. For instance, if you can hear your instrument above the level of the lead vocal, you're playing too loud and must turn down. In playing soccer, beginners look at their feet and the ball. Expert players experience the entire game, head up, and have a full-spectrum view of the playing field. Playing music from a monitor mix is like the neophyte soccer player while playing within a full L1 system allows all players to hear the full mix, the game, like an expert soccer player. Most players will have to learn how to listen to everyone and play accordingly, possibly all over again. Thus, the player must play differently than he or she ever has. Fortunately, this draws on good but latent skills that every musician has. The comment that "musicians can't mix themselves" is totally wrong. And anyway, it's not mixing; it's "playing together". It's Ensemble 101 in music school. Everyone knows how to do it. With the L1 system in place, such skills are quickly brought forward and enjoyed.
# Work on arrangements, especially given the spectacular soundstage the L1 system offers. Work on multiple-lead interplay, big lush multi-instrumental crescendos, call-and-response vocal fun, and so on. Make each song a jewel and play with dynamics. The system encourages this.
# Playing must serve the song. Everyone must realize that the lead vocal or the lead instrument is selling the song and the band. And so, the rest of the band must support this effort to make the song reach its full potential. Listen to the great recordings of music of any kind. Note where the vocal is in the mix and make this happen at your own show.
# Look good. Since your stage will be clean and uncluttered, your audience will naturally focus on you and your instruments naturally. Give them something entertaining or attractive to look at, because they won't have much equipment clutter to look at.

Working for a Living

So, if you do all this, you will, in time, be empowered and inspired as a musician and as an ensemble and your show will be far more attractive than any using conventional equipment, guaranteed. All the new tools you have to work with are simply not available using the usual triple-system gear. You'll be producing music with unprecedented beauty and clarity and soul. So then, how is this going to allow you, at long last, to be able to make a respectable wage and not 1970 wages, 1/5 or lower than you should be making at $100/player per show?

# First clue: DJ's feature the L1 system in their advertisements. By this time, word has gotten out, mostly through their promotion, that the Bose system is the hippest and highest-quality system for any event. And event planners know that they will have to pay a premium for this at their event. It comes with the "Deluxe Package" because it sounds best, doesn't blast people near it and can be set up with both audio and visual unobtrusiveness. DJ's make more money this way. Why don't musicians? My guess is that DJ's are more enterpreneurial than musicians. They are, obviously, better at business. I can't think of a good reason why, other than the fact that musicians simply don't think along these lines.

Actually, that's not true. Musicians who are in big slick "outside" bands can get as much as national attractions at concerts, $10,000, $15,000 and more for an event, featuring 6-10 players and more. But, these bands are full of expert players and national-level singers who wear tuxedos and lovely evening gowns, or elaborate costumes of all kinds. They play popular songs as well as classic rock and favorite standards with equal expertness. And they travel all over for their dates, not something everyone wants to do.

Most musicians, in America anyway, play in 50-200 seat performing arts centers, restaurants and night clubs for money. Church musicians, I think, are not paid. They volunteer, but nevertheless play in similar venues. So, it's the vast number of musicians in the first category that I am addressing. I believe that this is the overwhelming majority of musicians playing for money in America.

How do you rise above simply accepting the current wage scale for most players? I guess, as I write this (it's just coming out as you see it), you first have to decide that it's unacceptable. This might mean turning down gigs because the pay is disrespectful. Remember; you ought to be getting paid at least $500 for a show, or you're not making enough to keep up with inflation.

Making a Living with the L1®

2006-11-08T21:11:32Z

Clifford:

'''Making a Living With the L1'''
by Cliff Henricksen

==Introduction==

When I was a full-time musician playing in restaurants and clubs in the early 1970's, I and everyone else doing the same were making $50-$100 a night playing in bands, 4 or 5 piece. I also played in a rock and roll duo with a big PA, singing drummer who occasionally played left-hand Rhodes bass. It was a musical circus, sounded good and we made even more money than most individually. My musical colleagues all nod in agreement to this level of income figure. It is a very good indication that live music is dramatically devalued since 1972. This makes me very sad, and it is indeed a "sad situation".

Today, club gigs pay about the same and the better or perhaps more "connected" players (the ones with long-time local connections) might get $200. Party, wedding, bar mitzvah, corporate and the like gigs will pay more, but they always have. Such gigs require production rivalling big pop concerts (including costumes, sets and big sound systems), a wide variety of musical styles and typically require pro-level performers who often are required to travel extensively. On these shows, original music is basically out of the question. In general, it's rare that a musician in 2006 can make a respectable living simply by performing music in local venues. It seems that inflation has passed most musicians by, indicating that the services of musicians have declined steadily since the 1970's. Why would this be? Here are some possible reasons:

# Musicians have played so loud that audiences have been bludgeoned into staying away, home, going to church, going to the movies or generally seeking more pleasant entertainment.
# The proliferation of amplified musical equipment and instruments has expanded so greatly that there is an ever-growing community of musicians who will do anything to get a gig, including playing for free. And so, the market demand for performing musicians and performing bands is totally swamped by the growing availability of bands and players. This forces wages down.
# Musical artists, like all artists, are generally not business-minded by nature. They don't think like business people for the most part because they mostly think about music, its composition and its performance. I forget the "right brain" and "left brain" explanation of this. And so, artists and musicians in general make bad business decisions, or simply accept the wages that are offered them.
# Triple system amplification tends to make all bands sound similar, so that any artistic excellence is lost in sonic clutter created by this. Thus, a "great" band can't really demonstrate their excellence. The triple system tends to make all bandsj playing in small to medium venues sound alike and thus it seems to lump all bands as "mediochre" or "annoying" because of excessive levels presented.
# Most musicians today seem to have other employment, because they can't support themselves playing. This contributes to wages going down.
# The American Federation of Musicians was once a powerful force in helping musicians acheive an honorable wage. Today it is almost nonexistant, other than for very high-profile work such as Broadway plays, symphony orchestras and movie film score work. I may even be wrong about this.
# Bands playing original compositions seem to be doomed to a life of scraping for gigs that pay nothing, unless they have some kind of recording that is distributed by legitimate means (a "record lable", whatever this means in 2006). Popular bands playing popular music will occasionally trick an audience by inserting their original into a set. But if it is announced ("...and here's one of our original tunes..."), the audience mostly gets glassy-eyed and bored.
# Band "creating" (or attempting to create) original music have a zillion different "music composition" software packages to choose from, many with prefabricated song "templates" in common song formats, or with sampled drum (and other instrument) loops. And so, budding artists or complete bands will use these to "create" new songs by playing them and possibly shouting or screaming lyrics without melody. My opinion is that this is not only a severe limitation on songwriting, it tends to be not-songwriting. The great, enduring songs we all love and can sing to ourselves (from Bessy Smith to Sinatra, the Beatles, Pearl Jam, Outkast, ...), I believe, started with either a story to tell or with a melody, not with a fully-produced, full-production music track that you insert your-lyric-here into. My children, some of them musicians but all of them music lovers and appreciators, complain that modern music isn't melodic or satisfying in many ways. And so, they seem to prefer music from the '60's thru the '80's. I think that instant gratification afforded by instant-songwriting packages has imposed a severe restriction on new songwriters, including a deep spiritual one. New music is the lifeblood of the musical community. Not everyone can compose, or, better, not everyone does compose, but the musical community needs new music to stay inspired and fresh, including for their audiences. I think that modern musical technologies in the form of equipment and software has spawned an unprecedentedly large community of musicians who seem to enjoy instant "success" without "doing the work".

On the other hand, here are what I believe are facts about live music:

# Humans need music, almost like they need oxygen. They will be very unhappy without it, in general.
# Humans respond very positively and in a fundamental way to good, soulful and touching music played live by experts with excellent-sounding equipment. Every human knows good music and good sound quality. This is easily proven by the volume of sound recordings purcahsed every day worldwide. Therefore, excellent live music is probably very valuable to most humans. I belive it is seriously undervalued.
# From personal experience, I know that the L1 system is the first commercially-available live music concept that allows musicians to "live in the mix" that they deliver to an audience. I know as a musician that it dramatically improves any ensemble's experience onstage and it contributes dramatically to improving ensemble performance and the regularity of it. I know that with this system and expert musicians, a superior performance is both encouraged and demanded and the sonic delivery of this performance is unprecedented in its excellence.

And so, now that the system has been available for over 3 years, I believe that its use should contribute to musicians' wages if they are willing to devote the time and effort to play in tune, play correctly and serve any audience with what they want. The L1 should set any ensemble apart from any others using conventional equipment. It should also separate those who can play from those who can't, simply by exposing every note that is played, for better or for worse. It is my belief that the use of the L1 system can be a catalyst in making live amplified music in the year 2006 and beyond far more valuable that it was in 1972. And so, it must follow that musicians' wages should surpass those of 1972, only in 2006 dollars (5x or 6x higher, plus). I believe all this from my personal experience with the system, both as a player onstage and as an audience member. These experiences have been unprecedented for me personally.

With all this as an introduction and background, I will herein begin exploration on how musicians can use the L1 in their musical lives to actually make an honorable living and wage.

'''The L1 system and its new "toolbox" for the professional musician'''

The following are new tools that the L1 system gives the musical artist, that they have never had before

# Combining common musical instruments with the L1 creates a totally new kind of musical instrument that has unprecedented qualities of connecting artists with audiences.
* When a musician crafts an airborn tone using instrument, ToneMatch preset and L1 system, a never-before available complete and totally new musical instrument is created. The human race has never before had such an instrument. This is not a marketing-and-sales statement from the Bose Corporation. It is a statement of, in my mind, profound fact, especially for any musician to consider. Here are some examples:
** Human voice is the most familiar-sounding musical instrument in all of our experience. We know how it sounds live and we know how it sounds witin an ensemble, including from good recordings made with microphones. Human voice loses volume when the distance from the singer or speaker is increased. It is crisp (sibilants) in front of the head and dull in back of the head. Sound systems for voice (using microphones) have the same characteristics of volume change, plus the vocalist or talker can't hear what his audience is hearing. This is not as much a problem for a "speaker" who is simply delivering information to an audience, as it is to a vocalist who is delivering their heart and soul to an audience. The L1 system puts both vocalist and audience in the same soundfield. The tone and level delivered is very uniform. When the vocalist understands this and accepts it, a profound change takes place in the delivery of their performance. The realization that they can live in the delivery creates a bond and connection to the audience that simply was never possible before in the history of delivering vocal to an audience. It is empowering and deeply spiritual. And from this realization comes a change in the depth of the performance. The performer digs deep and connects to their audience like never before. It's true, it's real.
** Acoustic guitars have a familar tone, a tone we as a species have lived with and loved for many centuries, both live and through recordings. A normal acoustic or "Spanish" guitar behaves exactly like human voice: its sound level falls off rapidly (inverse square of the distance) and its tone varies depending on where you are in the audience. Certainly, the player gets a totally different tone than anyone in the audience. When an acoustic guitar, or a guitar-like instrument whose electrical signal emulates or is that of a real guitar's recording, is played through the L1, the player and the audience are put in the same soundfield and, exactly like the example of human voice, an unprecedented connection of the artist, to and through their instrument and to their audience, is made. Properly configured, the "totally new instrument" here has all the tone and soul of a "real" guitar, but it connects to an audience in a way never before possible. Thus, the artist is empowered and actually encouraged to perform at peak level.
** The same is true for all other "amplifyable" instruments, like horns, all kinds of string instruments, pianos, and so on.
** Electric guitar seems to benefit greatly from being combined with the L1 system. Electric guitar on recordings have delighted jazz, rock and blues fans since the invention of these artforms. Electric guitar amps, unfortunately, are very loud and shrill in front of them, loud and dull off to the side, softer but still shrill in the audience section in front of the amps onstage and dull and soft off to the side areas of the audience. In large concerts, amplifying electric guitar tone by placing a microphone pickup in the "right" place is good for the audience but the artist never hears the tone at the play position. In fact, NO ONE, hears this tone but the player. When electric guitar tone is send to the L1 system, everyone onstage and in the audience hears the intended tone and it's more uniform than ever before. And so, like voice and other instruments discussed, the use of electric guitar with the L1 creates, or rather redefines, the electric guitar as a new kind of musical instrument.

* Localized and spatially-distributed ensemble sound and "Stereo" everywhere

** A typical ensemble using a front-of-house PA in a small venue has most of the sound of the band heard from the nearest PA speaker. Plus, those close to the speaker can get toxic and damaging sound levels. The L1 system, properly used (one per player), gives a sonic perspective from anywhere in the room, as the sound coming from every player is easily heard coming from their location onstage. The ensemble will sound full and spacious and vocals from all members will take on a quality of spacious beauty never possible before.

**Musical arrangements employing this tool can produce spectacular "pingpong" musical effects with vocal and/or instrumental exchanges that treat audiences to the musical equivalent of a very good professional tennis match. Plus, the simple soundstage, distributed and spread across a stage, sounds full and rich and allows much more subtlty to be heard from individual instruments than ever before. This is a very powerful tool that will encourage new kinds of musical arrangements that create new and spatial sound scapes for audiences.

** Your bandmates will hear you AND The Mix. And so, you will be able to play so that the song is served. Can't hear the vocal? It's the one thing that sells both the song and your ensemble. Protect it with all your might. Turn it up or, most likely, turn everything else down. This usually translates to playing right within the song. This forces you to listen and play together better than ever.

* Playing in the same soundfield as your audience invites much more considerate performances

** Let's say you had an electrode connected to your finger tip and so did all the people in an audience, and let's say you had a control whereby you could change the voltage, same for everybody including you. Turn it up a little and it's actually interesting and could even be construed as pleasant. Turn it all the way up and everyone's electrocuted. At some level, it gets painful. So naturally, you would turn it up, maybe play a bit with it, but you would definitely back off when it got uncomfortable. That's sort-of like an L1 system. Now, take your electrode off. That's like the triple amplification system.
** Let's say you're in a hot tub with a lot of people...ah, forget all this. You know what I'm getting at. The L1 system puts you, your bandmates and the audience in the same pool, the same soundfield, for the first time. I suppose some musicians want to abuse their audiences, and maybe themselves at the same time. You know; hate and angst music. The L1 is perfect for this. But most audiences want to feel the love, get transported to a better place, feel good, feel God, all that. And so, the L1 system is best used for this kind of thing, in my opinion. It invites a soulful connection, subtlty, dynamics and good musicianship.

* Nowhere to hide
** This is a blessing and a curse.
** Performing is no joke. For most serious and conscientious artists, it is life and death. You practice practice practice so that you can perform without thinking and without making bad notes. When you just play (and don't think), you connect best with your audience. The L1 system, properly used, places you as bare and naked as can be in front of an audience. If you talk to them through your microphone and mumble, they'll tell you. Make a lot of bad notes or play out of tune and they'll let you know (by not applauding, or by not coming back as your customers). There's no place to hide. This is the curse part.
** The blessing is that you are as bare and naked as you can be. And so, the blessing to you is that it forces you to get your act together, to sing in tune, to connect with your own muse and to put on your best performance.

* Lookin good

The L1 tends to disappear visually from most stages. Audiences often forget they are there. This draws attention to you and your beautiful instruments, and maybe your thoughtfully feng-shue'd-out set. It sure gives you more moving room, compared to a stumble-disaser stage full of wedges and amps. Your show will focus on the players and instruments and not on the equipment. This is also a big advantage in events like weddings, barmitzvahs, corporate events, etc (money events) where the event planners want everything to look slick and polished. They love how L1-equipped bands look. It's a selling point for you to them and for them to their clients.

* No Toxic Sound Zone

PA speakers have a toxic sound zone. No one wants to sit or stand there. At the very least, like at a wedding, it becomes a zone for annoyance, where you can't hold a conversation. With an L1-equipped band, wedding planners (for instance) can have tables in very intimate proximity to the band. In a night club, it allows much more seating by having the best seats right on top of the band, not the worse seats as with a normal PA. More seating means more revenue for the club owner and, hopefully the band.

In Review, here are the brand-new tools you will have at your disposal with the L1 system:

# Use of a brand new musical instrument, based on your voice and/or your instrument of choice. This instrument will put you in close touch with your audiences and with all the subtleties and details of your performance.
# A new, detailed and highly spatial sound stage for your ensemble to work with and within. This allows and encourages new musical arrangements that feature spatial motion and clear instrument/vocal detail.
# Close musical communication with your bandmates. Everyone hears the mix.
# A playing environment that encourages considerate performance by putting performers and audience in the same soundfield.
# A clean, good-looking performance area that draws more visual attention to performers and instruments and allows unobtrusive setup devoid of equipment clutter.
# The ability to set up anywhere, including inside an audience, without toxic acoustic levels. This appeals to situations that have limited seating areas or that prefer to maximize seating capacity. It also can lead to very intimate performer/audience contact, as in a "house concert" or the like.

Given these new tools to work with, what is then required of the performer? Here are some requirements:

# You must have the desire to reach an audience and to engage them intimately. This may be a new experience for some performers. Once you get to this, you will love it and so will your audience.
# Instruments must be in tune and mechanically and electrically excellent. Any flaws will show up very clearly in performance.
# Playing must progress from playing with a monitor mix to playing with the entire ensemble and producing one's performance in the ensemble so that the mix is right. For instance, if you can hear your instrument above the level of the lead vocal, you're playing too loud and must turn down. In playing soccer, beginners look at their feet and the ball. Expert players experience the entire game, head up, and have a full-spectrum view of the playing field. Playing music from a monitor mix is like the neophyte soccer player while playing within a full L1 system allows all players to hear the full mix, the game, like an expert soccer player. Most players will have to learn how to listen to everyone and play accordingly, possibly all over again. Thus, the player must play differently than he or she ever has. Fortunately, this draws on good but latent skills that every musician has. The comment that "musicians can't mix themselves" is totally wrong. And anyway, it's not mixing; it's "playing together". It's Ensemble 101 in music school. Everyone knows how to do it. With the L1 system in place, such skills are quickly brought forward and enjoyed.
# Playing must serve the song. Everyone must realize that the lead vocal or the lead instrument is selling the song and the band. And so, the rest of the band must support this effort to make the song reach its full potential. Listen to the great recordings of music of any kind. Note where the vocal is in the mix and make this happen at your own show.
# Look good. Since your stage will be clean and uncluttered, your audience will naturally focus on you and your instruments naturally. Give them something entertaining or attractive to look at, because they won't have much equipment clutter to look at.

*DJ's feature the L1 (and make more money) but musicians don't. WHy is this?

Making a Living with the L1®

2006-11-08T19:02:31Z

Clifford:

Making a Living with the L1®

2006-11-08T17:19:02Z

Clifford:

Making a Living with the L1®

2006-11-08T17:16:57Z

Clifford: I added a section on L1 tools, never before available

Making a Living with the L1®

2006-11-08T15:45:24Z

Clifford:

Making a Living with the L1®

2006-11-07T18:59:46Z

Clifford:

'''Making a Living With the L1'''
by Cliff Henrickse

==Introduction==

When I was a full-time musician playing in restaurants and clubs in the early 1970's, I and everyone else doing the same were making $50-$100 a night playing in bands, 4 or 5 piece. I also played in a rock and roll duo with a big PA, singing drummer who occasionally played left-hand Rhodes bass. It was a musical circus, sounded good and we made even more money than most individually. My musical colleagues all nod in agreement to this level of income figure. It is a very good indication that live music is dramatically devalued since 1972. This makes me very sad, and it is indeed a "sad situation".

Today, club gigs pay about the same and the better or perhaps more "connected" players (the ones with long-time local connections) might get $200. Party, wedding, bar mitzvah, corporate and the like gigs will pay more, but they always have. Such gigs require production rivalling big pop concerts (including costumes, sets and big sound systems), a wide variety of musical styles and typically require pro-level performers who often are required to travel extensively. On these shows, original music is basically out of the question. In general, it's rare that a musician in 2006 can make a respectable living simply by performing music in local venues. It seems that inflation has passed most musicians by, indicating that the services of musicians have declined steadily since the 1970's. Why would this be? Here are some possible reasons:

*1. Musicians have played so loud that audiences have been bludgeoned into staying away, home, going to church, going to the movies or generally seeking more pleasant entertainment.
*2. The proliferation of amplified musical equipment and instruments has expanded so greatly that there is an ever-growing community of musicians who will do anything to get a gig, including playing for free. And so, the market demand for performing musicians and performing bands is totally swamped by the growing availability of bands and players. This forces wages down.
*3. Musical artists, like all artists, are generally not business-minded by nature. They don't think like business people for the most part because they mostly think about music, its composition and its performance. I forget the "right brain" and "left brain" explanation of this. And so, artists and musicians in general make bad business decisions, or simply accept the wages that are offered them.
*4. Triple system amplification tends to make all bands sound similar, so that any artistic excellence is lost in sonic clutter created by this. Thus, a "great" band can't really demonstrate their excellence. The triple system tends to make all bandsj playing in small to medium venues sound alike and thus it seems to lump all bands as "mediochre" or "annoying" because of excessive levels presented.
*5. Most musicians today seem to have other employment, because they can't support themselves playing. This contributes to wages going down.
*6. The American Federation of Musicians was once a powerful force in helping musicians acheive an honorable wage. Today it is almost nonexistant, other than for very high-profile work such as Broadway plays, symphony orchestras and movie film score work. I may even be wrong about this.
*7. Bands playing original compositions seem to be doomed to a life of scraping for gigs that pay nothing, unless they have some kind of recording that is distributed by legitimate means (a "record lable", whatever this means in 2006). Popular bands playing popular music will occasionally trick an audience by inserting their original into a set. But if it is announced ("...and here's one of our original tunes..."), the audience mostly gets glassy-eyed and bored.

On the other hand, here are what I believe are facts about live music:

*1. Humans need music, almost like they need oxygen. They will be very unhappy without it, in general.
*2. Humans respond very positively and in a fundamental way to good, soulful and touching music played live by experts with excellent-sounding equipment. Every human knows good music and good sound quality. This is easily proven by the volume of sound recordings purcahsed every day worldwide. Therefore, excellent live music is probably very valuable to most humans. I belive it is seriously undervalued.
*3. From personal experience, I know that the L1 system is the first commercially-available live music concept that allows musicians to "live in the mix" that they deliver to an audience. I know as a musician that it dramatically improves any ensemble's experience onstage and it contributes dramatically to improving ensemble performance and the regularity of it. I know that with this system and expert musicians, a superior performance is both encouraged and demanded and the sonic delivery of this performance is unprecedented in its excellence.

And so, now that the system has been available for over 3 years, I believe that its use should contribute to musicians' wages if they are willing to play correctly and serve any audience with what they want. It should set any ensemble apart from any others using conventional equipment. It should separate those who can play from those who can't, simply by exposing every note that is played, for better or for worse. It is my belief that the L1 system makes live amplified music far more valuable that it was in 1972. And so, it follows that musicians' wages should surpass those of 1972, only in 2006 dollars (5x or 6x higher, plus).

Making a Living with the L1®

2006-11-07T18:58:46Z

Clifford: Most musicians in 2006 are not making much money playing. This topic explores why and how to use the L1 to an economic advantage.

'''Making a Living With the L1'''

==Introduction==

When I was a full-time musician playing in restaurants and clubs in the early 1970's, I and everyone else doing the same were making $50-$100 a night playing in bands, 4 or 5 piece. I also played in a rock and roll duo with a big PA, singing drummer who occasionally played left-hand Rhodes bass. It was a musical circus, sounded good and we made even more money than most individually. My musical colleagues all nod in agreement to this level of income figure. It is a very good indication that live music is dramatically devalued since 1972. This makes me very sad, and it is indeed a "sad situation".

Today, club gigs pay about the same and the better or perhaps more "connected" players (the ones with long-time local connections) might get $200. Party, wedding, bar mitzvah, corporate and the like gigs will pay more, but they always have. Such gigs require production rivalling big pop concerts (including costumes, sets and big sound systems), a wide variety of musical styles and typically require pro-level performers who often are required to travel extensively. On these shows, original music is basically out of the question. In general, it's rare that a musician in 2006 can make a respectable living simply by performing music in local venues. It seems that inflation has passed most musicians by, indicating that the services of musicians have declined steadily since the 1970's. Why would this be? Here are some possible reasons:

*1. Musicians have played so loud that audiences have been bludgeoned into staying away, home, going to church, going to the movies or generally seeking more pleasant entertainment.
*2. The proliferation of amplified musical equipment and instruments has expanded so greatly that there is an ever-growing community of musicians who will do anything to get a gig, including playing for free. And so, the market demand for performing musicians and performing bands is totally swamped by the growing availability of bands and players. This forces wages down.
*3. Musical artists, like all artists, are generally not business-minded by nature. They don't think like business people for the most part because they mostly think about music, its composition and its performance. I forget the "right brain" and "left brain" explanation of this. And so, artists and musicians in general make bad business decisions, or simply accept the wages that are offered them.
*4. Triple system amplification tends to make all bands sound similar, so that any artistic excellence is lost in sonic clutter created by this. Thus, a "great" band can't really demonstrate their excellence. The triple system tends to make all bandsj playing in small to medium venues sound alike and thus it seems to lump all bands as "mediochre" or "annoying" because of excessive levels presented.
*5. Most musicians today seem to have other employment, because they can't support themselves playing. This contributes to wages going down.
*6. The American Federation of Musicians was once a powerful force in helping musicians acheive an honorable wage. Today it is almost nonexistant, other than for very high-profile work such as Broadway plays, symphony orchestras and movie film score work. I may even be wrong about this.
*7. Bands playing original compositions seem to be doomed to a life of scraping for gigs that pay nothing, unless they have some kind of recording that is distributed by legitimate means (a "record lable", whatever this means in 2006). Popular bands playing popular music will occasionally trick an audience by inserting their original into a set. But if it is announced ("...and here's one of our original tunes..."), the audience mostly gets glassy-eyed and bored.

On the other hand, here are what I believe are facts about live music:

*1. Humans need music, almost like they need oxygen. They will be very unhappy without it, in general.
*2. Humans respond very positively and in a fundamental way to good, soulful and touching music played live by experts with excellent-sounding equipment. Every human knows good music and good sound quality. This is easily proven by the volume of sound recordings purcahsed every day worldwide. Therefore, excellent live music is probably very valuable to most humans. I belive it is seriously undervalued.
*3. From personal experience, I know that the L1 system is the first commercially-available live music concept that allows musicians to "live in the mix" that they deliver to an audience. I know as a musician that it dramatically improves any ensemble's experience onstage and it contributes dramatically to improving ensemble performance and the regularity of it. I know that with this system and expert musicians, a superior performance is both encouraged and demanded and the sonic delivery of this performance is unprecedented in its excellence.

And so, now that the system has been available for over 3 years, I believe that its use should contribute to musicians' wages if they are willing to play correctly and serve any audience with what they want. It should set any ensemble apart from any others using conventional equipment. It should separate those who can play from those who can't, simply by exposing every note that is played, for better or for worse. It is my belief that the L1 system makes live amplified music far more valuable that it was in 1972. And so, it follows that musicians' wages should surpass those of 1972, only in 2006 dollars (5x or 6x higher, plus).