RE: QUAD IN QUADSun Dec 7 13:25:10 PST 1997

[Michael Hanley <mhanley@microsoft.com>]

Interesting reading, and timing.  I was in a store that sells jukeboxes
yesterday, and the owner had a Seeburg that looks like the "Vogue" or
"Entertainer", (for all of you jukebox collectors), but it had slightly
different colours and said "quadrophonic" on it.  I inquired if it was
original, and the owner told me that it was, and that "there were only a
couple of quad 45's made, but i think The Who put out an album all in
quad".  I suggested that the title might be "Quadrophenia", and he lit
up and said "Yes. Yes. That's it!"   Besides the fact that the jukebox
only played 45's not 33's.
I didn't put much stock in his answer, and i'm glad you posted, Brian.
Mike 

>----------
>From: 	Brian.Cady@turner.com[SMTP:Brian.Cady@turner.com]
>Sent: 	Tuesday, April 23, 1996 9:46 AM
>To: 	thewho@mpath.com
>Subject: 	QUAD IN QUAD
>
>     I've always wondered what the deal was with the original plan to 
>     release Quadrophenia in quadraphonic sound back in 1973.  I just 
>     assumed that The Who or their label dumped the idea when this 
>     particular "nine-days wonder" had run its course.  This weekend, 
>     however, I visited my mom's house and found some old rock
>magazines I 
>     had stored 20 years ago in the attic (Creem, Hit Parader, Stone,
>etc..) 
>     and found a fascinating article that seems to answer my question.
>     
>     It's an article called "Rock Recording" in the May '74 issue of
>Hit 
>     Parader (p.65) with a Townshend interview turned into an article. 
>
>     Here's some quotes from the chairman:
>     
>     "The whole conception of 'Quadrophenia' was geared to
>quadraphonic, 
>     but in a creative sort of way.  I mean I wanted themes to sort of 
>     emerge from corners.  So you start to get the sense of the
>fourness 
>     being literally speaker for speaker.  And also in the rock parts
>the 
>     musical thing would sort of jell together up to the thunder clap,
>then 
>     everything would turn slowly from quad into mono and you'd have
>this 
>     solid sort of rock mono...then a thunder clap and back out again."
>     
>     So why didn't it happen?:
>     
>     "...we spent months mixing it and then found out that MCA was
>using 
>     the CBS quad system and...you might as well forget it...Everyday I
>get 
>     a piece of mail through from CBS telling me that they've got
>another 
>     dB of separation from front to back and that, you know, if we buy
>the 
>     new modified encoder-decoder we'll get better results.  And then
>the 
>     next week there's another modification you can buy for another
>forty 
>     thousand dollars which gives you another dB separation front to
>back 
>     and a positioning encoder which puts all your sixteen tracks at 
>     various points - guaranteed positional separation - and that's an 
>     extra forty thousand dollars! It's a load of..."
>     "We just can't spend that much time mixing albums.  Do you know
>what 
>     they say to bands?  The record companies?  They say, 'Well, you
>send 
>     over your sixteen track tapes and we'll mix it.'  And the Doobie 
>     Brothers did that I think...and some punk engineer at their label 
>     mixed it and it was horrible.  They wanted our sixteen track
>tapes.  
>     We were going to send them over just as a joke.  They would 
>     practically fill this room."
>     
>     I've been hoping over these months leading to the new mix of 
>     "Quadrophenia" that they might consider remixing it to Dolby
>Surround 
>     (I've tried listening to the old recordingt this way, but you
>don't 
>     get a very separated effect).  From what I read above, however,
>Pete 
>     might not think this system would provide enough separation.  Plus
>I'm 
>     sure they don't still have that floor-to-ceiling packed workshop
>of 
>     sixteen-track tapes that Pete describes elsewhere in the article. 
>But 
>     how I wish it somehow could be done!
>