[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: QUAD IN QUADSun Dec 7 13:25:10 PST 1997
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!
>