"Quadrophenia: The Director's Cut"--Reviews

I have to wonder what he means by "negatives". The original camera negatives? Or the negatives as used by the record company to produce the art? I'd be surprised if *both* were missing.

It is not - the CDs are newly mastered.

I know we've been over this, but to be clear, that really isn't a good description of the new sound on 5.15.

original mix - "whistle" sound just as the drums come in, lasts from about 0:39 to 0:42.

'96 remix - similar to the sound on the original mix, but possibly a recreation of sorts - it sounds slightly different. It is less noticeable immediately (0:41) but gets loud and then is gone by about 0:44.

2011 - the '96 remix, but with an additional (new) sound *before* the drums come in. It mostly fades out as the drums are starting, then the noise already on the '96 remix fades up.

That is to say, while not exactly the same, the '96 mix *already* came close to replicating the effect that was on the original mix. The sound on the new CD doesn't replace anything - nothing was *ever* there before.

 

Not to mention that I'm sure the photographer must have had some original prints in his possession. Besides that, one could have gone to the original printers in the US, England, or Japan for the printing negatives or even some stray 3M proofing chromes. Obviously they just didn't care...

 

If I was going to buy the 2 cd version and already own 96 version, is it fair to say the difference is marginal and not worth it? Marginal and worth it? Toss up?

 

(assuming the sound difference is marginal, judging from the little I've read here)

 

Didn't any of you listen to sound effects records when growing up.? The *new* sound on 5:15 is a train whistle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_V_YPMxxvQ

 

That quote surely refers to what's on the original mix, no? That sounds nothing like what's on the new CD.

 

The original mix has what supposed to sound like a train whistle but is a pretty poor facsimile of one you would have heard in the UK. The 96 remix is worse. On the 2011 remaster you have a very accurate reproduction of the whistle a train in the UK would make.
Were they have mixed it in is very disconcerting though.

 

Apologies, you are right, though they are close to my ears, apart from the occasional train noise

Tim

 

I'll answer my own question, since no one else did. I picked up the 2 cd version. Listening on the way home, I did an A/B of this and the 96. I'd say it's a bit warmer, on the whole. A bit more separation, which is a good thing to me as the 96 was a bit muddy to my ears.

Certainly a lot less reverb on Roger's vox on Punk/Godfather. Pete's vocals on Cut my Hair and I'm One seem cleaner, more pronounced.

That's just a first listen driving home.

 

I am listening to this as I write this, the 5.1 mixes are not great! The vocals sound like they were recorded in a cave? It sounds like they rushed these to get them out? The good stuff is Towshends Quad demos, they sound amazing! I have never heard this stuff. He plays bass very similar to Entwhistle. The sound quality is how the 5.1 should have sounded. I have to say that if you are a die hard Who fan the large book that holds the CDs is pretty amazing. great stuff, pics and words.

 

Except that Russell is speaking specifically about a Quadrophenia poster of his you can buy from him on his website - not about the use of the photos in the new box set.

That description has been on his website for several years.

That he wasn't able to find his negatives around 1985, when his first book was published ~ doesn't mean they no longer exist.

 

Q-Cloud should be called Q-Crash. It crashes and reloads the page every time it tries to verify the CD is in the drive.

 

All the Pete demos I've ever heard he plays the bass nothing like John. In fact I'm not sure he has the capability to. He's even stated that he purposely plays drums and bass as simple as possible so the band can fill in with their own style of playing.

Anyone know if Pete dubbed in a Pino Palladino or another bassist ?

 

That's what I thought? But it sounds like he was highly influenced by John.

 

A word to the wise, if you plan to buy this from Best Buy take the Sunday flyer with you or pick one up in the store. Each of the BBs in my town had different sale prices and both were more than than the flyer. I realize often the register will ring up the correct price but the yellow tag sale price at store 1 was $139.99 and at store 2 was $129.99. The flyer price is $121.99. The local indie store price was $149.99 (list $169.95). Likewise, the 2CD version was $23.99 in store and $21.99 in the flyer.

That said I didn't buy this POS! I picked it up looked at it and "Put the Box Down." It seems with every passing minute something new is found to be wrong with it. Luke you need to make a comparison page of all the versions of Quad.

 

I'm not sure if this has been addressed previously in the thread, but I found that a deluxe edition of Quadrophenia on I-tunes runs 25.00 bucks - it includes the album, plus 25 demos. It's the demos that I'm interested in, so I may go that route - though, I never thought I'd spend 25 bucks in a single download purchase. FYI

 

Hah! That xerox 45 label pretty much defines this whole box for me. What would it take them to scan the real label? 5 minutes tops if someone actually cared. Even if they didn't have the actual 45 we're only talking 15 minutes at most to scan any Track label and reset the song titles in Photoshop. As I go through my box this evening, I'm constantly reminded of an episode of MST3K where Joel and the 'bots keep groaning over and over, "They just didn't care...They just didn't care..." This is just a huge disgrace.

 

Oy.

I should update my LALC page to reflect the Deluxe Edition first...

And, of course, I actually have to get this set before I can do a writeup on it.

 

I'll second that. I did the A/B comparison on my home rig, and the differences were even more pronounced. And once I set aside the 96 CD--in fact, I put those discs in the book slots and put the new discs in the 96 fatty jewel case--I listened to the new masters at considerable volume, and was in Who heaven. On my rig, with my Energy Take Classic speakers and subwoofer, the stereo CDs sounded 5.1, with all sorts of 3-D sound imaging. Pete's opening guitar chord on "Drowned" issued from behind my head, quite startling me I have to say, while the synths on "The Dirty Job" appeared to be positioned aurally right next to my left ear. Part of this is my rig, which is still pretty new--or at least the speaker/receiver configuration is--but the 96 version still gave me a fairly flat, 2-dimensional soundscape compared to this new one, which I'm almost ready to put on par with the excellent 2010 "Band on the Run" remaster. It's my go-to version. And for all the problems with this set, I must say I'm happy. The new remaster, the demos, and the big book make me feel like a kid again, with my first heavy, lavish LP edition of "Quadrophenia," which, by the way, cost twice what I could afford on my paper-route income back in 1978, and yet I still took the plunge and paid for it and never regretted it.

 

Encouraging to read a few posts that the new remaster is a more sonically enjoyable listening experience than the previously mastered remix.

 

If Pino is dubbed in, that's a deal breaker for me. Actually, having him in The Who at all is a deal breaker for me. He is the anti-Entwistle as far as his approach goes. As for Townshend's bass playing, there's no way he could play like John. Not even remotely. He's not bad and gets the job done on his demos, but Entwistle always did his own things on those songs. Townshend couldn't have thought of those bass parts, much less accomplished them. Neither can Pino.

 

I never said he could play line JE I said you can tell he was influenced by him in the way he plays bass lines. Know one will ever be able to play like JE! I am curious, what bass player do you think would have done a better job than Pino?

 

Agreed. I just hope Pino isn't anywhere on this set. That would be the end of my respect for Townshend. It was already shaky when he chose Kenny Jones to play after Keith, and then Simon Phillips after that. Neither are bad drummers, but a terrible fit for The Who.

 

That was the closest sounding whistle I could find at such short notice

Anyway, have a look at Pete's hand written notes for 5:15.

 

I was comparing the original mix to the new CD, not your sample. That is to say, the new "whistle" on the new CD sounds nothing like what's on the original mix...nor is it in the same spot.