Why did bands like Yes and Led Zeppelin not have Quad releases back in the day?

[doity]

Some of the biggest rock bands did not go the quad route AFAIK. I know that both Yes and Zeppelin were on Atlantic but weren’t there some quad releases on Atlantic? Also bands like Kansas and Jethro Tull did not take advantage of Quad either unless I am mistaken. Some of the biggest draws of the 70’s were nowhere to be seen but there are tons of easy listening releases and albums that likely sold less than 10,000 if that.

The biggest sellers and live draws back then we’re pretty much Zeppelin, The Stones, The Who, Wings, Elton John, Pink Floyd, and Yes. Only a couple of those artists had any quad offerings and to me that is a big question mark. Especially since it would had expanded the market and made money for the record companies. Hell, they could had moved a few million of just LZII if it had been released. Any insights on why this happened or am I wrong here?

 

[Sonik Wiz]

You raise a discussable but rhetorical question. The only points I'll touch on is:

Jethro Tull did not take advantage of Quad either unless I am mistaken.

It is well known that Aqualung & War Child was released in Quad.

Hell, they could had moved a few million of just LZII if it had been released.

Released in quad I presume you mean. Hell American sales of Led Zep 2 alone was 12,000,000 copies with 400,000 of that being in advance orders. In stereo. Quad sales would have paled by comparison.

 

[Doug G.]

It was usually the record company's decision as to what to release in quad, not the artists. The company released what they thought would be the biggest sellers.

That being said, it's hard to see how Atlantic or the British company (I have forgotten what it was) wouldn't have thought Zep quad records would not have been big sellers.

Doug

 

[wrat]

wasn't yessongs released in quad?

 

[timbre4]

wasn't yessongs released in quad?

The live album itself, no. The film was advertised as quadraphonic but I've read that was rather generous.

 

[JonUrban]

I wonder if the "suits" thought that the people who had enough money to purchase the equipment required for quad were more of the older types, which is why we got a lot of Percy Faith, Henry Mancini, Hugo Montenegro, Danny Davis, Ray Conniff, acts like that. In fact, we didn't get just one release from those artists, we practically got their entire output in quad.

In the meantime, the stuff the kids were listening to, like what doity was asking about, saw rare and sometimes low profile releases.

It's hard to say, but I do remember when I was in the Navy and on my ship, and was talking up quad, I would get a lot of interested shipmates ask me if "Artist A" or "Artist B" had quad stuff, and most of the time I would have to say "No", or fib a little and say "They're supposed to have some stuff coming out soon"

And we all know, the Bowie's, The Eltons, The Who's, The Stones, The Beatles, The Zeppelins, the CSN&Y's, stuff like that, never ever appeared.

 

[Doug G.]

I think you hit it, Jon. It was all up to the ones who thought THEY were the music experts.

Doug

 

[Q-Eight]

Had a little to do with what label you were on, as well. Certain labels put their ankle into Quad while others' turned up their noses. Artists who signed to MCA Records, may have experimented with Quad, but, to my knowledge, nothing on the MCA label was ever released in 4-channel. Some subsidiaries of MCA, like Decca, may have but artists like Lynyrd Skynyrd, Elton John, The Who, Neil Diamond, Cher did not. My speculation was that since MCA was a relatively new creation about that time (1972) that it wasn't willing to take on more debt associated with Quad production. That's just my guess, though.

In other cases, it was the artist who had control and would not allow songs or albums to be remixed into Quad. David Bowie was one such artist.

In some cases, it was just near impossible. Not all Engineers are created equal. I'm no expert, but I have played with my fair share of multitracks. Some Engineers will create a "clean" multitrack with one item per track. It's just a matter of setting level or muting when necessary. Other Engineers, would not do such things. One track could have 39 vocal parts on it, two farts, a burp, an unused guitar solo, 67 unused piano strikes and a cymbal crash that was absolutely necessary. You try and make heads or tail of that without an automated board, no track notes and flying blind. Today, we can put up a visual representation of a multitrack on a computer screen. Back then they had track sheets and a VU meter.

Most of us have at the very least played with the Tubular Bells multitrack that was out and about a few years ago. That was only 16 track! How they managed to pull off a half-decent Quad mix with that mess with NO automation was truly some skilled work.

Back to the topic at hand; yes, it's a crying shame that some artists back then had no Quad releases. Especially when, in some cases, those very artists shelled out huge amounts of money to create their OWN Quadraphonic studios; only to have Quad die before they could remix their old albums. Elton John and Ike & Tina come to mind.

 

[doity]

I remember seeing Yessongs in the theater and if it was in quad than my name is Santa Claus. Granted it was at one of those “midnight movie” places in about 1978 so maybe only the first-run theaters had the quad setups.

And like Jon said, back in the day the only people that I knew that talked about quad were people who were into Pink Floyd and stuff like that. The bong set not the martini set. Maybe they got it wrong? Because in my view it is a no-brainer. Who is more likely to want to hear music coming from all directions.......some dude that is stoned or some dude in his slippers sipping on a drink? We all know the answer to that

 

[winopener]

Thanks to Capitol being not much into quad, we skipped some true gems like that:

 

[MidiMagic]

I know a few bands balked when RCA announced that there would not be stereo versions of CD-4 records.

And many bands did not want just a quadraphonic release because the record stores put them into a Quad bin instead of in the bin with their other records.

 

[fredblue]

did we ever establish the status of the Quad of Yes' "Close To The Edge", never released back in the day and hasn't subsequently materialised on a later reissue?

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...ring-engineer-of-the-cta-quad-dts-disc.12895/

 

[esimms86]

I remember seeing Yessongs in the theater and if it was in quad than my name is Santa Claus. Granted it was at one of those “midnight movie” places in about 1978 so maybe only the first-run theaters had the quad setups.

And like Jon said, back in the day the only people that I knew that talked about quad were people who were into Pink Floyd and stuff like that. The bong set not the martini set. Maybe they got it wrong? Because in my view it is a no-brainer. Who is more likely to want to hear music coming from all directions.......some dude that is stoned or some dude in his slippers sipping on a drink? We all know the answer to that

Except that nowadays we’re dudes in slippers sipping on drinks. And I’m pretty sure that Michael Dutton is doing just fine with sales of Easy Listening music. And there’s a lot of nostalgia for the music we remember our parents playing around the house when we were kids. Funny how things work out.

 

[Wagonmaster_91]

Jon, you are correct about record companies thinking that mainly older listeners would have the money to buy new formats. If you look at nearly every new format developed for music, it is usually the more adult oriented genres that get the first releases - usually Easy Listening, Classical, Broadway Shows/Soundtracks, etc.
I never understood that thinking since younger buyers were more adventurist listeners and more open to new ideas.
I think this is why the quad mix of the first Santana album (IMHO) sounds tamed down compared to the stereo mix. (Compare the difference in dynamics of "Soul Sacrifice", for example.) I think Columbia was aiming the quad release at the same people that (in the late 60's) regarded Blood, Sweat & Tears as a modern Jazz group rather than a Rock/Pop group with horns. Terry Kath wanted to be sure Chicago didn't get tagged that way.
Also, if an artist had enough clout (i.e. $old lots of record$), they could veto a quad release if they thought it was gimmicky or would mess up how their record sounded. (And considering how bad some of the early quad Rock releases turned out, I can understand their reluctance.)

 

[atrocity]

I remember seeing Yessongs in the theater and if it was in quad than my name is Santa Claus. Granted it was at one of those “midnight movie” places in about 1978 so maybe only the first-run theaters had the quad setups.

There definitely were magnetic four-track prints. Whether or not they were all four-corner quad or if some were LCRS, I can't say. I've seen mag prints in two different theaters...45+ year old memories say the first time was fine but the second was in a place only set up for LCRS that had apparently been shipped a quad print. The mono surround speakers were on the whole time but distorted.

 

[doity]

Except that nowadays we’re dudes in slippers sipping on drinks. And I’m pretty sure that Michael Dutton is doing just fine with sales of Easy Listening music. And there’s a lot of nostalgia for the music we remember our parents playing around the house when we were kids. Funny how things work out.

Maybe......but we’re still searching out EBay and the like for the rock titles and not for stuff like Doc Severinsen and Charley Pride. I bet back then that the serious listeners who made high fidelity what it was (jazz and classical listeners) thought of Quad as gimmicky or “fad”.

Heck, I even have anecdotal proof of that. A few years back I came across a guy who was tasked with selling off the estate of a long time audiophile who even ran his own national audio publication combined with a radio show devoted to home audio. I was, and am still, a collector of audiophile cassette tapes and I agreed to help him sort through everything to help him determine market value if I could get first shot at a few things that I wanted.

It was like a virtual treasure trove of old audiophile records, cassettes, reels, you name it. His house was packed literally floor to ceiling with valuable recordings and gear, including the garage. Not a quadraphonic title in site. I was like a kid in a candy store as I found some things that I had been looking for for years. I was not greedy though I could had easily been.

 

[CRWSurround]

Maybe......but we’re still searching out EBay and the like for the rock titles and not for stuff like Doc Severinsen and Charley Pride. I bet back then that the serious listeners who made high fidelity what it was (jazz and classical listeners) thought of Quad as gimmicky or “fad”.

Heck, I even have anecdotal proof of that. A few years back I came across a guy who was tasked with selling off the estate of a long time audiophile who even ran his own national audio publication combined with a radio show devoted to home audio. I was, and am still, a collector of audiophile cassette tapes and I agreed to help him sort through everything to help him determine market value if I could get first shot at a few things that I wanted.

It was like a virtual treasure trove of old audiophile records, cassettes, reels, you name it. His house was packed literally floor to ceiling with valuable recordings and gear, including the garage. Not a quadraphonic title in site. I was like a kid in a candy store as I found some things that I had been looking for for years. I was not greedy though I could had easily been.

That is a very interesting story. Thanks for sharing it with us.

 

[jimfisheye]

Had a little to do with what label you were on, as well. Certain labels put their ankle into Quad while others' turned up their noses. Artists who signed to MCA Records, may have experimented with Quad, but, to my knowledge, nothing on the MCA label was ever released in 4-channel. Some subsidiaries of MCA, like Decca, may have but artists like Lynyrd Skynyrd, Elton John, The Who, Neil Diamond, Cher did not. My speculation was that since MCA was a relatively new creation about that time (1972) that it wasn't willing to take on more debt associated with Quad production. That's just my guess, though.

In other cases, it was the artist who had control and would not allow songs or albums to be remixed into Quad. David Bowie was one such artist.

In some cases, it was just near impossible. Not all Engineers are created equal. I'm no expert, but I have played with my fair share of multitracks. Some Engineers will create a "clean" multitrack with one item per track. It's just a matter of setting level or muting when necessary. Other Engineers, would not do such things. One track could have 39 vocal parts on it, two farts, a burp, an unused guitar solo, 67 unused piano strikes and a cymbal crash that was absolutely necessary. You try and make heads or tail of that without an automated board, no track notes and flying blind. Today, we can put up a visual representation of a multitrack on a computer screen. Back then they had track sheets and a VU meter.

Most of us have at the very least played with the Tubular Bells multitrack that was out and about a few years ago. That was only 16 track! How they managed to pull off a half-decent Quad mix with that mess with NO automation was truly some skilled work.

Back to the topic at hand; yes, it's a crying shame that some artists back then had no Quad releases. Especially when, in some cases, those very artists shelled out huge amounts of money to create their OWN Quadraphonic studios; only to have Quad die before they could remix their old albums. Elton John and Ike & Tina come to mind.

Not just the practice of punching in little bits in the remaining blank spots in tracks either. There was (and still is today sometimes) the old school practice of recording some elements group style in a room. Now what are ya gonna do?

Little pieces of tape next to the faders with all kinds of little hash marks. You could tape a dime across a fader to make a hard stop. That let you make a move and then return the fader precisely to the same spot.

Order a pizza at the right time. Get the delivery person in there for an extra set of hands for that one move you didn't have enough hands in the room to pull off.

Take a break while the singer and guitarist fight over which version of the mix to use. The one where the singer rode their part perfectly for the mix or the one where the guitarist rode their part more perfectly for the mix.

 

[doity]

That is a very interesting story. Thanks for sharing it with us.

It took me awhile to remember the name of his publication. I guess it was only web based but he had the radio show since 1980 and also ran a store devoted to Binaural recordings for 10 years. Now that is dedication. I did get quite a few of the Binaural tapes but I really am not too impressed with those. Considering how much stuff that he did have I was surprised that his friend knew so little about audio. He didn’t even know what a DAC was. Oh well. Here is a little bio about him from his website which is still going:


https://www.audaud.com/the-origin-of-audiophile-audition-part-2/

 

[Ranasakawa]

Luckily we have most of the best Yes albums in surround sound now. I believe that Led Zeppelin in particular catered for a particular market which did not include quad lovers. Jimmy Page has had opportunities to remix his tapes into surround but it seems even he is not interested in led zeppelin in surround apart from a few DVDs

There were definitely a few Jethro Tull quad issued