# Talk:Quadrophenia

Where do we mention that they did this?  And sources need to be found, too. TheDavesr 22:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Couldn't we just try to forget the fact that it happened?  : p
Phish covering Quadrophenia, there's a notion to keep you up nights worrying you might hear on accident some day. Atypicaloracle (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know the name or location of the rock that appears in the album's photos, presumably as the place where Jimmy sits when the story gets to "Lover Reign O'er Me"? -- B.Bryant

I believe that Townshend intended the term to mean punk in Wikitionary's 8th definition (a worthless person) but taken as a kind of point of pride.
Yeah, it didn't make sense to me either. I didn't think that punk was a real term until the Sex Pistols or the Ramones. My guess is that the term "punk" is used as a title to be proud of because there were people at that time who lived to shock or shame people. Being called "punk" was probably a compliment to those people.
This is actually incorrect and could do with being changed. The term was associated with garage bands of the late sixties and appear in creem magazine in that context in an article in 1971 i believe. --Neon white 01:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have discovered (since I wrote the note) the same information - it was a way to connect the new noise with the old. BUT - this is in reference to an epithet, not a musical style. --Fantailfan 22:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
the word "Punk" is simply a derogatory term for young people..it has been used by children for years...
it is interesting to note that The Runaways were originally marketed as a punk band basically because they were young..it wasn`t until The Ramones and The Sex Pistols defined the style that it became obvious they were not a punk bandLonepilgrim007 (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
the Runaways  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2340:9470:48EA:77E4:98AF:9678 (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC) 
I heard or read an interview with Townshend years ago where he said "punk didn't mean then what it does now" referring to the change in meaning since the advent of the Sex Pistols. I only mention this for the interest of anyone else browsing down this particular rabbit hole, not that it really matters that much. Not seeing the ip address appear for this edit, sorry about that...I guess wiki can't function without typing in arcane symbols that are beyond me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.184.149 (talk) 19:23, 22 August 2021(UTC) (don't know why the 1-hour time differential to the post below? UTC does funny things!)

Autosigned is launched by adding ~~~~. Simples!--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me who wrote the little story (told from Jimmy's point of view) in the insert pamphlet? I believe it is Pete Townshend, but it's entirely possible that it was someone else. Also a word to the wise: While listening to "I Am the Sea" (disc 1 track 1), don't turn up the volume to hear what they're singing. You'll deafen yourself once it gets to "The Real Me."

If you happen to have the vinyl version of this album, on the label it has a credit reading All Inserts -- Pete Townshend. You are correct.

Was part of "Bell Boy" sung by Keith Moon or was Roger just being silly? I'm certain I'd not heard the voice before, except maybe in "Tommy's Holiday Camp," on Tommy. If Moon did sing part of this song, can you tell me which part please? Much appreciated.
According to the Keith Moon biography 'Moon', by British author Tony Fletcher (published by Harper Collins in 1997), it is Keith Moon who sings on Bell Boy, specifically the lines 'I got a good job/and I'm newly born/you should see me dressed up in my uniform/I work in a hotel all gilt and flash/Remember the gaff where the doors we smashed'. 
Moon then continues, as the 'response' in the 'call-and-response' chorus 'I've got to get running now/keep the lip buttoned down/Carry the bloody baggage out/always running at someone's heel/you know how I feel/always running at someone's heel'
Then, changing his vocal delivery, he continues 'some nights I still sleep on the beach/remember when stars seemed in reach/then I wander in early to work/spend the day licking boots for my perks'
Roger takes over here, reprising the first verse 'a beach is a place a man can feel' etc.
Moon takes over with 'people often change/but when I look in your eyes/you could learn a lot from a life like mine/the secret to me isn't flown like a flag/I carry it behind this little badge that says'
Here the call-and-response chorus is reprised, with Moon responding as he did in the first chorus. 
To cross-examine, listen to Keith's frequent between-song comments on the expanded 'Live at Leeds'. Specifically, before the performance of "A Quick One", Townshend explains that Ivor the Engine Driver and the girl fornicate, which prompts Keith to query "Wassat Pete?...that's the trouble with always sitting here in the back..."etc. It's not a huge stretch from that voice to the voice of "Bell Boy". 
I hope you find this helpful.

The 1994 video "30 Years Of Maximum" R&B included a live performance of "Bell Boy" at Charlton Athletic Football Ground in 1974. Just before Keith's first line, he stops drumming, grabs Roger's vocal mike, and starts singing (Roger shares John's mike for the response vocal in the chorus). He hands it back before the reprise of the first verse and continues drumming. He then grabs Roger's mike again for his second vocal section. While Keith is singing, he makes a brief attempt to bang a few drums with one stick as and when he can.
I assume this was done to feature Keith Moon as a character, as other occasions that saw him take a vocal simply involved him having his own mike while behind the drums. (--Ritchie333 19:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC))

In this article, it is suggested that Quadrophenia is best appreciated by progressive rock fans- those listeners accustomed to odd-time signatures, extended song forms, instrumental solos, and obscure lyrical content. If a listener is expecting these things from Quadrophenia, they will be much disappointed, as the album contains very little of these elements. 
In much of the commentary on Quadrophenia, critics seem to find it either akin to, or an aritfact of,  the progressive rock movement. I completely disagree. Here are some reasons why. 
Except for the songs 'I Am The Sea', 'Quadrophenia' and 'The Rock', all the songs are built around conventional pop song formats, with verses, choruses, and bridges- no multi-part compositions in the vein of 'Close to the Edge', for example. 
And the lyrical content is classic pop music- clothes, parents, drugs, work, girls, means of transportation, love, etc., making the songs much closer in spirit to Chuck Berry than Genesis.  The bulk of the songs are conventional pop song length as well. True, the compositions 'Quadrophenia' and 'The Rock' are instrumental and last over 5 minutes, but these are instrumental renderings of songs with lyrics, not compositions for strictly instrumental performance. They are more comparable to the overtures and entre'acts of classic Broadway musicals than to ELP-style instrumental performances.  
All of the songs are in 4/4 time (except Love Reign O'er Me, which is in 12/8, played essentially in 4/4 time, divided 3-3-3-3). There are no guitar solos at all in the vocal tracks, and no 'unusual' instruments are used on the album- no sitars, marimbas, backward guitar solos, Mellotrons, or orchestras. It's mostly vocals, guitar (acoustic and electric), bass, and drums, with occasional synth, piano, and brass overdubs (and some nice bongo playing at the end of 'I've Had Enough'). 
To sum up, upon examination, 'Quadrophenia' does not appear to be progressive rock to me. Does anyone else feel this way? Or does anyone else feel strongly that it is progressive rock? Any thoughts would be much appreciated.

I agree with you, but it should be mentioned that that does NOT detract from the albums worth. -FeralCats

"And though it has been largely shrugged off by rock fans as being overblown and pretentious, fans of progressive rock often consider it The Who's best album for pretty much the same reasons."
This sentence seems pretty NPOV, progressive rock fans enjoy the album beacuse its "overblown and pretentious" BauerPower 17:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree that the terms 'overblown' and 'pretentious' constitute a neutral point of view. In fact, I believe they are meant pejoratively. Also, I do not feel this album has been 'largely shrugged off by rock fans'. Witness the successful release of a 'Quadrophenia' concert on DVD in 2005, notwithstanding the influential movie in 1979, the extensive 1996-97 Quadrophenia tour, its current development as a musical theater piece, and the countless internet discussion groups and fan sites devoted to the album. 
The impetus behind me wanting to discuss the album as 'not progressive rock' was to combat what I feel to be laziness on the part of music critics at large. When the album was first released, critical response was mixed, with many critics calling it 'pretentious', 'overblown', and 'progressive rock'. These labels have stuck since that time, and have largely gone unquestioned. 
I believe the passage of thirty-three years since its release has proved the album to be one of The Who's finest works. And if we agree that the Who are one of rock music's greatest ensembles, than this album is in rarefied company. 
I do not feel the album is without flaw- no great work of art ever is. I would love to see its flaws- and merits- debated and discussed openly among listeners and critics. I do not feel this can occur until inaccurate labeling of the music ('progressive rock') and unfair (and also inaccurate) description of the music ('unsuccessful', 'overblown', and 'pretentious') stop occuring.  
Clearly, the world does not need more rabid Who fans (such as I) gushing with praise for their work. But, I do feel the community of music fans, musicians, and critics would benefit from a sensible, reasoned, and fresh view of the work. I hope this discussion leads to the beginning of such a view.

"When the album was first released, critical response was mixed, with many critics calling it 'pretentious', 'overblown', and 'progressive rock'. These labels have stuck since that time, and have largely gone unquestioned."
It is not our place to question. If this is what critics have said, we have to accept it. If you're looking to change people's perceptions, or indeed debate their opinions, maybe an encyclopaedia is not the best place to try it. MightyMoose22 >Abort, Retry, Fail?_ 04:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
what critics think or don`t think is irrelevant..everyone has an opinion..what no one seems to remember was when the record came out progressive rock was just a term used to describe anything that wasn`t on top 40 radio..I personally think its the greatest rock album of all time..sgt pepper sold more..quadrophenia was a better record in my opinion..anyone who knows anything about the who would tell you it was their best record --Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It is stated that a remastered CD was released in 1996. However I believe I have a version that pre-dates this. It is a AAD CD from Polydor bearing the catalogue number 831074-2. The front cover is different when compared to the remastered one. On the 1996 remastered CD (531917-2), the front cover has the word "Quadrophenia" on the top, bottom and sides. On the version I have, however, it only has it on the top. I can't actually seem to find the original date of the CD, so I'm not sure if it predates the remastered one. Is there anyone who knows what the date is? --cheese-cube 06:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Does yours have the original bubbling vocals on Drowned?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.91.230 (talk) 22:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC) 
I have the same master, it does indeed have the original bubbling vocals on Drowned. I have come across three distinct digital masters of this album: the "original" of unknown date, the 1996 remaster, and the MFSL remaster.64.69.140.175 (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The article suggested that Jimmy "knew one of the band members" and references "Bell Boy." This is a conflation of two different things. From the story that accompanies the album:
"There's nothing uglier than a Rocker. This ace face geezer wouldn't have run. He smashed the glass doors of this hotel too. He was terrific. ... Quite funny, I met him earlier today. He ended up working and the same hotel. But he wasn't the manager."
It's not Jimmy who works as a bell boy. It's the ace face geezer. And it's not any of the band members of The Who who are involved in this part of the story. In "Bell Boy," Jimmy is running into the ace face geezer, who is now working as a bell boy at the same hotel where he had smashed the window. -- Urzatron, 15:02, 22 February 2006

I have never understood why people bad-mouth the album as "over-produced" and "a departure from the raw emotions of rock and roll."  As far as I am concerned, there has never been a clearer, more emotionally evocative statement of teen frustration, rage and confusion. If you doubt the force of the music, recall that "Had Enough," "Drowned," and "Dr. Jimmy" hardly ever get any air play on radio.  The songs are too raw and real to play:  the last thing any radio station wants is to inspire a wave of teen suicide and rape because it plays songs that actually express teenagers' darkest authentic thoughts.  (For the same reason, you hardly ever hear "The End" by the Doors on the local FM station.) Quadrophenia is not progressive rock fluff. It is essential rock and roll.

I feel strongly that noting the tracklisting for multiple-LP albums released before the CD era is important. The length given to each side (20-25 minutes maximum) frequently dictated the length, choice and placement of songs. --Fantailfan 00:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The article refers to Jimmy's parents finding his 'dope' (presumably cannabis). Are not 'blues' amphetamine pills as seen in the film? I've changed it in the meantime anyway.--ChrisJMoor 00:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Tommy, Who's Next, and Live at Leeds all have notes about remastered/re-released "deluxe editions" of the albums; has there been a re-release of Quadrophenia yet in the same vein?  As far as I know, cat. # MCAD2-11463 is the most recent release.  Anyone?  --Insomniak 00:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you may have a point there, the current article incorrectly refers to 'blues' as the barbiturate Valium, whereas I'm pretty sure they're referring to the 'leapers' mentioned on side-1 'cut my hair' - 'zoot suit, white jacket with side vents 5" long, dressed right for a beach fight,... out on the street again and I'm leaping along, etc'.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.219.198 (talk) 06:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC) 

I would like to add a list of the characters in this rock opera, like in the Tommy article. I know the different characters aren't as central to the plot as are Jim's four personalities, but I have made a rough list.

James "Jimmy" Michael Cooper
The Shrink?
The Preacher
Mrs. Cooper (Jimmy's Mother)
Mr. Cooper (Jimmy's Father)
Steph? (Jimmy’s Girlfriend)
The Godfather
Dave? (Jimmy’s Best Friend)
The Bell Boy/The Ace Face
Does anyone know the names of some of these people, or have a better list? Thanks for any comments. Jimmybob32 09:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or can anyone else not find any evidence that this song exists? It is not even on the track listing on this article. Zazaban (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a song, it's a theme. - Fractious Jell (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What's the source for the "Story" section? --jpgordon::==( o ) 07:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Why is there still no source for the "Story" section? I ask because the song interpretations here are befuddling to this long time album-listener, and first time would-be editor.XTCamus (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The album title is a play on quadraphonic sound, which was a recent invention at the time. The page "Quadrophenia liner notes," listed under External links, quotes Townshend: "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."
I think this should be added to the History section (maybe even at the beginning), but am not sure if the external link is sufficient or if a footnote also is required. Richard K. Carson (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it better to say "The two pieces have neither a definite beginning OR end..." or "The two pieces have neither a definite beginning NOR end..."???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.202.235.136 (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC) 

Technically speaking, it should be "neither a definite beginning nor a definite ending" if you want to do it that way, but, of the two you said, the latter is better.  If you want "or", it should be "Neither of the two pieces has a definite beginning or ending" (because then the "or" is not connected to the "neither").

Now, perceived wisdom (certainly from my book sources) is that backing tapes were used for most of Quadrophenia's original '73 tour. However, I've managed to hear a bootleg of a FM radio broadcast (sssh, keep it quiet) from December 1973, and tapes are only on "I Am The Sea", "Bell Boy" and "Dr Jimmy" - the rest of the set is played straight with the typical jamming you might expect from a Who gig. So the question is, did that infamous Newcastle Odeon gig trash tapes so they had to be dropped, or did the band just get fed up of them and decided to give it up as a bad job? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Townshend noted in 2009 that, rather than Jimmy’s personalities representing a Who member, he chose the personalities of each member to illustrate each of Jimmy’s four personalities, or "personality extremes" or mood swings.
The liner notes illustrate this concept as follows (names added):

A tough guy, a helpless dancer. ("Helpless Dancer" – Roger Daltrey)
A romantic, is it me for a moment? ("Is It Me?" – John Entwistle)
A bloody lunatic, I'll even carry your bags. ("Bell Boy" – Keith Moon)
A beggar, a hypocrite, love reign o'er me. ("Love Reign O'er Me" – Pete Townshend)
In addition to describing a personality/band member, the four descriptions refer to four musical themes that portray Jimmy's personalities in the opera: "Helpless Dancer", "Is It Me?", "Bell Boy", and "Love Reign O'er Me". The four themes (or "leitmotifs" as described by Townshend) are mixed together in both the title track (bridging "The Real Me" and "Cut My Hair"), and the penultimate track, "The Rock" (bridging "Doctor Jimmy" and "Love, Reign O'er Me"). The two pieces were the most musically complex pieces that Townshend ever wrote for The Who, combining all four themes into two six-minute instrumental medleys. The two pieces have neither a definite beginning nor end, as they begin with a fade-in from the previous track, starting with the theme of "Bell Boy" (Moon's theme). This is followed by the themes of "Is It Me?" (Entwistle's theme), "Helpless Dancer" (Daltrey's theme), and "Love, Reign O'er Me" (Townshend's theme). "Quadrophenia" fades into rain sound effects after the "Love Reign O'er Me" theme. "The Rock" however ends with a combination of the four different themes, using the "Bell Boy" theme as the chord sequence, the "Helpless Dancer" theme as the melody, the "Is It Me?" theme as a lead (played on guitar and synthesiser), and the keyboard part to "Love Reign O'er Me" as a countermelody. The whole song abruptly ends on a downbeat layered with the sound of thunder and descends into "Love Reign O'er Me" proper.
The four themes also surface on many other songs throughout the album; the most subtle example being when the "Helpless Dancer" theme appears on "Bell Boy" (the main song) played on synthesiser as a brief interlude. Some themes from other songs also make "surprise" reappearances here and there. These leitmotifs help give the work an impression of a cohesive unity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritchie333 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Quadrophenia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 18:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Alrighty, I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
At first glance, the last sentence under 1996–97 tour and the last sentence under Other productions need refs.
The unreferenced sentences are all of the form "this recording was released on the [album with bluelink]" which I didn't think qualified as "material likely to be challenged", however it has now been challenged here, so I've dropped in AllMusic cites for all three. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Heh, well, it's probably best to end every paragraph with a source, just to be safe. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Are all the external links really needed? Some even seem dead.
My bad - I misread these as thewho.com (Official Site) versus thewho.net (fan site). Actually, thewho.net is not a bad fansite so I've left the main page. I'm glad I read it as one sentence in the article was a straight copyvio from it. (Note to self : always copyedit everything before submitting to GA!) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
White space always irks me, but yeah, placing that first photo i's a bit tricky due to the short text. FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
The obvious fix for that would be to expand the story a bit, which I can do from the original liner notes. I left the synopsis as cited from Neill & Kent's book as I figured a secondary source's summary of the plot would fit due weight correctly as opposed to the wall of unsourced original research that was there before I got hold of it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't hurt with a longer synopsis, I think... FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I've beefed that up a bit and there's no gap now, at least on this monitor. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
"and uses it to sail out a rock" To a rock?
D'oh, fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
" with Who's Next collaborator Glyn Johns in May 1972" Wouldn't producer be more to the point for most readers?
The trouble is, he's never been credited as a producer on the albums, even though he did a lot of work a producer would normally do, so it's factually incorrect. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
"and decided to follow Frank Zappa's idea of producing a musical soundtrack that could produce a narrative in the same way as a film" Which Zappa albums are referred to here specifically?
Don't know, the source doesn't say. Sorry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
"while the group put out old recordings" Old in what sense? Because they were previously recorded but unreleased?
Gone with "unreleased" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
As last time, could be nice with each band member's role being clarified at first mention.
Done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
"Moon returned to his established drumming style on Quadrophenia." Could it be elaborated what this means?
The source used says, verbatim "Moon returned to an adventurousness of performing absent since Tommy". I'm not sure what else you could draw from that? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I meant what his drumming style could be described as, but if the source doesn't say there, probably doesn't matter. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
"The original Polydor CD issue included the complete booklet in miniature" Why no year for this release?
I've rewritten this sentence - this is another one probably copied from thewho.net that I just tacked a source on the end of. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
"writing in Creem gave a more critical response" May be interesting to elaborate a bit, as the good reviews had quotes.
I don't have the original review, only a secondary source reporting it. The source in question says "The greatest reservations came from Dave Marsh, who reviewed the work twice and on neither occasion found much that was positive" (which, incidentally explains why his Who biography is cited far less here than for Tommy and Who's Next, so I've had to look elsewhere). We could take it out, but it would help balance neutrality to have a negative review there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
"IGN placed Quadrophenia at #1 in their list of the greatest classic rock albums of all time." Being a gaming magazine, does this really have much weight in this article?
Probably none, I've taken it out, although it's a good thing you raised this as this threw up a number of claims that were totally unsourced. I've tagged these as  for the minute, as a quick search for sources just reveals mirrors that have taken copies of the article. I'd like to keep them in if I possibly can, particularly the Rolling Stone one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I have cited Rolling Stone' but left the other (unsourced) awards out. This makes the section a little fallow, so I'll dig around for some review quotes instead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Discovered that this image[1] has been on Commons since 2006 without a compatible license, I nominated it for deletion, then we'll see what happens... Perhaps there are replacements.[2]
I wouldn't worry about it, I think this was just a picture for the sake of a picture. I've taken it out Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Could perhaps be mentioned somewhere that Moon died (in the unlikely event that someone reading this didn't know), you jump from "his tenure with the band" to performances in the 90s with no explanation, yet you have "who replaced Entwistle following his death in 2002".
I've reworded this to mention this, which also makes the prose a bit simpler. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Fixes look good, I guess the source issue you discovered is the last thing that needs solving. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I've dropped in an original Rolling Stone review, a citation for the Best British Albums and a citation for RIAA Gold certification, which pretty much gets us back up to a reasonably broad coverage of how the album was received. Anything else. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Alrighty, looks good, will pass! FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Can somebody give me a reliable source for "The Real Me" being released as a single in 1974? I don't believe I have one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Quadrophenia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5mr0Evm3j to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100702221937/http://www.thewho.net/linernotes/Quad.htm to http://www.thewho.net/linernotes/Quad.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

As the article currently stands, a release date of 26 October 1973 is included, with the following supporting citation: Unterberger 2011, p. 232. However, I note that the Quadrophenia page on The Who's official website indicates a release date of November 1973. Is anyone able to supply the supporting text from the Unterberger 2011 citation? Otherwise, I'm inclined to change the date to reflect that given by The Who's official site. --Sixsevenfive (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)