Peter Gabriel To Record ONLY In 5.1 Surround From Now On

TheeeChosenOne · « **on:** 17 Oct 2003, 03:42 pm »

Peter Gabriel Seeks Audio Upgrade

LONDON (Billboard) - Rock icon Peter Gabriel (news) has declared that if he has his way, he will record in only 5.1 surround sound from now on.

He made the comments Tuesday in London while promoting the Nov. 3 international release of the best-of set "HIT" and the "Growing Up Live" DVD. Both items arrive the following day in North America.

Gabriel said the conventional stereo format has simply become dissatisfying. "I will consider using 5.1 only in the future," he revealed. "Working in 5.1, including on film scores, is a new discovery . It influences how you can use that capacity to shift sound; you can get bolder moving sounds around the place." He added: "I tend to use a lot of elements in my arrangements and often there isn't enough space on stereo."

Recalling the days when he was a pioneer of multimedia CD-ROM recordings, such as "Xplora 1" and "EVE," Gabriel said the creative potential is greater on the DVD platform. He also predicted high-definition television (HDTV) will become a viable medium for composers.

"You're not in a live environment; you're in people's homes," he said. "So if you want people to listen to something more than once, my view is that you make it sound as good as you can."

Gabriel recently licensed his song "Burn You Up, Burn You Down" for "Uru: Ages Beyond Myst," the upcoming installment in the popular "Myst" video game series.

boxhead · « **Reply #1 on:** 17 Oct 2003, 06:20 pm »

That sounds about right about PG. He has been at the forefront from day1. I remember seeing him with Genesis and the stage shows were on the cutting edge. The sound was not bad either. I wonder what kind of setup he has at home? It has to be state of the art.

Carlman · « **Reply #2 on:** 17 Oct 2003, 06:30 pm »

If you've listened to his latest album, it's incredible. I can understand why he'd want to do this. However, if you have a good hifi, the sound is very big and enveloping. It's very involving in a good way.

A friend of mine listened to this album at my house and said "it's like he rewards you for having good hifi".... However, his recordings have been pretty bad in the past... Even the vinyl I have isn't great.

If he's been at the forefront [of?] why haven't I/we heard the effects of it in his recording quality?

MaxCast · « **Reply #3 on:** 17 Oct 2003, 06:43 pm »

I've always liked his music. I wish his sacd's were 5.1. He does have a cool thing going, you can order a recording of all his shows. My wife and I saw him with another couple. they bought my wife a recording of the show for her birthday. It was just like being at the show again.

dogberry · « **Reply #4 on:** 17 Oct 2003, 06:50 pm »

What a putz. Surround sound music can go to hell along with ALL remasters that eff with the original 2-channel recording like all those wanky DVD-As.

No freakin' gimmicks!

Woodsea · « **Reply #5 on:** 17 Oct 2003, 07:20 pm »

Dogberry!?
Are you serious? I have to believe that when vinyl first came out, there were alot of snobbish operatics that believed that the original in house live show was best. Of course they did not have the forethought that if you had a 21st century sound system, a Larger screen t.v. it would be much more practical. Cuz you can always pause and get up while Luciano or Mick are flapping their gums. With all technology it seems that you can make art even more involving.
Don't worry I am sure you can always 'dumb' down the source for 2-channel audio. But why would you? When you could be immersed in the sound as if you were on stage with _________ (your preferred artist(s).
Please don't be afraid of technology because it is change. The last 150 years has seen more, than the past 2 millenia. It ain't all bad, and we have survived the cold war. Now we just need to survive another 2 years

jqp · « **Reply #6 on:** 17 Oct 2003, 08:53 pm »

I didn't think there were even standards for 5.1 audio (spl and frequency)

dogberry · « **Reply #7 on:** 17 Oct 2003, 11:02 pm »

Surround sound music is PHONEY. This is NOT what live music is like. The music does not come at you from behind. You might hear a reflection, but live music is not in surround.

I don't care about trying to re-create live music anyway. Recorded and live music are two SEPARATE critters.

I object to the gimmick of surround sound music. Hey, movies ARE in surround. That's cool. Music is not.

MaxCast · « **Reply #8 on:** 18 Oct 2003, 12:40 am »

Quote from: dogberry

I don't care about trying to re-create live music anyway. Recorded and live music are two SEPARATE critters.

I agree, with some types of music and artists. Some music is so much more involving in surround than just the front stage. after all, music is ment to convey a feeling. That feeling is much better expressed in 360 degrees with certain types.

I know it is only one band, but Floyd performs in surround.

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #9 on:** 18 Oct 2003, 01:16 am »

Live music ain't in stereo, either. To me, MC buries stereo; you can go dig a hole for all your LPs.

I don't really like any of Gabriel's music, but I admire his dedication to exploring the technology. He definately isn't afraid to experiment and take chances.

Carlman · « **Reply #10 on:** 18 Oct 2003, 02:31 pm »

Quote from: dogberry

...........I don't care about trying to re-create live music anyway. Recorded and live music are two SEPARATE critters........

Maybe this is the point? PG wants to create a new experience in your home exploiting technology a lot of people already have...

I don't particularly care for HT either but, what he's trying to do has artistic merit.

boxhead · « **Reply #11 on:** 21 Oct 2003, 05:06 pm »

When I was in college we did Wagner's Loehigrin and the brass choir was at the back of the hall. I do not know of any other composer who tried this but you should seen the look of the faces of the audience. And it was in a nice auditorium. Sam Houston State- Remember Old Main.

MaxCast · « **Reply #12 on:** 21 Oct 2003, 05:29 pm »

Quote from: Rob Babcock

I don't really like any of Gabriel's music,

Typical minnisota mentality.....sheeeech

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #13 on:** 21 Oct 2003, 06:27 pm »

"Typical minnisota mentality.....sheeeech"

Hey it's minnEsota Vikes, thank you very much! And if you say a vikes fan must naturally have excellent musical taste, I agree!

Okay, I haven't heard all of his music. To be fair I'm judging on the stuff I heard in the 80's. As I was listening to only metal & classical then, I probably wasn't as open minded about it. There's a lot of stuff that I didn't like back then that I don't mind now.

SWG255 · « **Reply #14 on:** 1 Nov 2003, 09:59 pm »

I too really like PG's music. I reported elsewhere that my SACD of "So" sounds very much better than the original CD of it I've had for years. It's still bright, but now it's listenable at relatively high volume, which the CD was not. i've heard his latest, "Up" sounds pretty good, I'll probably pick that one out of the disc bin soon.

It's hard to know why PG's recordings sound the way they do, although i suspect a lot of the reason is his use of electronic instruments patched directly through his effects gear and then onto the recording medium. The vocal brightness might be due to a conscious effort to keep the vocals "in front" of the rest of the sound when listening to the multi-track mix. I recently saw that he monitors on Mackie studio monitors, these are not bad, but not staet-of-the-art IMHO. Who knows what the mastering engineers listen to the stuff on...

Audiobudha · « **Reply #15 on:** 7 Nov 2003, 05:19 pm »

Peter Gabriel needs to focus on recording a good record and worry less about what format it's in. His last CD (which I own) fell flat on its face.