New Peter Gabriel album (1 Viewer)

[Michael_T]

but I personally want my $12 back.

I guess if that is the case, you won't be spending $131 a ticket to see him live this coming November.
Actually, I like the album - and purchased tickets this morning for the Continental Arena show in NJ - couldn't stomach $131 per ticket though, so I opted for $86 tickets. Should be a good show - as his last two tours (So and US) were great.

 

[Jimmy Nugent]

Sledgehammer Funk Jam #2 would not have been bad

"Sledgehammer" is not the best barometer by which to measure the bulk of Peter Gabriel's work. By comparison, "Sledgehammer" is an anomoly. A great song, yes but by no means demonstrative of what a great Peter Gabriel song is. It served it's pupose as a radio-friendly way to sell records. It's up-beat tempo keeps your feet jigging while the thinly vieled sexual metaphors in the lyrics provide aural satisfaction. Fun and funky- yes, but there is so much more to PG's music, and UP delivers in spades.

So- If you want to dance, put "Sledgehammer" on repeat or throw Susudio in the player. If you want something to really sink your synapses into, give Up a chance before you put it down.

Jimmy

***disclaimer*** The biased comments of the above poster are strictly his own opinion and are subject to change, though not likely. Valid in the continental US, except Tennessee. Void where prohibited. Absolutely no cash value. Keep extremities in the car at all times. Thank you and come again.

 

[John Geelan]

I had Up on all morning and played it 3x.
I like it. It sounds like a PG album right off the bat.
Yes it's dark and I don't hear a big hit on there but I like the dark Gabriel.
It seems to be the kind of album you need to spend some time on. This one is going in the car for further review.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Finally listened to it (why am I always the last one on this forum?)

It's pretty damn cool. Very contemplative. It makes me want to listen to it again- which I will do, of course, tomorrow and have in the car all weekend.

NP: Sting, Dream of the Blue Turtle

 

[Craig S]

I've given it a second listen myself and really got into it. It's sounding more & more like a PG classic. It's been ripped to my PC, copied to my Archos 20GB Jukebox, and the disc is now in my car CD changer!
NP: Mark Isham, Film Music

 

[Lee Scoggins]

To answer Keith's comment about hi-rez...this is from High Fidelity Review.

"Sledgehammer" is not the best barometer by which to measure the bulk of Pete Gabriel's work.

I never said it was indicative of his work. I just wanted some more creative melodic touches. This album to me seems like a soundtrack for the ongoing civil war on the Ivory Coast.
I like Solsbury Hill much better. But there have been many of Pete's songs that were big hits - it is not that unusual. "Shock the Monkey", "Big Time", etc.
I like Pete a lot as an artist but after such a long wait, I expected much, much more.

 

[L. Anton Dencklau]

ok, two people listed track titles that are not on my copy of the disc: "Dont go" or "Don't Leave". are these the same song, different songs, early titles, or something on the UK/Euro release?

Should I be looking out for singles/B-Sides/Imports?

 

[MichaelAW]

Don't Leave is "No Way Out," I had the same confusion when I got a preview copy of the album.

 

[KeithH]

Lee, I read the same information of the Gabriel SACD and DVD-Audio timetable. Perhaps you posted it somewhere else?
You said:

Super Audio scoops DVDA!

Well, those larger DVD-Audio "super" jewel cases take longer to make! Seriously, it could simply be that they are starting the SACDs first. Also, remember that DVD-Audio has video content, so there is more work involved in preparing the material for DVD-Audio release. Finally, the SACDs will have CD tracks, which are ready to go, assuming they are using the recently remastered tracks. The DVD-Audio discs will have Dolby Digital and/or DTS tracks, which were not available previously.

 

[Andrew 'Ange Hamm' Hamm]

Less interesting lyrics.

Less melodic and creative soundscape.

Less blend of different music styles.

Less use of interesting drum tracks. We've heard everything here before.

Less musical.

I think we didn't get the same album. We are talking about Peter Gabriel's Up, right?

This is the album long-time PG fans have been waiting twenty years for. Much closer in tone to his third (melting face, 1980) album than his last two, Up has basically nothing even remotely commercial on it whatsoever. Instead, Gabriel has gone back to what he does best: combine deft melodies with rhythm, sparse arrangement, and musical sound.

There are some new developments here: more use of drum machines and industrial music sound, and more of Gabriel just simply playing the piano. But in many ways this is a throwback to the days when Gabriel was less songwriter than alchemist, throwing noises, instruments, and ideas together to see what comes out. The first few tracks are masterful, several are haunting, one or two are a bit boring (he always has a couple), and every time I listen to the album I notice a dozen new things.

If you're a fan of Gabriel's early work, you should be ashamed that you don't have Up yet. If you're only familiar with So and Us, then you may want to take a pass. There's nothing for you here.

 

[RaulR]

Does anyone know the details of the Japanese 2-disc edition? HMV.com lists it but has no information at all.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

The DVD-Audio discs will have Dolby Digital and/or DTS tracks, which were not available previously.

Since they have decided to go stereo-only, I doubt they use either DD or DTS on the PG DVD-As.

I expect PCM (likely 16/48 or 24/48 or 24/96) on the DVD-Video portion, and MLP stereo PPCM (hopefully at 24/192) on the DVD-Audio portion.

 

[Mike Broadman]

No multi-channel on the DVD-A? That's weird...

Surround sound is DVD-A's biggest selling point. I was planning on getting both, but now I don't see the point of the DVD-As.


NP: Marillion, Front Row Club 2

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Surround sound is DVD-A's biggest selling point.

If Peter (or any other musician) thinks stereo is the sole correct way to listen to his music, do you think they should do a surround mix anyway just to pander?

Personally, to me, surround is just a 'bonus'. And I'll likely buy some of the DVD-As for the sound quality. Though if I was SACD capable yet (waiting for the right combo player) I probably would get the SACD instead. Probably. I'm still not convinced that with an analog source that DSD beats 24/192 PCM...or vice versa. But this thread is not for that debate...

Is Peter still recording in analog? I know Security is digital, but didn't he go back to analog for So?

 

[Mike Broadman]

If Peter (or any other musician) thinks stereo is the sole correct way to listen to his music, do you think they should do a surround mix anyway just to pander?

Zuh? Did I say that?

DVD-A's most significant feature is surround sound. Every DVD-A is surround. If PG doesn't want a surround mix, why make a DVD-A?

Of course I'm not saying what anyone should do and I certainly said nothing about "pandering."

Heck, if they're really just interested in a high-res stereo DVD format of the albums, why not release them as DADs so that you don't need a DVD-A player to hear it? The whole point of DVD-A is that you can cram 6 channels of high-res music on a DVD. 2 channels, however, fit without using MLP compression.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Heck, if they're really just interested in a high-res stereo DVD format of the albums, why not release them as DADs so that you don't need a DVD-A player to hear it? The whole point of DVD-A is that you can cram 6 channels of high-res music on a DVD. 2 channels, however, fit without using MLP compression.

That's like saying why not throw perfect copies of the master tapes out in the street.
CSS is cracked, therefore DADs are not secure and anybody can rip it and copy it at full resolution. DVD-A is still secure.
Plus, from a marketing standpoint, more people understand what a DVD-A is than a DAD.
I don't think the 'whole point' of DVD-A is surround. I know some people do. Heck, some people think all SACDs should have surround.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

If Peter (or any other musician) thinks stereo is the sole correct way to listen to his music, do you think they should do a surround mix anyway just to pander?

Actually, I think I have read where Pete is on board bigtime with the whole 5.1 thing.
In fact, I think he has designed surround into his new Real World Studios for this very reason.
By the way, I really like to call him Pete. It's friendlier that way. I never understood formality in names like Philip Michael Thomas.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Actually, I think I have read where Pete is on board bigtime with the whole 5.1 thing.

OK, now I'm confused. Then why would the new releases be stereo-only?
Oh, wait, I know.
It would take him about 10 years to remix them.
Anyhow, for those artists that don't want surround mixes (and they are out there), I still think that they should proceed with any and all high-resolution formats.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Then why would the new releases be stereo-only?

Michael,
They are not really. Check my earlier post. Pete's album on SACD due around Turkey Day and DVDA will be out around January. Those will be multi-channel I believe.

 

[Mike Broadman]

Michael,
I didn't know about that label. Those are the first stereo-only DVD-As I'd ever seen. Thanks.

Though I now hate you for making want to spend money at yet another place. Freddie King in high res... sweet.

But still, is security the only reason to use DVD-A instead of DAD? I can't imagine there actually being a difference in sound. Also, the web site says they can be played on DVD-V players as well. Does that mean they contain two seperate tracks?