Peter Gabriel i/o - which mix?

[Dave Bryce]

For those of you who have had the opportunity to listen to both the Bright Side and Dark Side mixes of Peter Gabriel’s new album, do you have a preference?  If so, why?  If not, why not?  

 

For those who don’t know what I’m talking about, PG released two separate mixes of every song on the record (three if you got the three disc version with the surround mix).  The Bright Side mixes were done by Spike Stent, and the Dark Side mixes were done by Tchad Blake.  Not sure who did the surround mixes…

 

I find it really interesting to have the opportunity to listen to different mixes of the same material.

 

dB

[Mark Schmieder]

I rarely keep up with live recordings, so thanks for the heads-up. Didn't Peter do a "mix it yourself" album a number of years ago? This is a different notion though, so I'm curious about the bright vs. dark mixes. I've been keen on such stuff forever, due to being a Beatles fan and being aware at a young age of their often radically different takes on the same song, often at different tempi. And certainly many of us have heard endless remixes of the "Let It Be" soundtrack, each revealing different aspects.

[Justin Havu]

Dark-side mix on vinyl for me.  A bit more beefier, and that vocal reverb on the hook of "The Court" is just amazing.

[CyberGene]

I listened a few times through both mixes in my car this week. Frankly, I am a bit disappointed with the album, despite all the raving reviews, so can hardly speak which mix I prefer but I caught myself checking which mix was one track that I thought sounded better and it was the dark mix.

[Fleer]

Bright side, generally. More air. 

[Anderton]

5 hours ago, Dave Bryce said:

I find it really interesting to have the opportunity to listen to different mixes of the same material.

 

Agreed, but I'd like to see it taken one step further, along the following lines.  

 

My ancient book on Cubase SX came with a CD-ROM where people had the opportunity to remix a song by George Toledo. Bunny Knudsen organized the event, and Lee Flier contributed additional drum tracks to the project. BUT what made it fascinating was that people weren't limited to mixing just the tracks that were provided. They could interpret, remix, add parts, whatever they wanted to do. The amount of creativity on display was staggering. 

 

I think it would be ultra-cool if Peter Gabriel let his tracks out into the world with the same "do whatever the hell you want" attitude, and make it more of a music project than a mixing project. 

 

[murphybridget]

That remix project with George Toledo sounds awesome. I agree, it would be super cool if Peter Gabriel did something similar, letting people go wild with his tracks.

[Cabo]

I prefer the dark side, mainly because the instruments seem to shine through more.  The bright side seemed overly compressed.

 

One other thing that really struck me was the enduring quality of his voice -- for a guy who's 73, he sounds fantastic (assuming the vocals were recorded recently).

[Dave Bryce]

Excellent replies - thanks for taking the time!

 

For me, the Bright Side mixes are the ones I like best so far.  I find them more dynamic than the others, with more interesting mixing decisions and better integration of the instruments.  The Bright Side mixes felt more like works of art, for want of a better term.

 

With me and most PG albums, it takes me a few listens to really be able to wrap my brain around what he’s doing…so I don’t know how much the familiarity aspect is coming into play. 🤔

 

Has anyone else heard the Inside (surround) mixes?

 

dB

[CyberGene]

47 minutes ago, Dave Bryce said:

Has anyone else heard the Inside (surround) mixes?

Yes, listened to them today. I'm still not convinced by the Atmos stuff, to me it's not even a gimmick because it just doesn't work for me. I've been trying it on my AirPods Pro and HomePod but there's not a lot of surround effect audible, more like a very short delay/echo. I even tried creating a custom ear profile for my AirPods Pro by making pictures of my head, etc., it's something Apple introduced in a recent update but I think it even made it worse than the generic profile.

 

As to this album, I've been trying to like it but I just can't... I already started feeling a certain aversion to it. And the very first chords of the first track Panopticum are so cheesy, I just can't be quick enough to change it. I believe in a week I won't even remember this album... 🤨

[Dave Bryce]

1 hour ago, CyberGene said:

Yes, listened to them today. I'm still not convinced by the Atmos stuff, to me it's not even a gimmick because it just doesn't work for me. I've been trying it on my AirPods Pro and HomePod but there's not a lot of surround effect audible, more like a very short delay/echo. I even tried creating a custom ear profile for my AirPods Pro by making pictures of my head, etc., it's something Apple introduced in a recent update but I think it even made it worse than the generic profile.

 

It’s not really possible to hear an Atmos mix in a way that fairly represents the technology on earbuds - they only have two drivers.  

 

Like you, I’m fairly unimpressed with the way Atmos mixes sound when they’re folded down to two channels.  Heck, I feel a bit bummed having to listen to the Atmos mixes folded down to my 7.1 system without any overhead speakers, but it does still sound discernably different (and maybe even a bit better, IMO) than a 5.1 mix.

 

I think Apple intentionally blurs the line between actual Atmos and the “immersive” effect generated by integrating earbuds with your head.

 

dB

[Matthiola]

Vote for dark side, sounds more natural and warmer to my ears. Bright side mix is more polished and compressed. 
‘Playing for time’ is btw a hauntingly beautiful song.

[Anderton]

28 minutes ago, Dave Bryce said:

It’s not really possible to hear an Atmos mix in a way that fairly represents the technology on earbuds - they only have two drivers.  

 

That's true, but I prefer a binaural Atmos mix on headphones to a conventional stereo mix on headphones. I recently uploaded the same song to my YouTube channel, one with a conventional stereo mix*, one with an "Atmos for headphones" mix*. The difference is subtle, to be sure. If you listen to an Atmos and conventional stereo mix back-to-back, it might seem like this is much ado about nothing because the music is the same - drums are still drums, vocals are still vocals, etc.

 

However, what does change is the sound. There’s an analogy with pitch correction. At first, you don’t notice it because you’re listening to the vocal. But then your ears start to hear pitch-correction artifacts. Eventually, you can’t unhear pitch correction. With Atmos, if you listen to Atmos mixes for a while, your ears get used to it. Returning to stereo sounds oddly “flat,” and missing a certain vitality.

 

I think of binaural Atmos as "Atmos for the rest of us." Sure, it's not as good as full-blown Atmos system (any more than headphones are better than superb speakers in an acoustically treated room). But at least in the mixes that I've been doing, which prioritize space and not gimmicks, I'm convinced it's better than conventional stereo. Being able to increase dynamics by having an instrument spread out further while getting closer to the listener is a big improvement over just riding the dynamics with a level fader. 

 

* If you click on the links to the songs, make sure you hit "like," even if you don't like the songs. I match every like with a $1 donation to St. June Children's Research Hospital, up to $250 for each version.

[Dave Bryce]

On 12/14/2023 at 9:00 AM, Anderton said:

That's true, but I prefer a binaural Atmos mix on headphones to a conventional stereo mix on headphones.

 

Yes, but….

 

Have you compared a standard stereo mix processed by Apple’s Spatial algorithm as opposed to the folded down stereo version of a binaural “Atmos” mix?  I think the processed stereo mix sounds better than the folded down version.  

 

FWIW, I tend to leave the Spatial algorithm on when I’m listening to standard stereo mixes on my Airpods.

 

dB

 

 

[Anderton]

5 hours ago, Dave Bryce said:

Have you compared a standard stereo mix processed by Apple’s Spatial algorithm as opposed to the folded down stereo version of a binaural “Atmos” mix?  I think the processed stereo mix sounds better than the folded down version.  

 

I haven't checked that out, but it doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to take the folded-down stereo version and process it for more space...imaging and such.

[Steve Nathan]

Another vote for the Dark mixes.  Haven't finished comparing every track, but 5 songs in and I prefer the Dark mix on every one.  To use a highly technical musical term, the Dark Mixes have more balls.

[mate stubb]

On 12/14/2023 at 12:33 AM, Anderton said:

 

I think it would be ultra-cool if Peter Gabriel let his tracks out into the world with the same "do whatever the hell you want" attitude, and make it more of a music project than a mixing project. 

 

 

I don't know if it was sanctioned by Peter, but I had an opportunity to mix "Big Time" once. There was an audio society event at Ohio State when I was a student, and a vendor (Harrison?) had a huge console there with all the tracks to the song, letting anybody do a mix who wanted to try.

[Synthaholic]

He just posted this 60 seconds ago.

 

https://twitter.com/itspetergabriel/status/1736435182687658333

[eric]

Wow, I just had a chance to listen to this album yesterday - usually I am obsessive and buy albums like PG the very first day they are released, and I missed doing that this time. I remember clear as day when I bought the Us CD the day it was released (I believe 1992) and took it home and listened to it non-stop several times.

 

I'm planning to get the vinyl version of the new one today, as a Christmas gift to myself. I listened to it all yesterday on Amazon Unlimited music, through my Ultimate Ears IEMs, while doing yard work for hours, LOL. I'll need to listen more before I really grasp it all and I did find a few songs overly mellow and/or melancholy. However, towards the end of Playing For Time, last 1:30 or so, when the drums and strings build up, I found it very moving. Almost like the first time I heard Secret World or Washing of the Water from Us. It just grabbed me and I had to relisten.

 

I also like The Court, which has some nods to Digging in the Dirt. Of course the first single Road To Joy is great, very poppy yet a bit dark as well...kind of like Kiss This Frog...I am drawing lots of parallels to PG's Us album, it seems. Panopticom sounds like Coldplay, though it also reminds me of DIY, which always struck me as a bit of a nonsense PG song.

 

As for bright mix vs. dark mix...I'm on the fence. I think the drums had more space and thump on the dark mix, though I liked both mixes. There's one song I'll need to remember which one, with a lot of acoustic piano that sounded very Tori Amos style.

 

Overall, I was very pleased with my first full listen and I look forward to digging deeper on this one.

[JamieT]

On 12/13/2023 at 7:10 PM, Dave Bryce said:

For those of you who have had the opportunity to listen to both the Bright Side and Dark Side mixes of Peter Gabriel’s new album, do you have a preference?  If so, why?  If not, why not?  

 

For those who don’t know what I’m talking about, PG released two separate mixes of every song on the record (three if you got the three disc version with the surround mix).  The Bright Side mixes were done by Spike Stent, and the Dark Side mixes were done by Tchad Blake.  Not sure who did the surround mixes…

 

I find it really interesting to have the opportunity to listen to different mixes of the same material.

 

dB

My preference changes by the song, so I created a playlist that includes selections from both mixes. In truth, I don't hear much difference between the two mixes for many of the songs and (in hindsight) I found the comparison process to be a waste. According to what I have read, Peter Gabriel worked on this album for roughly 20 years and after all that time he still couldn't make the final decisions and finish "an album" so he released 3 different albums and  said "you decide." Putting aside this complaint, I think the album is good. I don't think it is a great Peter Gabriel album (many of the reviews I have read are far too glowing). It is better than his recent releases (Up, Scratch My Back, etc.) but that is a very low bar. 

In 5 years this will not be remembered like PG 3, PG 4, So, or Passion (his excellent albums). 

[JamieT]

On 12/14/2023 at 7:05 AM, Cabo said:

I prefer the dark side, mainly because the instruments seem to shine through more.  The bright side seemed overly compressed.

 

One other thing that really struck me was the enduring quality of his voice -- for a guy who's 73, he sounds fantastic (assuming the vocals were recorded recently).

I had the same thoughts about his voice. It still sounds great, but many of these songs were started (recorded?) 20 years ago. I saw Bono last year (promoting his book) and he sounded great, but he used some clever "tricks" to make things easier (e.g. on some songs, his keyboard player sang the high notes and he would shift to the lower harmony). 

[Dave Bryce]

I just revisited the surround mixes, and now I know that the more familiar I get with the material, the more I’m able to be objective about the presentation.  

 

Not really that surprising.  How often do you get two - much less three - versions of a collection of tunes out of the gate?

 

dB

[eric]

I splurged a bit today at my local record store. 

[KenElevenShadows]

On 12/14/2023 at 5:05 AM, Cabo said:

 

 

One other thing that really struck me was the enduring quality of his voice -- for a guy who's 73, he sounds fantastic (assuming the vocals were recorded recently).

 

He sounded fantastic in person during the concert that I saw in Los Angeles recently.

[KenElevenShadows]

On 12/13/2023 at 10:33 PM, Anderton said:

 

Agreed, but I'd like to see it taken one step further, along the following lines.  

 

My ancient book on Cubase SX came with a CD-ROM where people had the opportunity to remix a song by George Toledo. Bunny Knudsen organized the event, and Lee Flier contributed additional drum tracks to the project. BUT what made it fascinating was that people weren't limited to mixing just the tracks that were provided. They could interpret, remix, add parts, whatever they wanted to do. The amount of creativity on display was staggering. 

 

I think it would be ultra-cool if Peter Gabriel let his tracks out into the world with the same "do whatever the hell you want" attitude, and make it more of a music project than a mixing project. 

 

 

That would be fascinating.

 

The closest he's come to this is this remix competition many years ago: https://musicthing.blogspot.com/2006/06/peter-gabriel-remix-competition-win.html

[synthetic]

I found the Dark Side a bit unintelligible. I prefer the more vocal-forward Bright Side. 

[DanS]

Just had a first listen of Bright Side. Sounds great, love all the vocals, harmonies, string arrangements are stellar.

Also listened to a few cuts off of Dark Side, and like them just as much for being radically different.

I like the scaled down arrangements, and I would say that the funkier tunes sound more organic on Dark Side.

I believe Tchad Blake was the engineer on Us, and I remember thinking at the time that the album sounded like it had been mixed through a blanket, dull & lifeless. I guess I’ve gotten used to his style, as I like these mixes.

As for which version to listen to, I guess it depends which side of the bed you wake up on.

Now onto the Inside mix, on 5.1, curious to hear how it will fold down.