Isn't It Time is next single

[the professor]

I like the new version.  It's less Jeff and more emphasis on Mike and just keeping it within the Beach Boys.  Mike still seems a bit timid with the bridge...his vocal is a bit weak.  I'm sure a few more performances and he'll beef that section up a bit.  Can't wait to hear the official single!

Yes, as the professor says above--and it's worth repeating--the long-sought for de-fosckettization of the song is a dream come true: it was un-listenable for those few seconds to any astute listener or to anyone with ears. Jeff is good with Brian in the opening, serving as a support, but as a soloist?  Not with 5 BB still standing.  I am thrilled and counting the days, which would be easier if I knew when to stop, until the next single.

[Gohi]

I'm afraid I can't sign off on most of these changes. I preferred the slightly bittersweet feel that "the things we USED to do" brought to the song. I do like that Foskett doesn't sing the bridge anymore. That part always made me wanna cover my ears. I just think this new version has removed a lot of the emotion that the original had. Darn shame.

[southbay]

I like Love on the bridge but dislike the new lyrics.  It appears Mike has "Kokomo'd" the lyrics, taking them from sounding like an old man thinking about his past to make it sound more present, something the "young people" can relate to.  The difference is that now they really are old men thinking about their past and the original lyrics fit in perfectly with the rest of the entire album.

[musicismylife101]

I agree that the new lyrics alter the meaning of the song. It doesn't have that same feeling of nostalgia as the original. Plus the new lyrics feel somewhat out of place in the song. Isn't the song about nostalgia and remembering the good times? Maybe the change in lyrics had something to do with the song's commercial appeal-maybe nostalgic songs won't appeal to the public as much as a song related to younger people? I don't know, but hopefully they know what they're doing.

I also agree about the changes on the bridge. I don't mind Jeff's voice too much as long as he's in the background but his vocals on the bridge sound out of place. As a background vocalist, he's good, but as a lead vocalist with the others backing up, he doesn't sound well. Not bashing him but I prefer to hear the BBs over him.

[the professor]

Those of you missing "used to do" are right; I believe, as I wrote month ago as as intimated by an insightful post by rangrover (right?), that it's the fitness of the lyric and melody, what new critical scholars call the "sound and the sense."

"Used to do" contains three stressed long u: vowels, creating an onomatopoetic effect, a great groan from the diaphragm of loss and longing: u: u: u:, with a melisma on the final sound.  The long a: of "want" in "want to do" changes the color and tone of this and makes the rest of the narrative a bit strained for coherence. On the other hand, to try to spin it, we can read the change as the infusion of more future directed "desire" to supplement the "memory."  Mike is here thinking, obviously, of TS Eliot.

Let's hear the studio magic of the new bridge and then see how Mike did on that. Jeff's departure from the bridge is not a personal attack but an aesthetic judgment. If I had the chance to act so hubristically to impose myself on a BB record, I would soon regret it, and I suspect Jeff has. As with the lost wax method, he served as part of the construction of this art, and now let the master complete it.

[pixletwin]

I would rather hear Christian Love do the bridge than Jeff or Mike.

[Aegir]

well, he's not part of the reunion band. I'd rather hear Carl do it! or Zeus!

[pixletwin]

I always pictured Zeus has having more of a baritone voice actually. 

[runnersdialzero]

Why would an aging couple raise their glass to kindness, anyway? I don't get that part.

[Aegir]

because it's the bridge.

[Custom Machine]

Personally, I'm glad they took my advice and changed "It's it time we be lovers again" to "Isn't it time we be lovers", although "isn't it time we be lovers and then ..." would be even better.  Also, "How about doin' it just like yesterday" should be changed to "How about doin' like this everyday".

[Generation42]

I know the appeal of "Isn't it Time" is, for some, rooted in its sense of appreciating the pleasant memories of the narrator, but nostalgia is already served to such wondrous effect on the album at the close of the suite numbers, and even with the changes here, it's still well represented on the song (what with "how about doin' it just like yesterday" and "little did we know how the time would fly," etc), such that I don't feel anything is lost with the alterations I hear in the live clip from Singapore - quite the opposite, in fact.

On the original, the one thing that always sounded incongruous with the twisting, suggestive pulse of the tune was the lack of any desire in the message.  The change to "I want to do," to me, now subtley shifts the tone of the lyric from a light-hearted, wistful look back, to one where this older couples' reminiscing now leads to a sense of actual arousal.  No reason the grey can't still get it on!  Bring on the new recording.

[the professor]

I know the appeal of "Isn't it Time" is, for some, rooted in its sense of appreciating the pleasant memories of the narrator, but nostalgia is already served to such wondrous effect on the album at the close of the suite numbers, and even with the changes here, it's still well represented on the song (what with "how about doin' it just like yesterday" and "little did we know how the time would fly," etc), such that I don't feel anything is lost with the alterations I hear in the live clip from Singapore - quite the opposite, in fact.

On the original, the one thing that always sounded incongruous with the twisting, suggestive pulse of the tune was the lack of any desire in the message.  The change to "I want to do," to me, now subtley shifts the tone of the lyric from a light-hearted, wistful look back, to one where this older couples' reminiscing now leads to a sense of actual arousal.  No reason the grey can't still get it on!  Bring on the new recording.

Very good analysis, Generation42! I am not quite ready to assign this song next to Shakespeare's sonnets, but this kind of subtle analysis really gets at the meaning of pop songs and why we listen and feel the way we do, especially as we get older and hear the "inaudible foot of time."  Can't wait to hear to new song, based on all the comments we have made about its revision. 

[Summertime Blooz]

No reason why the two versions can't co-exist peacefully wuth the album version's more nostalgic meaning tying in neatly with the other songs and the single version being a sexier version about getting it on. I see a Viagra commercial with this song happening in the not-too-distant future.

[Generation42]

Thanks, professor.  Yes, I'm quite eager to hear it, as well.

And you know, krabklaw, I can't lie to you - I was chuckling to myself a little as I was writing my post last night, imagining the offers from Viagara, Cialis and Levitra pouring in, Mike and Bruce high-fiving one another to proclamations of "We're back, baby!"  I see Al sitting on a stool, shaking his head with a big grin covering his face, and David standing quietly off to the side, practicing his jazz chords and classical runs on the guitar, safe in the knowledge that as the baby of the group, he's still got a number of years before he has to worry himself with such silly trifles as E.D.  Whoops! - Now Bruce has moved across the room to a table, sitting down with his business managers, stategizing the best way for the group to pit the drug companies against each other, driving up the price for the use of the song.  Oh, and look - in the midst of it all, there's Brian, sitting in the corner behind a Steinway, scatching his head, wondering what all the fuss is about.

I mean, it just kind of writes itself, doesn't it?   Seriously though, I meant what I said about the lyric change, and I really am looking forward to the new rendition.

[puni puni]

Except for "raise a glass to kindness," the lyrics they should have changed they kept, and the lyrics they should have kept they changed. What's wrong with going steady? That was like the best part.

[Runaways]

i thought that line was old-fashioned in a bad way.

[Gohi]

Nothing wrong with beng old-fasioned, I say.

[mabewa]

I like the new version.  It's less Jeff and more emphasis on Mike and just keeping it within the Beach Boys.  Mike still seems a bit timid with the bridge...his vocal is a bit weak.  I'm sure a few more performances and he'll beef that section up a bit.  Can't wait to hear the official single!

Yes, as the professor says above--and it's worth repeating--the long-sought for de-fosckettization of the song is a dream come true: it was un-listenable for those few seconds to any astute listener or to anyone with ears. Jeff is good with Brian in the opening, serving as a support, but as a soloist?  Not with 5 BB still standing.  I am thrilled and counting the days, which would be easier if I knew when to stop, until the next single.

Jeff's vocals sometimes sound a bit shrill to me, but I really like his part on the bridge.  I agree that it's nice to have the original BBs sing the whole song, but with the dubious lyrical changes, I'm not sure if they've succeeded in improving it. 

[Runaways]

Don't disagree, except when it's a lil lame.

[runnersdialzero]

Nothing wrong with being old-fashioned, I say.

Seconded.

Thus why he said "old-fashioned in a bad way". I think "dated" applies to this particular line. I'm not fond of it, but it goes down much easier with the vocals than the updated lyrics.

[mabewa]

"Go steady" sounds fine to me, just because it's a phrase that the original BBs would have used, did use in fact (none of the guys go steady coz it wouldn't be right!).  So you have some late middle aged people thinking about getting back together, and they are using their old slang. 

[Gohi]

Using old slang is a lot like liking a Phil Spector record.

[Freddie French-Pounce]

Using old slang is a lot like liking a Phil Spector record.

Whats wrong with Phil Spector?

[Wirestone]

Part of what makes the song work -- to me -- is that it was a total last minute lark. They did it in, like, March. There was no time, everybody pitched in to write the thing, there are shared vocals -- it's one of the tracks where it really sounds like the BBs are a reunited, working group.

Sure, I could see an instrumental overdub or two, possibly some drop-ins by BW to make his intro vocal a bit less quirky. But all of this fiddling with the lyric is pure foolishness. It's trying to fix something that 1.) isn't broken and 2.) is actually charming on its own.