The Smiley Smile Message Board

From the Ken Bruce show - extra Brian overdubs, more instruments, Mike Bridge and more!

EDIT: I ripped it and put it on YouTube for easy listening

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xds5X7SpyvM&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xds5X7SpyvM&feature=youtu.be)

iPlayer Link:

Go to about 2:21:45

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01mf9bh/Ken_Bruce_03_09_2012/ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01mf9bh/Ken_Bruce_03_09_2012/)

One problem - more autotune...

Another problem -  that looks to be a link to the Ken Bruce show!   :lol

Point noted :/

Hmm. Well....it cool.

Autotuned out the wazoo, but I'll get over it. I still think Brian sounds rough on his verse. Was it rerecorded? It kinda sounds like it. The changed lyrics to Al's parts sound weird to me, but it's also because I've lived with the album version for a while, so I'll probably get used to it. Overall, I'm happy to get anything new out of The Beach Boys in 2012, so even if it's a tweaked version of an already released song, I'm ok with that.

Actually it's the correct link - it's Ken Bruce, not Jeremy Vine you want folks.

Many thanks Mr Moustachioto!

Sounds fantastic, big improvement on an already great song

The autotune is clearly used for effect like on many modern records. There's a lot of echo added to it and especially the delay on Al's vocals sounds weired. To tell you the truth there's so much echo that it is kinda disturbing. The rest is cool (was it slowed down? The intro sounds like that to me) but it's hard to liste to it. Take that down a bit especially off Al's vocal and it's nice. At this point though I'd go with the album version. And I'd like a little more bass.
The organ is cool

I think it is a nice improvement on the album version.  It has a "live" feel and I like the changes with the possible exception of the Mike bridge.  I didn't love the Jeff bridge, but wonder how it might have sounded if Bruce had sung the "Jeff bridge" on this version.  Then, it would have clearly featured the 4 primary vocalists.

All in all more single-worthy than the album version. I don't like the lyrics changes though, the bridge featuring Mike pretty much blows (that would have been a nice spot for Bruce), and the backing track now sounds even more 'un-organic' (or is it just my ears?).

Ah, doesn't matter anyway... this one will peter out much like the 1st single, thanks to impressive Capitol promotion.  :-\ I tell you, nobody I know (who isn't a BBs fan) even knew they had a 1st single release in 2012 to begin with. It's a shame..

I don't know about you but that delay on Al's voice hurts my ears. There are other parts that sound like they could use a re-mastering but maybe the radio station only got an early version to promote

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YGOdZTr8CEM/UCgtQ6x1-iI/AAAAAAAAAMA/7VDUmtnGh2E/s1600/Fingers-crossed1.jpg)

It's alright.

This doesn't seem likely. Not nearly blatant enough, while still sounding pretty darn bad.

Blatant enough to clearly not be there to hide anything imo

This likely went through the same people who were running the show and thought this was acceptable for weeks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZrIyFaPRTE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZrIyFaPRTE)

 ???
Mike's bridge is poor (he's way too far back in the mix)... Jeff's was better

question is, is he too far back in the mix or is his voice so weak in that range that he can't be heard??

Good god, I never realized some of the early concerts had autotuning THAT bad.

Much prefer the album version.

If his voice was that weak (which I doubt) they could easily mix it loud enough so that it can be heard.

Yikes, single is a Wannabe kokomo (which is scary in itself)

Oh boy!   :-[

Oh boy!    :'(


Sorry but this sounds awful.  They changed a fresh upbeat cute song into a wanna-be modern mess.

It's like the engineer wanted to try all the effects he had available..    
Yeah look at this autotune, cool ah?  And listen to this big ass delay!  Let's put more reverb!  
And more percussions! I want 50 thousand percussions!

And yes the bridge is even worse..  no punch at all.


Not impressed.  Will still buy it.

Yerp - the former description is perfect for the song on the album, and the new version indeed strips it of all or much of those things. Thank goodness we have the original.

well, that's why god made the radio.

My question is, if the B-Side will be an instrumental, will it be album or single version?

Not too bad but I really hope that this is an early version and that the actual released single will be much better.

There are some things I like about this new version. The harmony bit at the beginning is cool, and the added things in the opening verse, despite how digital and cold they are, help Brian's vocal to sound better. There are cool new, slight organ parts. The rest, though...yikes. We thought the autotune was bad on the album - that was like nothing compared to the slathering of it on the new single.

-The bridge is pretty much ruined. The autotune on Mike's part is laughable and frankly, cringeworthy. When you use that stuff to the point where the singer doesn't sound human, as a producer of The Beach Boys, you know you should back it off and try again. Parts of this sound like a parody of the current Top 40 pop scene, and everything that is wrong with it.
-I miss the falsetto.
-Did I mention the autotune?
-The new lyrics aren't an improvement over the originals.

(IMO).

I'm not sure what the thinking was behind the new bridge. Not a fan of Jeff's voice and was interested to hear someone else sing it, but they took it down on octave and totally altered the melody. It's not so much a matter of "It's changed and I don't like it", I just really feel it's inferior to the original melody for that part.

Mike sounds like he's underwater during that part, too. teh heck.

I think the reason why they use autotune so indiscriminately is because they take the term "current Top 40" literally.

The new bridge is utter balls, massive dangling balls with rivers of sweat running down them. To recap, I do not like the bridge.

Like all of you I am listening over and over; have to agree with the trend of the criticism, such as Ecohanger's good analysis.

But, trying to find some positives (some have been noted):

The group harmony at the top, which is more fantastic with every listen.

Al's harmony with Brian on the opening verses "all been" said, "in my head" etc.

Still hearing Bruce on the chorus lead.

Added guitar track, which must be Dave strumming in a classic BB way that I just love to hear.

Organ, as noted.

The clock ticking!!

Mike's new melody on the bridge grows on you after 2-4 listens, less jarring obviously that at first listen.

Al on "lovers" at the end of new bridge.

Is it a bit more like Bananrama than it ought to be? Perhaps, but it's the BB new single , and I love it. How do I know? Can't stop listening.

New Lyrics:  first time gives us "used to do," which them becomes "want to do" so we could argue for some coherence. . . .

I like how it sounded when in some shows Mike and Jeff sang the bridge together

i really like the new version !

Isn't it time, isn't it time, isn't time WE CUT SOME CHEESE AGAIN?!?!

What a mess. Mike Love should have as little input as possible when it comes to recording something that is supposed to commercially viable. He's lost his way, hey, hey, hey...

It's all Mike's fault, guys. ;(

Thats more Brian isn't it?

Adding a strong negative: is it Brian's voice that is so tweaked on the "isn't it time" refrain that is sounds frighteningly electronic, like that singer, who was it t-pain? That part is no good for sure.

teh return of B-Pain ';'

why is this sped up too.  I can't take it.  

this SUUUUCKS compared to the album version.

Jesus, they fuckin' SLAUGHTERED the bridge of the song. A truly awful "remix" of this song.

I hate how the "Isn't it time we get ready again, isn't it time we go steady again?" has been changed to "Isn't it time, isn't it time, isn't it time to be blubblyaafhgiug," and no, I can't understand what that word was supposed to be.

The album version was fine, they should have just released that as a single and paired it with an previously unreleased B-side to make it marketable.  But I think I'll skip out on buying this version.

Riiight. Mike bashing is fun (like Jeff Foskett bashing or Joe Thomas bashing, or Bruce Johnston bashing, or Dick Reynolds bashing), but we don't know that these additions were Mike's idea, so it's not fair to go 'there' just yet. Not that I would be surprised, but hey, give the guy a shot.

Wonder if this thing will get some airplay.

Well, this is airplay... ;D

"Isn't it time to be lovers?".

I've actually changed my opinion..

I like the original better

It sounds 'commercial' and 'radio-friendly' which was it's purpose. I like it!

It's exciting for me that the BBs have a new single out in 2012 that is played on radio.
This mix will also sound good on smart phones and laptop speakers, which is important for today's market - class and subtlety don't always cut it these days, ya know, the LP version is great but I think this is right for it's intended format.

Ah, that makes sense hehe.  The sound is just so muddled, I really couldn't make it out.

My reactions are mixed.

I love the a capella intro, and the extra harmonies against Brian's lead. The whole first verse is better.

The chorus is where it starts to go off for me, with the unnessecary delay on Al's vocal and the taming of the slappy percussion (which Bruce described as "drums spilling off shelves").

There are a few organ parts in the verses that pop out more - me like.

I don't think the bridge is a disaster but then again it's not a slam-dunk improvement either. I miss the harmonies leading into it, and Mike's vocal isn't near strong enough. I actually always thought Jeff's part was performed fine, but like most people I wasn't overly comfortable with the idea of it. So I'm glad that there's now an original Beach Boy singing on the bridge.

Calm down, it's obvious that they want to make this one chart and will do what the market demands in order to do so, nothing wrong with that, appart from the dent in artistic integrity...

nah, it's just fine, autotunes flying in your face all the time but it sounds more 'dance worthy' which I guess is the point.
To put it this way, it is done by others than the group itself, its not like BW actually produced it himself. This is just another attempt to draw some last cash from the album + get fans to buy 50BO.

Seems rather unnecessary to me. The tour is pretty much over so I doubt there's any chance of a new single charting or getting traction without the band constantly on TV plugging it.
I'm not a fan of this. I'm perfectly happy with the album version. This "remix" reminds me of when The Monkees overdubbed synths on "Daydream Believer" in 1986 to try and get a modern day sound out of it. A waste of time.

I think you nailed it Cabinessenceking.  I don't like the sound of this as I don't like the sound of a lot of modern music, but it does sound contemporary.  I don't blame them at all for trying to make a hit single, at least we still have the original version.  

My fear is that if this does become a hit, some of the unused tunes will be mixed in a similar fashion for that follow up album.

Too bad they weren't stuck with the stereo album version, as I was satisfied with that, aside from a few sweetening elements
that could've been added for the purpose of radio friendliness. Too bad it was not bounced down to a tape,
for instance, and there were no multis, (suspend disbelief) and because of that,  they wouldve just added some overdubs to the stereo.

Sounds more like it's slowed down to me



I'm still not sure that this is really the finished thing. I can't believe that they would something so obvious wrong as the HEAVY (!!!!) echo (or whatever it really is) really let go through. I know this is the Beach Boys and they did things that don't even make sense when they don't need to in a no-sense world but this celebration is goin' down so well that I won't believe it (that is until I hold this version on a single in my hands)

I think, as a teenager, this will be a hit. It isn't as good at all, but it's so modern, the other kiddies will love it! This will increase the chances of a new album, I don't care how it sounds, we have our version, now we need a hit!

All in all I have to say though that this is cool. My point is just that heavy effect on Al's voice which takes away very much from the clearness and even commercial appeal of his vocals.
Not a fan of the intro vocals as they sound too cliché to me (just like on "What love can do" for example) and imo they add nothing. The original right-into-it intro was cool.
Mike's bassline could be emphasized more. Would make a strong commercial sound. Therefor let go of some of the computer effects (but not all, 'cause they sound good)
Other than that, put it out

I'll have to give it a few more listens, but don't like it very much compared to the album version after two times through. I would like to know who produced this version of the song, and any technical info on the recording process anyone might be able to share.

It sounded very "modern" on the album, but in a good way. This remix will go down as more dated and less "modern" sounding in the long run. Kind of like how they told all those folks in the 80s that gigantic synth drums and drenching the master in reverb were "the thing" but they sound hilariously bad nowadays.

Hmm, Mike Love, is that you?

Couldn't agree more-I'm sure Myke Luhv had more than plenty to do with this catastrophe. He gummed it all the way.

My point is, we got a solid album, the Boys need a hit. We didn't need a new version.

The "old" version had just as much chance as being a radio hit as the new one. The song is still the same, it is radio friendly. The old one still has autotune on it - just not nearly as much. The new lyrics don't scan as well, either. Anyway, it's all down to the promotion and money spent to see if this is a hit - they will get airplay by hyping the f*ck out of it, no matter if it has Foskett's falsetto or new lyrics or whatever.

Besides, look at how many young people dig Wouldn't It Be Nice? Just a great song, no trickery applied. They need to cut the bandwagon crap, and release things that are timeless. Ask a random music listener today what "Getcha Back is", you'll probably get a blank stare. Say "California Girls" or "Good Vibrations", the reaction is gonna be opposite most of the time.

(and yes, I'm conveniently forgetting Kokomo.)

When and how will the United States version be released? I see nothing mentioned on Amazon. I hope the actual single will sound better than this ripped from the radio version on YouTube.

Hey! I love Getcha Back!

totally kokomo/SIP quality.

I think this makes a waaay better single than the album version. Brian's intro has been rerecorded and overdubbed, the distracting Foskett bridge is gone,  they contemporized it with modern day vocal effects and lyrics, and it seems like the whole thing has been sped up a bit. Now that they have a viable single, it's up to Capitol to push this on radio. Good luck with that.

This has to be a piss-take.

erm

so, is this thing actually going to be "for sale" or will it just be a digital internet bauble?

Errr...it's gonna be on Fifty Big Ones. You know that, right professor? As far as an actual "single" that you can hold in your hands. Probably not. But maybe.

As someone who actually DOES like some modern music , I can safely say...


this version sucks compared to the album version. Very disappointed.

I am no techinical expert, but it sounds like a 12 year old made it on Pro-Tools whilst watching Ben-10.

Whoever changed Al's lyrics (possibly Al himself, sounds like something he would do), they should not be allowed anywhere near a pen and paper if a new album does happen

Since I first heard this song I've wanted to insert the words "all of those things you put me through…"

Rewrite this as a divorce song, Bri…!

That's what kind of bothered me when I heard it. Like I mentioned on another thread, the new lyrics sound clunky and "stuck in", changing the meaning and emotion behind the song. They aren't bad but they sort of mess with the flow of the song. Still hoping that what we heard was an outtake.

It's unbelievable, how do they think those lyrics sound better than the original

Someone needs to go on that NPR 'show' and rip the version of this with the guitar overdubs. I thought they'd be on this.


the bridge is sh*t. Hate the 'Isn't it time, isn't it time' thing. I really did like the 'Raise a glass to kindness' line, too. the replacement just doesn't mean anything.

I'm just generally not a fan of what they did with it! It was one of my favourites on the new record because it seemed so fresh and off-the-cuff. I'll reserve judgement on the mix when it's not  a radio rip and not so compressed, but still, damn. There's a lot of echo and general badness on there....

Also, about the effects, I'm starting to think Al's FTTBA vocal is less tuned and more double tracked, I feel like it's a more natural fullness, idk but listen you may hear it

I'm just a little too ingrained with the original to be able to judge it fairly. Ditto on the previous comment that Bruce would've sounded nice singing the original Jeff line on the bridge. The current bridge just doesn't stand out to me, and Mike is a bit buried in the EQ.

Still, I didn't cringe when I heard it. I actually liked it and bopped along. It's a single, for Pete's sake. Made for the radio, which God created.

I agree with ^ 100%

Yeah me too. On the whole it's ok.

Someone here said it'd be replacing the original on future copies of the album (once it's released). Really hope that's not the case.

That means that the original CD's will become prized collector's items, when the government confiscates all CD's and decrees that all music must reside in the CLOUD.  >:D

Traditional double tracking doesn't make a vocal sound robotic. It may not be autotune, but it's something similar...

(Autotune isn't bad. It's just become misused so often.....)

Y'all are zoomed in way too close, folks.

What we have here is a three-and-a-half-minute song in which the first minute -- crucial for hooking radio ears -- has been very definitely spruced up.  The rest?  There's a more vocal processing starting with the second verse, but hey, Mike was processed on the bass part in "Kokomo".  Don't like it?  You've still got the original, but this might do the job of reaching a different audience.

And cantcha at least take a minute to recognize that the things this board bitched about last time around -- Brian's shaky vocal at the start, the non-Beach-Boy on the bridge -- have been ***FIXED*** before moving on to bitch about something else?

Cheers,
Jon Blum

+11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

They've certainly been changed, but I don't know if they've been fixed.

They get points for the intro harmonies...however, they eliminated the harmonies leading into the bridge for some strange reason. Speaking of the bridge...Good God. The original bridge wasn't great, but this is just an absolute mess. Why not let Bruce sing the bridge? And the new lyrics suck.

It's an absolute waste of time to promote this to radio. If they're looking for radio play, I'd push Strange World to indie radio, a la The Spectrum.
I'll stick with the album version.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They absolutely butchered the bridge. Why the hell would they do that? I loved the "And as the sun goes down, we raise a glass to kindness" line. On top of the pointless lyrical modifications, I can't even make out what Mike is singing in the chorus. His bass part is way too low in the first verse.

The extra organ & guitar parts and cleaned up first verse are the only good changes. Everything else was unnecessary and downgraded from the original recording. Once I get this track on mp3 I'll probably splice together a custom version using the first verse from the single mix and the rest of the song being the album version.

The single version has been sped up so much that the percussion sounds like a complete mess, the originals' stone groove has been lost, and the entire thing sounds rushed. The new lyrics are more stilted than the album version's lyrics, and the bridge... Will take some getting used to. I'm surprised to say I might be leaning toward Mr. Foskett.

I love the new first verse, though. But I'll always love the album version's first verse, too. It was on seemingly endless repeat during my summer of 2012

Yerp.

Also, is it me, or is Brian's lead the same, just produced very differently? They've applied a ton of compression, it seems, which works wonders on Brian's modern voice. See TLOS - compressed and/or limited all to hell, usually single-tracked, very dry and right up front in the mix. He sounds great on that album and I'm not sure why they've moved away from it again, if only a little.

He sounded amazing on TLOS, actually, he did most of those vocals in the demos.

It's been mentioned that this song will be released on 50 big ones, which I had forgotten: thank you, Jude, for the reminder.  So we have to wait weeks until we hear the real song.  Hold out for the possibility that the "real" version will be better technologically than the radio rip and that it will be, as well in fact, a newer, better production.  This assumes that this release was an error or a trial balloon or some such reversible mistake (too big a hope?)

I tried to find the positive side of it (above), but I also agree with the scorching criticism here justly leveled.

I will be inactive for a while, as the professor must travel to consult , converse, and otherwise hobnob with his fellow professors, so see you all in late September.

Some of you guys are nuts, but I cherish you all just the same. It's fun and satisfying to contribute and to hear your contributions about the band we love so much.

Have a good one, Van

+1

Yikes, no hyperbole here, this sounds dreadful. If they wanted a single to make a splash in the current music scene, they should have tried tweaking it in a quirky, Gotye-esque way to appeal to the 'indie' scene. This alternate version sounds like they're trying to hit a market which they'll never get close to conquering today and it's truly embarrassing that there's enough naivety and out-of-touchness within the Beach Boys camp that the strings were pulled in this dead-end direction. There was a mound of potential to turn this ditty into something that could've been moderately successful and artistically meritable to boot in lieu of this sloppy mess, for f***'s sake.

I can't imagine what other music forums will have to say about this monstrosity considering we're the band's apologists  ::)

I checked the quartz metronome, after installing a brand-new 9V battery, seriously.

Album version: 108 beats per minute.
Single version: 110 beats per minute.

(Actually, my metronome knob stops at 108 and 112; it's noticeably slower than 112, and noticeably faster than 108.)

So the tempo was sped up between about 2 and 4 percent.  That's a pretty small discrepancy, but it's there.

I sadly must concur, they have plucked defeat from the jaw's of victory yet again.. It is really like a bad dream. I am sure some in the band will be mortified!!

Unfortunately, much worse than I expected. I'm wondering if this still bears the BW production credit...?

Ditto.

i absolutely hate the lyric change in the bridge. other than that it's cool. brian sings great on it and it's got some nice harmonies. but wow, clunky lyrics.

the melody in the bridge stinks, too compared to the album version.

"isnt it time isnt it time isnt it time to be lover"

seriously? terrible. and those wouldn't it be nice related clone words.  :-[

After listening to it several more times...

The album version was perfect. When I first heard it, I was floored at how catchy it was, and thought the production was pretty spiffy. I've mentioned previously that the album version is one of my daughter's favorite songs by anyone, anywhere.

This version?  It sounds brittle, like most of the rest of the post-Kokomo pre-reunion Beach Boys material.

Aye and all future releases of Pet Sounds will feature Timothy B. Schmit's version of Caroline No.

I was really looking forward to the single version, but after hearing it I have a huge preference for the original album version.  While Brian’s intro vocal sounds somewhat gravelly in the original, his first word “After” in the new version is way too rough.  Then, inexplicably, the bass line in the intro is much weaker, appearing only in the left channel.  After that we get too much reverb, a muddled sounding bridge that is significantly worse than that in the original, and a very irritating clock sound effect.  

Whereas the original has punch and a cool groove, the new version is a somewhat too fast in parts.  I also prefer the more prominent fat bass guitar in the original.

They still have time to fix some of these issues before 50 Big Ones hits the market, with the presumably corresponding release to radio.  If they elect not to, both the album version and the single version should be serviced to radio concurrently.  

All that being said, Isn’t It Time is a great song in either version, and the one with the most commercial potential on the album.  I’d give the original an A+ and the new single version a significantly lower B+.

Really, really, really awful

Weird delays, weird reverb, sound everywhere, too much autotune, terrible new lyrics

'Isn't it time, isn't it time, isn't it time to be lovers?' instead of the original rhyming line WTF? Making the single less catchy?

The album version had so much potential and they ruined it. I hope this will be a hit, but it doesn't deserve it, to be honest

Man. While I agree with all the faults being named, it's kind of a bummer to see this mix ending up so poorly received among, of all people, us. I was really welcoming Mike singing the bridge, but it just wasn't handled very well at all and the end result of the whole song just feels rushed and a little careless.

Shame - there was a world of potential in this song. The album version comes pretty close, but this "revised" version really does miss the mark. Indeed, I won't be surprised if this goes down as yet another "If only they'd approached it a little differently" situation to add to an already lengthy list. At least the album (in terms of execution) and tour were a success. ^_^

It's as if at one time they've been listening to this 'clapping' tune, also with a little organ mixed in.
Ben Lee - Catch My Disease
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqQkjGXkmQQ

That's how a production could be:
use weird instruments, in this case a toy piano, not weird sound effects
& make a strong beat, with a wall of sound type of mix
All of this with more clean analog sound!

pretty much

Three thoughts:

1) It's not as bad as people are making it out to be.

2) I'm glad they sped it up. Said from the beginning that it felt too slow.

3) There's no way in hell this will be a hit.

Meh. No Blondie and Ricky.

I do miss the high part in the bridge -- it could have been redone as a descant over Mike's new part, for example. Alan's singing is rock-solid.

I agree about Autotune -- I really don't like a lot of current pop chart stuff in the U.S. because of Autotune abuse. I know it's a fad that will pass, but I'd still rather hear natural voices.

Hmmmm... The only reason I was going to buy 50 Big Ones was going to be for the new single version of Isn't It Time... I may end up canceling now.

I know I'm new here and haven't posted much yet, but I wanna participate toO! :)  Here's what I think...

I love it! 

I think we, as obsessive fans, are exaggerating juuust a bit, as obsessive fans do.  They ruined the song?!  Ruined it!!!  To the layman, to the record buying public, no one will EVER NOTICE the difference between the two versions.  The main difference is a 20 second bridge that comes more than 2 minutes into the song.  No one will notice minor lyrical differences in the choruses (and not even in the first chorus, that's the same!).

The echo effect is barely noticeable and not detracting, and I only see one instance of egregious autotuning (Brian's "summer in looOove")

Anyhoo.  I kinda like all the changes.  I like Mike's new bridge, I like adding some future tense to the song (the things we want to do, we'll spend the nighttime together), I like LOOOOVERS, and once I got used to Al saying "want" instead of "used", well, that works just as well.

I think they're both equally great songs.  They're still 95% the exact same song, so I have to disagree on anything being RUINED.  And I think the new version makes the stronger single.  And I think we should support the Boys, who are releasing a single that sounds 95% like a song everyone loves.

I think autotune can really add a lot to a performance when used in an appropriate context. For example, Kanye West's Heartless is a really cold, sad song and I find the clinical texture of the autotune perfectly latches on to the song's despondent nature and drives the whole production up a tier. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXp2aSyrSwQ For similar reasons, I have little problem with the autotune/filter/whatever on Al's vocal on From There to Back Again, it's complimentary to the song. Isn't it Time, on the other hand, is supposed to be a jovial, uplifting and strong display of the boys' confidence in being a little quirky and fun. All the autotune does here is ruin that atmosphere of the song and make the self-conciousness and doubt about the competency of the vocalists in the group plainly apparent. It's just uncool to the furthest degree imo.

One fun thing with this new version is that some of our SS board "audio experts" will "Roll their own" between the two versions.

The auto tune really is disastrous, what the hell were they thinking

It's got its flaws, but I think there are some things that are better about it. They should have kept at least the melody from the bridge, but I do agree with replacing Foskett. The autotune doesn't really bug me. I think Brian sounds better in the verses this time around, as well. Love the a capella intro, too.

Thanks to Slim and Father for their well wishes. I am lingering here today and leaving tomorrow for China, and I wanted to monitor closely this thread, as I sense the rising consternation by our members about this single. Does anyone have a link to a better version? What is the radio playing? Do we know anything about the status of this release?  thebeachboys.com says nothing, and I see no news in US or Britain about it--just the radio play?  I wish I knew more about what the producers are thinking? Is this a tentative pre-release, a leak?  Naturally, I am trying to craft the hope that this is nothing like the version we will get in the US and on 50 big ones, hoping they will retain all the features we like and fix all the errors.  Any reaction from the band, from our many insiders?

This is a kind of nightmare for us, knowing so little and working from radio versions. I don't know savetube, but I'll try it, as Rangerover suggests.

Wish we could do more as a community to advise the producers. . . . but if all lthey care about is $, they ought to be alarmed at the reaction here.

sharing your collective frustration,

The Professor

Personally I'm more than happy that most producers don't take cues from their audiences. That said, this new version simply doesn't work and the heavy use of delay and autotune really makes me appreciate the tasteful sound of the group's 60s and 70s output. Time to listen to some Wild Honey instead.

Okay I may have saved the bridge...

Jeff's part totally, harmonizes, lay it over! you'll see..

This. And the harmony on Brian's first few lines is completely unnecessary.

I sure as heck don't want to save Foskett's part- it's the worst part of the original. I'll just  amplify Mike's vocals so I ca actually HEAR him.

To those of you positing that this isn't a final version- it is.  It will not be tweaked or changed. It will be on the new greatest hits packages in this exact form. Good news is- you never have to hear it again if you don't want to.

Oh, I have one more thing to add!  I've been singing this song off and on since I got the album, and for the first time today without realizing it I started singing the new bridge.  And it still flowed really well, in my brain at least.  So there, whatever that means!  :)

Oh and also, if the ruination of this song is making you feel bad, let slowly-aging Brian Wilson singing Surfer Girl soothe your senses:

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,13805.msg316685.html#msg316685

(sorry for the thread hijacking, but I think a lot of people who may like my animation aren't seeing it cuz it's in the media section.  And if you like it please go comment on that thread!)

Lol, no. Autotune will never die because it allows record companies to seek out artists based on image rather than talent. Image is much more important than actually being able to sing or write good music here in the year of our lord 2012.


Exhibit A:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Nicki_Minaj,_2011.jpg/230px-Nicki_Minaj,_2011.jpg)

They wrecked it. They did something similar with the single of Somewhere Near Japan.

Aha - Artwork and Proof of a release - a promo single which has single mix and instrumental on ebay UK

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/120980796746?_trksid=p5197.c0.m619#ht_500wt_949 (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/120980796746?_trksid=p5197.c0.m619#ht_500wt_949)

Price has shot up!

As I recall, we went through this same Autotune scenario with TWGMTR single when it first went up on the Net. Everyone complained and then when the CD was released, the CD was nowhere near as bad as what we originally heard. I am betting that we have the same situation here with Isn't It Time. Are we not listening to a Internet radio stream here? I'm hoping this single will sound much better once it is officially released on CD.

Agreed. Especially after the FTTBA fiasco...

I put my bid in and was beaten a minute later..

Won't even bother

A few nice ideas S-bended by this baffling production.

<Flushing sound>

Hope it sounds better @ 45rpm  :lol

Aaaand swing and a miss.

But hey, it wouldn't be the Beach Boys without some kind of f*ck-up.

Hopefully the instrumental shows up elsewhere digitally, but if not hopefully theres a 7" I can rip like the TWGMTR single

Agreed that the autotune is crazy overdone, and very annoying - BUT.... I'll say that I actually really dig this new version, and more so than the album version.

The only thing I noticed different on the two versions of SNJ was the intro part. What did I miss?

I feel it was kind of "Kokomoed" in that the percussion (even if it was already programed on the album) and guitars sounded a lot more cold and lifeless. I think they just kind of dumbed it down, but really hearing this "Isn't It Time" is far more severe. It's kind of like a reverse Help Me, Rhonda but of course it isn't nearly as good. Too bad, I really thought this one would sound like the excellent version I heard in Milwaukee.

I disagree...many songs that are on the radio NOW (as in, 2012, as opposed to the past 5 or ten years) are actually good songs. The issue is the production, the arrangements,  and (especially) the mixes aren't to a lot of our tastes. A project I worked on recently (doing the mix) bared that out. Basically, the band did covers of pop songs that came out this year, but arranged in a different style. The melodies were kept exactly the same; the only real difference was which instruments were used, and occasionally the tempo. You know what? Hearing 'Wide Awake' by Katy Perry as a piano instrumental made me realize how good of a song it actually is. Hearing some of Ke$ha's songs done as folk/rock was pretty interestingly good. There is still a decent amount of good songs on the radio; sometimes you just have to listen better!


And for the record, I happen to like Nicki Minaj.... :lol

Maybe I'm just getting crotchety and don't understand the things "kids these days" are into in my old age of less than half a century.

 ;D

This is a complex issue. A lot of it sounds over-effected, of course. Yet, in many other ways this flows much better than the album version. As if informed by the 50+ live performances (interesting as most of this has not been re-recorded). I would not blame "third parties" for this as the song has developed into its single version pretty much before our eyes during the tour. It's the boys' call. Regarding the studio trickery, say what you will, but there's at least two BBs calling the shots here.


If this is aimed as a hit, then I think they did right in adding the instrumental touches, in making Brian's opening vocal flow more nicely, and in removing Jeff's lead from the bridge. There are other flaws that are kept, and some new ones, granted, but those two above-mentioned could keep this from being a hit, while the remainng flaws are not likely to have an effect on this song's chart performance. Not that this will be a hit, that we'll find out later.

BBs music, even the best, is flawed. Think of the coughing and talking during some of their undisputably immortal songs; or the sloppy double-tracking at times; or the poor tape splicing that betrays some of their most gorgeous a capella renditions; or the harmonies, even at their best, so many times one take appart from being flawless. This music breathes humanity in those shortcomings and somehow that makes it more relatable and compelling; and it makes the BBs, and Brian's music in particular, a truly unique case: so close to perfection, yet so far from it.

Does anyone else find it a little strange that the bass is hard panned to one speaker in this mix?, that's something that's just not done in 2012, I have a feeling that this is a working mix.
Also absent is the previously mentioned (and performed in concert a few times) four part harmony in the "Isn't it time" part at the end of the chorus, by what I heard on the concert recording, that sounded really good and would be a shame not to include that.

I doubt that this is the master (and I rather hope it isn't)

[Edit] Although, if you listen to the song over lo quality ear plugs (such as the ones which come with an iPod, it seems to make more sense, which isn't a totally unrealistic thing I suppose since most of the top 40 crowd will probably be using such peripherals or laptop speakers to listen to this with.

It sounds okay. Prefer the less fussed-over approach of the original.  This is a chart-driven remix. Sting had some truly terrible ones for his 10 Summoner's Tales album. It happens.

Me too.

It's not that bad. The beginning is slightly better. They changed the wrong lyrics. The instrumental works better at a fast pace. Autotune is still on there as if it was allegory for heart disease.

The more I listen, the more I prefer it over the album version. I just REALLY wish they changed that section with Muk Lub singing about "bringing back the good ol' times" instead of "isn't it time we get readying then, isn't it time we go steady again" which I thought was a great hook.

TWGMTW? 

That's Why God Made the Wadio.  Covered by Elmer Fudd.

(http://i.ytimg.com/vi/964CO6v4JCE/0.jpg)

Sorry.

Last note from the professor.  I ought to be studying my Mandarin or reading up on the Great Wall, but I am hear reading this thread.  Upon 10-12 more listens from a generous MP3 download (still from the radio) I conclude that 50% of my worry is based in the effect of looking at a Polaroid next to an Ansel Adams photo. That is, the radio rip is murky and in all ways technically inferior to the album.  That said, the B-pain is the harshest part for me; the rest of the changes I am getting used to. I will set aside the awkwardness and the temporal  inconsistencies wrought by the fiddling with the lyrics.

Bottom line, this is not at all the tragic horror that some of us feared.  Let's keep hoping for a better final product, even if that means this same version but in its actual, CD-quality manifestation.

:lol @ Rocky

lolololololololololol

Post of the YEAR

AUTOTUNE really pisses me off because I do all my recordings clean and live, I spend hours on vocals then these modern assholes sh*t out a vocal and AUTOTUNE it and people buy it.

Fml

The lesson here is to stop trying at all. ;(

Yeah, it was a wasically wadio. ;)

It's nowhere near as easy as it sounds. If you are going to try to 'fix' pitches, well...the person actually has to be a decent singer in order to have it come out right. The idea of taking a terrible singer and performing 'studio magic' and making them sound like they are a good singer...well, it's a myth. Most of that comes from comping vocals, and that's been done since the 70s.

Now, if you're talking about the auto tune effect , well, that's a different animal entirely. All over the net, you can find different settings to use to get that 'T-Pain' effect. Thing is, the person doing the vocal actually has to deliver it 'differently' in order for it to sound right.  Many times, it takes LONGER to get it to sound like that than it would be in order to get a good 'regular' vocal.

'tain't always a myth. I've heard a vocal by someone who was close to on key maybe 10% of the time get turned into a pitch-perfect vocal. No comping, either. It definitely sounded fairly synthetic, but the end result wasn't, for lack of a better term, unimpressive - the job done on it was definitely convincing.

It can be a little overstated anymore, but man. I mean, Paris Hilton put out a record a few years ago. Fuckin' everybody has put out a record in the last decade or so.

Well i think it sounds crap. Not including the slowies, Isn't It Time was by far the most successful 'pop' track on the new album, a genuinely really good song, far better than the title track. Now they've ballsed it up and turned a nicely produced, almost subtle song into a unpleasant sounding mess. Who's dumb idea was it to up the auto-tune? All the nice little stop-start moments now all seem to just blend into one big tinny goo. Don't like. Album version every time for me.

Hey, don't let it piss you off. The autotuners aren't pissed at you for not tuning your vocals.  ;D

I believe that if Brian Wilson had the ability to tune his vocals in the 60's, and that was the in-sound at the time, he DEFINITELY would've done it...

As musical as he was, he was a competitive pop guy, in it to win it.

And believe it or not, like Billy C said, not EVERYONE can be autotuned effectively. You still need to have a good tone, and the ability to deliver a passionate lead vocal. And it still takes hours to lay down professional vocals (with or without autotune), they aren't just crapped out.

Some modern singers suck, but then again so did a lot of 60's singers.

Sticking to the topic: That said, I do think they went a little overboard with the autotune on Brian's verse here.

Search, Kesha without Autotune, and I think you may change your opinion.

We really need to drop the idea that Autotune, as used on this record is a modern production technique, outside of the lowest of the low terrible pop puppets.

I've just produced  a record, two tracks playlisted on BBC radio here in the UK, and there isn't a drop of Autotune on the entire lp. Also, when used well, you don't even know it's there.

Funny how older musicians so often lose the ability to make good production calls on their records. Colin Blunstones records these days are always slathered with ineptly applied autotune, and the guy still has an AMAZING voice, and clearly doesn't need it.

Also- check the cool cool water stems on the Stephen Desper thread. Loads of the individual parts are definitely pitchy, but mixed with the skill they are, you'd never know. Imagine if they'd have worked with Desper again! Produced by Jim O Rourke!

Have listened to this about 5 times now. All my brain can say is WHAT ARE THEY THINKING?! This band continues to boggle my mind!

I like "Isn't It Time". I think it's a good song, almost a very good song. Not a great song, though.

I also can totally see why it was chosen as a single. Other than "Spring Vacation", which should've been the first single BACK IN THE SPRING, "Isn't It Time" sounds like your typical single.

However, I really wish they would've taken "Summer's Gone" and gone in that direction. Not ALL of the Beach Boys' singles have to be these happy, bouncy, fast songs. Go for a different mood; the other side of Brian Wilson. He nailed the vocal on "Summer's Gone". They got the sound that they wanted (I think). It's a nice length for today's singles. I can hear it on the radio. It actually might've touched some people. It touched us didn't it? More than "Isn't It time"?

I think sometimes they outhink themselves.

I have.  Both what's floating on around the net, and have heard the actual real thing -yes, the one on the net is faked. The genuine article actually proves my point, specifically

A total dog's dinner to my ears. It's a lazy and frankensteined remix, and very much to the detriment of the song.

I really like it.

I don't mind the auto-tune: it's just an effect used in modern music. I'm sure there were people in the 60s that bitched that Spector's "wall of sound" nearly murdered their ears (basically it's all subjective). Every generation has their own tools that set them apart.

I'm SO glad Jeff is off the bridge (that "toast to kindness" line always made me cringe). Brian's vocal in the beginning sounds more peppy which is nice.

This is a really original song for the Boys in 2012 and I hope it's a successful single.

Her music blows but that video when she's in that bikini; man what a smokin' hot bod.

.

I am on a plane listen 10 more times , and I am really really loving it, despite the accurate criticisms we have made. it's and net gain for me very very strong. I will play it at the great wall and see what the Chinese people think.

I'm hearing a lot of echo on Al's voice....little more keyboard/organ (which I'm a fan of) and guitar towards the end.
I miss the old bridge and I DO like Jeff's voice. little too much of Mike's voice was involved.

It's ok I reckon.

Mr.Stone, I'm wondering why you think "Summer's Gone" would be a good single choice. I really feel like it'd do terribly. It has no discernable chorus, hook, or climax of any sort. I like the song and couldn't care less about the former two elements, but the latter hurts it a fair amount, just as an album cut. As a single, it's still missing all three, and if "Caroline, No" bombed in a more receptive 1966 audience, why would a lesser version of it do well in a 2012 market that has no appreciation for this sort of thing?

To summarize, I worked with autotune in my college class, we had the least talented and most talented singer do a take, and the autotuned take of the lesser singer ended out winning voting for the better vocal.

It's a talent killer.

because Sheriff John Stone likes "Summer's Gone" more.

Summer's Gone could be a single. From There To Back Again could be a single. Not every song has to follow the same Top 40, catchy and upbeat formula. Ballads become hits, too. For them to have a "hit", The Beach Boys need a really good promotional team to drop everything and push that song as much as they can, get it airplay, get them on late night tv (again), grease some palms, or get it in a movie, tv show, SOMETHING where people latch on.....the promotion and exposure of the next Beach Boys single kind of matters more than the actual choice of song.

I listened to SG last night, my last night before school started today, and thinking about all the summer memories, plus the song, broke me down.

I've actually had extensive experience with auto-tune in the real world, and I can safely say not always.

There you go. And what EgoHanger said, too.

In my opinion, and in the opinion of many reviewers I read, "Summer's Gone" is the best five minutes on the album. So I say, "Go with it!"

The Beach Boys waited 35 years to get a song like this from Brian Wilson, they've been trumpeting his return to the group, he came through...use him! Come on, admit it. "Summer's Gone" moves you. It's emotional. It's well done. It "sounds" cool. Isn't that what made the great Beach Boys' singles timeless? They make you feel. "Summer's Gone" makes you feel. It's not just BW singing a line or two like "Goin' On" or "Getcha Back". He sings the while song. And use Bon Jovi while you're at it. Use him! Bring in that Jersey shore influence.

"Summer's Gone" would sound fine on AM or FM or internet or Sirrus or whatever. And, the ending is great! Love the rain. A little "Riders On The Storm" action. It's Brian Wilson meets Pink Floyd meets Jim Morrison. Forget "Isn't It Time". Summer's gone. The Beach Boys have an ace; play it. They have a cannon; use it. They have Brian Wilson; put him on the radio.

True. But Goin' On moves me in the same way.

Well, nothing is ever 100% with recording, but you get me.

The rain sounds would be perfect for a DJ outro and intro into the next song. We know it could work, but it's a pipe dream. Here's hoping Isn't It Time fares well. It was 22 years between Good Vibes and Kokomo. It's been longer than that since then, we are due for a hit single!  :hat

Personally, I think that was an anomaly.  But, truth be told, whatever is 'better' is usually subjective. Oddly enough, some really good singers sound worse when pitch correction is used.

I think it's important to note that there is a big difference between tuning a vocal carefully (for instance using a tool like Melodyne) and simply putting an autotune plugin (such as Antares Evo) on a track, letting it automatically correct the pitch.

I couldn't agree more about "Summer's Gone."  The timing is right with the calendar and it's a great record.  Now, I understand that at roughly 4:41,it's a bit on the longish side for radio prammer's tastes, but as it satnds right now, a radio edit which fades at just around 4:05 would sound great and save a good chunk of airtime.  If one has to push it, some of the faded-in intro could be excised and you'd end up with near a minute less, in total.

God, I mean, film a tasteful promotional film for the record and shop it around to VH1 or somesuch and who knows?

People who think Summer's Gone would work well as a single need a serious reality check

Is there a release date for the single yet?

Depends. If you're talking about 'We're gonna go to number 1', sure it would be a bad choice. But then again, The Beach Boys aren't going to number one. I bet you Isn't It Time won't bother the charts.

But, Summer's Gone is arguably the best song on the new record, it's a gorgeous song divorced from it's context, and if you made the single a decent product with bonus tracks or special packaging etc (ie, what singles used to be), then Summer's Gone would be a great single.

I think with a cool,dark video,(ala:Hurt ,Johnny Cash) I think "Summers Gone" would make a great single. maybe a black and white video of Brian standing on the shore looking out at the waves or something like that..

I'll have to agree withe people who say Summer's Gone is not singles material. To these ears the only songs that might work as singles other than Isn't It Time are Daybreak and Shelter. Anyway, let's keep in mind- the new single version of Isn't It Time is to help promote the new Greatest Hits packages arriving at the same time, not to promote TWGMTR.

Naw, c'mon, just as hype said, we (or at least I, in my thinking for my post above where I was agreeing with Sheriff) are not necessarily talking about the group taking a run at the toppermost here, so much as thinking outsite the box, stating the case for maybe a more subtle thing than that altogether (and not for nothing, though I'd really like to see it happen for the group, I think anyone harboring ideas of "Isn't it Time" shooting up the charts are probably the ones more in need of said reality check).  I know my message about trimming the song for time doesn' sound 'out of the box-y,' but I figure some compromises would likely be required to get the thing on the airwaves.

And you know what?  "Summer's Gone," as has been said, is one of the two or three very best pieces on the LP, and if unexpected chart success is your cup o' tea, I'd think one could do far worse.

josh, that was pretty much my first thought for a promo film, too (my sound synesthesia has always seen this number in shades of B+W, though I imagine most anyone sees these shades when hearing this song - maybe some deep blues), although I'd welcome other ideas, too.

And after all this, I have to concede to krab that you have a point when you say "let's keep in mind- the new single version of Isn't It Time is to help promote the new Greatest Hits packages arriving at the same time, not to promote TWGMTR," although one doesn't necessarily preclude the other.

100% agreed.

I think "Strange World" would have made a great single.

I don’t think this is bad. And i think it can be greatly improved with the mix. This doesn’t sound like a final mix. It also sounds heavily compressed. I am so relieved that that stupid rock guitar overdub from the NPR show (or whatever show that was) didn’t make it onto this, phew. With the exception of the bass only being in one channel now (the double tracked panned bass on the album version is a really great touch) i like the first verse better now. The high hat in the chorus is a great addition, as is the organ throughout. The chorus now “rocks” in a really great way without being rock at all, which is awesome. The harmonies in the intro are totally unnecessary though. The song already had a great start coming in with the vocals. They really should have left in the harmonies going into the bridge. Mike’s delivery on the bridge isn’t the best really (and it really needs to be turned up in the mix, as well as all his bass vocals throughout) but it still beats Jeff. Almost anything beats Jeff. You have to hear the bridge a number of times to get used to it, i think. Man, Al is a beast of a vocalist, good God. Anyway, the only egregious thing is the fucking embarrassing Auto-Tune. Dear important people who read this forum to gauge fan reaction: please kill the Auto-Tune while you still can. PLEASE. Thanks.

Re: Summer’s Gone as a single: 5 words: Lana Del Rey Video Games. Goodnight.

I do, as well. Sometimes when I listen to the new album, it's my favorite song.

I realllly like "Strange World."  Just quirky enough and it's very catchy.

In fact, I liked it and the rest of the suite numbers enough that, upon first hearing them, I took a few minutes to mock-up some picture sleeves for my fantasy singles.  In this case, I cropped a stock photo of the Santa Monica pier and edited in a couple of changes (if you look closely, you'll make out the band name and track title).

(http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3026/singlecovermockup.jpg)

this is from Fri 31 Aug 2012 - Melbourne park, Australia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQQI4LnpqoY&t=9m9s Isn't It Time
pretty solid performance imho

I think Strange World sounds very 90s, in fact like a theme song from a 90s Prime Time newsmagazine like Dateline or 20/20.

"Strange World" has a 90s Disney vibe. Like, from the movies I used to watch on VHS when I was a kid. I don't think it would make a good single at all. Nice album cut, nice precursor to the suite.

I couldn't find the original, only this cover: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5SNOAcD3ak (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5SNOAcD3ak)

I'm not sure what this has to do with "Summer's Gone" at all.

I don't get the Disney vibe, except for 'Strange World after all' making me thing of 'It's a Small World'. I do get the 90s feel. though, esp. on the guitar. Kind of a Martin Page, 'In the House of Stone & Light' kind of trip.

Well, I haven't followed this thread since my last post. But after listening to the new version - at times drunk which really isn't too unimportant - I have to say that I've changed my mind (although what I've previously said still imo is valid). The only thing that's really awful is the effect/sound they put on Al's voice in the chorus. And the Brian/Jeff intro. Otherwise it could be a hit. It feels like a hit, it sounds like a hit and it's the freaking Beach Boys. That should guarantee a big one imo. Even some of the parts that I didn't like on the album version sound more radio friendly on the single version. I'm not saying it's perfect but yeah... these boys deserve another big single hit and this one sounds like  it could be just that

I dig the new clarity this brings to the song. The only thing that really bugs me are the effects on Al's vocal and the "lovers" bit.

Strange - sounds worlds more muddled than the album mix, to me. IMO!#$

Eight (9?) words: the worst edit of BB song for single. Ever.

I suppose I mean certain aspects. The vocals sound sharp, and besides the poorly mixed bass so do many other aspects.

Wow, here's an "interesting" review from the ESQ guy, via his Examiner spot;

http://www.examiner.com/review/new-beach-boys-single-loses-its-swagger?CID=examiner_alerts_article (http://www.examiner.com/review/new-beach-boys-single-loses-its-swagger?CID=examiner_alerts_article)

Pretty cool.  :p

I agree with David's message at the end of the article.

"David Beard is the editor and publisher of Endless Summer Quarterly the world’s leading Beach Boys fanzine. He has published ESQ for 14 years and has been involved with the publication since August 1993. He has served as a consultant and image archivist for various projects, including 2006’s “The..."?

Yep, 2006's "The..." is teh best thing I ever read

Y'have to click on his photo:

David Beard is the editor and publisher of Endless Summer Quarterly the world’s leading Beach Boys fanzine. He has published ESQ for 14 years and has been involved with the publication since August 1993. He has served as a consultant and image archivist for various projects, including 2006’s “The Beach Boys – Songs From Here & Back,” 2002’s documentary “Jan & Dean: The Other Beach Boys” on A&E’s Biography channel and 1998’s VH1 special “Jan & Dean: Behind The Music.” His liner notes experience includes 2008’s “Dennis Wilson: Pacific Ocean Blue – Legacy Edition,” and 2008’s “Jan & Dean – The Complete Liberty Singles” collection.

On an iPhone there's even a "read the rest"-type button, curiously lacking on a desktop browser.

^_^

I don't agree with David on that. Imo he tries too hard too read a Beach Boys Reunion related theme into the lyrics which is a more fitting thought for the album version. The single version is just a love song that goes imo from trying to convince someone to re-live the old love (first verse) to actually do it (reliving a new love that is). As a love song it works imo. It doesn't if you want to think they sing about the reunion.  


I just wonder if they release comes too late in the year to be a big hit. Not unlike "It's ok" back in the days. It's a song with something of a summer feel and I guess a June/July release would've been not wrong. But anyway we'll have to wait and see

I think it's refreshing to see that he finally comes with some critique - as opposed to the ever supporting "all Beach Boys do is gold".
However, personally I don't really care about the lyrics, and I think his focus there is wrong. I don't think that's the main thing that is making the new version bad. The mix itself - due to things mentioned earlier in the thread - is IMO inferior to the original mix, though.

http://www.examiner.com/review/new-beach-boys-single-loses-its-swagger

"Swagger" does sort of define the CD version or the earlier live version done at the earlier reunion shows.  I suppose I likened it at first to the difference as between Ronda (Today) and the single (SDSN) version.  But, it is more than that.  In a sense, BB music, at least lots of the early stuff, including Pet Sounds, for me embodied a sort of "art of courtly love" concept, first made famous by Chrétien de Troyes, in the global concept of the knights of the Round Table (Lancelot) and society-imposed courtship/dating/relationship rules.

The lyric changes, from "going steady" to "be lovers" unveils, or seems to unveil the "dance" that, early baby boomers ( and some late ones) understand.  Even Getcha Back alludes to a society imposed concept of "going too far" which doesn't exist anymore.  And Wouldn't It Be Nice.  I would liken it to a "Steve Harvey" seminar on men and women.  

The earlier version had an earthy, gravelly and visceral feel to it, and the listener knows where "going steady" leads, but is still playing his cards close to the vest.  I do like Brian's vocals on the latter version, but generally prefer the first version.  I love the "swagger" of the first version.  But, conversely, prefer Rhonda to Ronda.

Since music is so different in delivery, is it "plausible" to add the original version as a "bonus track" as a two-fer concept and somehow blast the rating and/or download numbers?  

The original version impresses me as so cooly "unplugged."  It is an unprententious look in the rear view mirror, with a twinkle-in-the-eye, ever youthful and poses the Robert Frost "road not taken" question, with the attitude that it is "never too late" to cautiously take that "second chance."  ;)

are we all still referencing that BBC youtube version?  is there better quality, yet?

The effects bother me the most. The lyrics like I said before bother me too but I was able to somewhat tolerate it after a few more listens. The autotune, reverb, and other effects are what really bugs me. Hearing the live versions on Youtube, they sound just fine without all those tricks. The effects are just unnecessary. It is used in such excessive that they sound like robots at time, especially at the "lovers" bit. That part makes them sound so robotic that it makes me cringe. If they want to prove to the world that they still have it, ditch the autotune and sing.

I appreciate David's objectivity with this article, and his ability to maintain a high level of diplomacy in relaying this critique. 

I'm a newish ESQ subscriber so I'm unfamiliar with the mags past and evolution, but I get the sense David's great rapport with the band has allowed some subtle insights and crucial detail to get published  - stuff that we may not have been privy too had a hard-hammer approach been adopted and the band clammed up.
 
Not to mention the negative impact such an approach would have to the longevity of a highly niche mag like ESQ.

IMO, David also sets a great example of how to be an knowledgeable but appreciative fan, and I wish I'd been mature enough to note a freedom of choice approach in my fatuous response to the topic.*


*I am not suggesting your or anyone else's response or opinion is fatuous or immature and I respect what you've expressed

Interesting that Mike sings Jeff's melody down the octave for the bridge, rather than singing the melody from the new version.

yep, totally, kids these days have no limits when it comes to having sex in a car. no one born after 1980 has a problem with having sex in a car with Mike Love.

Welp, time for a new sig.

now we're like signature quote buddies!

^_^_^

"...with Mike Love" singing "Hey Little Tomboy" on the pushbutton AM radio! (written by Brian Wilson!)  ;)

Just heard this.  I think it's much, much better than the album version.  Brian's vocal on the original just completely ruined the song for me, and the sparseness of the track, while I'm sure intentional, just didn't do it for me. 


Just so you realize where I'm coming from, though, I'm from the mindset that tons of overdubs, tons of effects, sweeting up the pitches, adding extra melodies to all the leads and harmonies.... all of that is a good thing in my opinion. 

I would have given the album version a "B", I'd give this an A. 

Everybody's entitled to an opinion, and I respect yours.  I just disagree.  Further, since the only writing of yours I'm aware of is this paragraph above, I'd say the Beach Boys, at 70, are far cooler than you are.  IMHO, of course. 

Given that you have been vocal in saying Spring Vacation is the key to renewing the Beach Boys' commercial steam, I can't say I can put too much faith in your coolness radar :lol. But seriously, it's time to step out of the reality distortion field Ron! I frequent quite a few music forums on the internet beyond our bubble here and talk of the inferiority of this version compared to the album cut has been echoed nearly everywhere. Seems like I'm "with it"  :smokin

Ohhhh, you live in negative bullshit land.  You should have clued me in on that to begin with.


Personally, I live in "I like happy things" land.  When I hear songs on the radio, I don't cry about it and remember how my dad beat me once and my puppy that ran away when I was 8.  O.K., maybe I do.  But still, I generally listen to the radio to ENJOY IT. 

This constant "Well... at 3:14 in the song, one guy farts in the background.  The fart sounds synthesized, I want more real farting" that all you nerds do everytime something AWESOME happens is below you.  You're better than that.











So in closing, I'd like to say: Cheer the f*** up. 

Omg Brian Wilson's twitter/facebook Linked to the video of the currently unreleased song :P

OOTPOOV

Jeff couldn't keep it in his pants

Your smugness makes me wanna puke. I'd cheer the f*** up if you disappeared from the board. We don't have to like every single thing the band does.

By the way, I like the new version of "Isn't It Time". I don't know if I prefer it to the album version but whatever.

I guess when one finally realizes that this board in not a fan board, then what you say is correct. I think people forget what "fan" is short for. Ron fits the definition of "fan" more so than a lot of what I see here. I mean dumping on a song that is sourced from internet radio drives me crazy, especially after what we went through for weeks when TWGMTR was released on internet radio. The song sounded no where near as bad once it was released on CD. I am amazed that we have to criticize them before the recording is actually released.

I have no problem with people liking stuff. For pete's sake, I like the new version of "Isn't It Time". My problem is Ron always coming into threads like "gee, you guys just don't get it, you're too busy trying to be cool", instead of understanding that hey, maybe a few people just don't like "Kokomo", regardless of it's pop culture status, or they don't like Mike Love, or John Stamos, or whatever. And once again, let me clarify, I like "Kokomo" and Mike Love, but he seems to paint those with a more "artsy" view as being somehow less honest with themselves. Too "serious" to have good ol' Amurrrican fun. I however don't think these people are being dishonest with themselves, I just think they were voicing their opinion. And I'm pretty sure everybody on this board is a fan. It is possible that their favorite stuff from the group is from like 45 years ago, but whatever. We are all fans and to questions one's "fanaticism" I think is lame.

Does this make my link official fodder?  ;D

I agree, Jim. If everyone liked everything by the Beach Boys, that wouldn't open up for much fruitful discussion. Personally, I don't really like most of Brian's solo work post 'Imagination', I definitely don't like Carl's solo albums, and I don't really think TWGMTR is all that, but does that make me a lesser fan than someone who unfiltered takes anything produced by Brian Wilson, or anything that has a connotation to the Beach Boys?
Of course not. Being someone who has studied sound and music, I have my way of interpreting their music, my way of analyzing their works, comparing, critiquing, etc. I don't expect everyone else to listen for the same things as I do, or having the same perception, but I do expect to NOT be questioned whether I'm a true fan or not.  And I do think that having about 350 Beach Boys/Wilson/related CDs should speak for something. ;)

I think critiqing the sound of a song with dubious origins is lame, as well. We all know how crappy streaming can be, so to make judgments that it is really how it will sound is really unfair to the artist and a waste of time.

I don't think anyone is critiquing the actual sound quality of the song (e.g. "it's crap because it's encoded to 128kbps" or "the stream only has a sample rate of 22,050 Hz, so the version sucks"), but rather the unnecessary use of auto-tune, reverb and other sound effects. Not to mention new vocal takes, missing falsettos, etc. These are all fair attributes to analyze and critique, regardless of sound quality.

People often forget that Kokomo was a movie soundtrack hit, coming out of nowhere, with Tom Cruise's box office appeal and perhaps, like everything else that takes off, a matter of timing.  Right movie, and a "sound" in perfect sync.  Post the Iran Contra hearings. So serious and enlightening and intense.  The States, were ready for a break, some fun, a vacation.
It does not seem to me unlike the post Vietnam era resurgence in BB interest. 

People were ready for TWGMTR.  As technology progressed at warp speed, it was lovely to look in the rear view mirror and see where it all began and pay rightful tribute.  One of the coolest things that has emerged as it were from this reunion as I see it, is that a lot of fans who came aboard the BB ship, via Brian's individual work, have seen the BAND, meld onstage, and get a visual of the collective love of the music, despite whatever circumstances.  It has brought people together under the same banner.  Now each faction, as it were, sees the other's point of view, and can better appreciate their ability to get onstage with all three bands and see them as the pros that they are.  It was one of the coolest things for me to see Cowsill and Bragg, Von Mertens do his thing during Rhonda, Bennett and Gregory rock out behind the lines, dancin' Darian, Micky slide into the kit, and really have a blast! (They got into a different groove; the Beach Boys groove!) And hear booming Foskett, intro BRI - AN Wilson! 

Never mind the arty stuff.  Dave Marks, who was not part of Pet Sounds, stepped into his zone, and led the charge for the Pet Sounds instrumental, as the guitar virtuoso that he grew into.  They all crosssed the bridge into each other's "zone" as it were and appeared to thoroughly enjoy it! So, the "factionization" lines seem to be blurred, and I think it is a great thing.  They each have had a taste of the other's wine.  I think the video wall spoke volumes of their shared vision and history, despite whatever hardships, mistakes (that we all make) and ultimate survival.  We're surprised.  They are surprised.  But the glue of the old toiling in the studio and family and neighborhood/school bond was unbroken.  When they took the stage, the synergy was still there.  And many of us, who saw the the three bands, under whatever banner, just to hear the music, lived to witness that day.  People can just relax and enjoy. 

But, to say one likes "everything" shows a basic lack of discrimination.  One might find something "redeeming" in a work.  Doesn't mean you have to like it or make it a steady diet.  Being fussy and discriminating is a good thing.  There are enough sheep in the world.   ;)

The only thing that really struck me as bad on the original was Brian's opening, and I know a lot of people agreed with me, so they rework it and leave in the same poor sounding vocals. They changed things that were fine and left Brian's gruff vocals in.......why? Had they done a retake on Brian's opening and added some voices WITH Jeff's part then it would have been really good IMO. Instead, there are now 2 versions of a potentially great song that are not so great.

Yeah, and the autotune, reverb, etc. turned out to not be as bad as what was streaming on the Internet. Like here in this thread, we went on pages upon pages blasting the sound, only to find out what we were listening to was not what was eventually released. Sure, to debate new lyrics,  missing falsettos is all fine and good, but much of what's been posted has been about sound quality. Then after release we'll have another ten pages of mia culpa's saying it wasn't as bad as first thought. Oh well....

^^ I don't know about that. The Auto-Tune became more apparent to me when i actually heard the record compared to the snippet previews online. One can make the argument that the clarity of the album's full sound reveals what's already there and might have been obscured some by streaming quality. I don't think that much of what's been posted about the new single has been about sound quality. By the way, i say this as someone who thinks the new single isn't bad other than the Auto-Tune.

Yep. Exactly. The critique has not been about the quality of the sound. In fact, reverb, auto-tune, phasers, flangers, chorus, delays, etc, etc, do not have anything to do with sound quality - which again make them valid things to point out and review and give opinions on.

This^

The conversation is starting to remind me of the time an ebay seller became incredibly furious with me when I suggested his vivid description of the stereo effects on a UK stereo copy of Beach Boys Party was a bit rum given that it was reprocessed stereo. He actually claimed that the only way to get enough quality from the record to be able to tell one way or the other was by hearing a copy that had been played less than three times, and he estimated there to be three copies known to exist in that state, in the world.  :-D He also claimed it was true stereo, with all kinds of psychy panning etc  :lol  :hat

You can tell all you need to know from that clip. They've made the arrangement less good, the lyrics less good, and autotuned the piss out of the vocals to the point where it actually sounds like a joke. The original version had it's flaws, but this is just a total ruination

It's a shame- imagine if this song had the same sort of delirious, swinging looseness as 'our team' or something. I actually think they WOULD be in with a chance of a hit in that situation. This sounds dated already, in the way a relatively straight recording of people singing and playing instruments will never sound, regardless of the era/gear it was recorded on.

Fucking ass-liar, everyone knows poor quality recordings create autotune. I encoded "A Day In The Life Of A Tree" at 32kbps mono and Jack sounded like fucking Freddie Mercury on speed in his precision with the vocal. Like Michael Jackson after injecting 30000IU caffeine into his testicles or Gene Simmons injecting money into his scrotum. It is the best vocal you've ever heard.

omg runners thats lyke rly rly wierd!!!!!1 i couldve sworn that a day in the tree of a life was sung by ringo and not jack lennon lyke ur claming! im gnna have 2 listen to abby raod again 2 here it now that i no. u learn smt new hear everyday with all the rly smart ppl in this msgbrd lol

Nieng vlord bnaif conna foopy "day in the life of a tree" remdemtrag

So has there been a release date set for this yet?, I thought that we were to expect a September release date, well, we are half way through September and as far as I'm aware there hasn't been any date set. Also has there been any more radio airplay other than the Radio 2 broadcast?

A few DJ promo cd's have shown up on Ebay.

I don't want to sound all doom and gloom but Capitol haven't put as much behind this as they could have done really, have they?  :-\

Seconds singles are basically never given much of a push anymore unless you're One Direction or something. It always comes out months upon months later than it really should, always after a couple other songs are said to be the second single (see "Spring Vacation" being named and seeing a small amount of airplay a couple months ago), thus creating confusion. I guess they don't see much reason in putting forth the effort anymore unless, again, it's a huge mainstream pop act that's popular right this minute and is a guaranteed hit because of tits/zomg he's so hot/black and yellow black and yellow black and yellow/party party party/etc.

Fair point.. maybe they'd have sold more copies if they had Taylor on board  ;) coupled with the surviving guys sending up the video to One Direction's god-awful "What Makes You Beautiful" as the video for Isn't it Time.. guaranteed hit..  :lol

lulz One Direction was horrendous! almost all hit music these days is just that!

The album the single is on is not out for nearly a month. Brian has just had a back procedure.

Give them some credit.

Come later this month / early next, the band will be out doing promo for this.

Listening now

Sounds better on the CD!

Any further detailed analysis?  anyone else have it from down under?  Looking forward to a full review of the production of the single. We have to wait 2 more plus weeks fer for 50 big ones.

thanks