Talk:Time Has Come Today

Could this be written any more poorly?

"This SONG was very much ahead of its time. This SONG used many different effects in its recording. One big stand-out characteristic of this SONG is the ***constant_presence*** of the cow bell that is ***present_during_the_entire*** SONG. It is used in a manner which produces a "tick-tock" sound ***through_the_entire_SONG***."

Five uses of "song" within four shoddy sentences. Three repetitions of phrases that all mean 'constant presence' -- two of which are in the same one line.

Maybe...? "This track was considered to be ahead of its time using many different effects in making the final recording. One particular characteristic is the use of cow bell through the entire piece. The playing of alternating high and low tones produced a "tick-tock" sound bringing out the "Time" aspect of the tune's title." Frankly tho, I think this still doesn't work so well ... between the first sentence compared to the 2nd & 3rd, theses are two different thought developments jammed together -- particularly when later in the article is more of a development on the actual engineering effects that went into giving this piece its charactre as opposed to the tick-tock cow bell. ...in this case, less cow bell please.

ManOnPipes (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I immediately noticed how bad those first sentences were as soon as I saw this article. So bad, in fact, that I fixed 'em up right away (using IP address 71.202.109.55) before logging in and coming to this discussion page and noticing your comments. Your version is probably better than mine, but at least my contribution is an improvement over the original, I think! :-)  Captain Quirk (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

ahead of its time?
I think the bigger issue is not the writing in the article, but: was this really ahead of its time? To me it seems like its more of its time than ahead of it. The full track wasn't released until 1968, right? So 1967's summer of love had already gone by...psychedelic music's popularity was probably at its peak around '68.74.214.101.227 (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A fair point. I had always thought this song came out in 1968, and was surprised to read in this article that it had been released in '66.  For 1966, it would have been very early on in the psychedelic movement and therefore arguably "ahead of its time".  For 1968, not so much.  The article seems to say it was released in 1966 and then re-released the following year with a modified version.  So I dunno....   Captain Quirk (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Captain Quirk. This song is *very* unusual for a 1966 billboard hit. Although other artists were experimenting with techniques like this it was quite unusual for its length and its heavy use of various studio effects. Dean Esmay (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Is the recording time of the album version 11:06 or 11:07 or some other time? Both 11:06 and 11:07 appear in the article.98.149.97.245 (talk) 05:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

this page sucks
horrible writing. "these were the days before digital delay" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Progjunky (talk • contribs) 04:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I deleted that. Captain Quirk (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Cowbell
"including the alternate striking of two cow bells producing a "tick-tock" sound" - videos indicate it is just one bell with alternate hits muted with fingers on the bell. AMCKen (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)