⭐ Official Review [Album]: "TIME" (SP 5117/CD 5117/DX 1687)

HOW WOULD YOU RATE THIS ALBUM?

  • ***** (BEST)

    Votes: 8 12.5%
  • ****

    Votes: 13 20.3%
  • ***

    Votes: 24 37.5%
  • **

    Votes: 12 18.8%
  • *

    Votes: 7 10.9%

  • Total voters
    64
Honestly, I would have preferred the back as the front cover. The last thing Richard needed was a "smiley" photo. The back presents him differently and that's the one I really like. Still, this is all far better than any Carpenters' album cover we got save "Horizon."

richardcarpenterfront3.png


Ed
Yeah, this is twenty times more intriguing a front cover.
 
There are three dials on that stopwatch. The red-hand outer dial goes from 0 to 60, so it is likely the measuring seconds. The inner dial with a black hand goes from 0 to 100. Is that hundredths of a second? It must really fly, if so. More likely number of minutes, yes?

So what's the small 0-30 dial for?
 
There are three dials on that stopwatch. The red-hand outer dial goes from 0 to 60, so it is likely the measuring seconds. The inner dial with a black hand goes from 0 to 100. Is that hundredths of a second? It must really fly, if so. More likely number of minutes, yes?

So what's the small 0-30 dial for?
Stopwatches like that usually measure minutes, seconds & 100ths of a second. So the 60 ring would be minutes.
 
There are three dials on that stopwatch. The red-hand outer dial goes from 0 to 60, so it is likely the measuring seconds. The inner dial with a black hand goes from 0 to 100. Is that hundredths of a second? It must really fly, if so. More likely number of minutes, yes?

So what's the small 0-30 dial for?
The red hand outer dial (0 to 60) measures the elapsed seconds, and each of the smaller marks between the seconds, represents 1/5th of a second (the watch ticks 5 times per second). The red hand inner dial, measures 1/100ths of a minute, and is a decimal measurement used in industrial time-management applications. In the picture of the watch on the album cover, the red hand is pointing to "20" on the outer scale - which is twenty seconds, and 33 1/3 on the inner scale, which is 0.333 of a minute. The small yellow 0-30 dial measures elapsed minutes, so this watch can be used to time events up to 30 minutes in duration, which is likely the capacity of the mainspring which powers the watch. There are two possibilities for the long black hand: it might measure hundredths of a second, but it's also possible that it could be an independent second hand, used to measure split (lap) times.
 
There are three dials on that stopwatch. The red-hand outer dial goes from 0 to 60, so it is likely the measuring seconds. The inner dial with a black hand goes from 0 to 100. Is that hundredths of a second? It must really fly, if so. More likely number of minutes, yes?

So what's the small 0-30 dial for?
More importantly, what is the "hidden" meaning of the numbers the dials are pointing to? Looks like 20, 39, and 17 to me. What could it mean? Let the conspiracy theories begin!
 
When I first got the TIME album, I tried in vain to make those numbers fit the timing of the album in some way.
 
I wish this album was available on Spotify. I did notice that "I'm Still Not Over You" is on the platform, on a compilation album of various artists titled Here Comes The Sun
 
October 11th, 1987 was a Sunday - unlikely a release day. The 12th was of course a Monday, and back then releases hit on Tuesdays.
 
I received the same E-Mail (from the Karen and Richard Carpenter Fans blog) today, but it actually says October 11 in the E-Mail.

In Germany as well. PACC and the Piano Songbook album are also available.
I'm sure you're right. Just returned from a very long business trip overseas, so my days are all messed up. :wink:
 
That date is in Wikipedia, but Discogs lists August 1987
 
There was an article about Richard published in People Magazine in October 1987 that said his new album was released last month, i.e. September 1987.
 
I wish this album was available on Spotify. I did notice that "I'm Still Not Over You" is on the platform, on a compilation album of various artists titled Here Comes The Sun

Yeah it’s never been available in its entirety in the UK on Spotify. This is what we see:

7FCB9297-C3B4-4998-AE77-C20B13EE04E1.jpeg

‘Something In Your Eyes’ and ‘I’m Still Not Over You’ are only available because they’re licensed for an included on non-Carpenters compilation releases on the platform.

‘Time’ is the PACC version, with the ‘oohs oohs’ bleeding over from the previous track ‘Sandy’.
 
Sorry about what's coming. This thing is a dog. ... Richard's voice is just awful throughout and the arrangements are just "Made in America" continued. No spark of life anywhere. There are no real bright spots here (Dusty's decent) but, beyond that, just awful. ... Not sure what he was thinking there. This album was just a bad idea and it bombed horribly as it should have.

Ed
Just heard the album all the way through for the first time - I agree with the above rather negative assessment - But, "Something in Your Eyes" and "In Love Alone" are lovely tunes by Dusty and Dionne respectively, and "I'm Still Not Over You" might have some promise if someone else had sung it (someone by the name of Karen say), but Richard is as lousy as always, even with the echo chamber and heavy reverb and the multi-tracking of his weak, unlistenable voice. Hard to believe he would crank out something this pitifully bad.
 
Just heard the album all the way through for the first time - I agree with the above rather negative assessment - But, "Something in Your Eyes" and "In Love Alone" are lovely tunes by Dusty and Dionne respectively, and "I'm Still Not Over You" might have some promise if someone else had sung it (someone by the name of Karen say), but Richard is as lousy as always, even with the echo chamber and heavy reverb and the multi-tracking of his weak, unlistenable voice. Hard to believe he would crank out something this pitifully bad.

It's just so clear that Richard didn't know the way forward. Herb did him a solid and allowed him to record the album. It's far worse than Karen's solo album because the tunes aren't there and the voice definitely isn't there. It's just "MIA" without Karen. Dusty's heavily-edited vocal doesn't feel as involved as it should though I'm not sure it matters because the tune is no prize either. The vocal arrangement is, of course, really good. Dionne is Dionne but she can't save this rather business-as-usual Carpenters' tune. She also doesn't seem all that into it - just doing the bare minimum to get through it.

I grabbed a copy of it many years ago and I've barely engaged with it since I purchased it for 5 bucks. Quite a bit of the album design concept is very nice (love the sleeve design) but really neither of the cover photos are good. The one on the front is just all wrong. It needed to be edgier for 1987. In fairness, the cover does tell you what's inside - and not in a good way.

Ed
 
the tunes aren't there and the voice definitely isn't there. It's just "MIA" without Karen.

Replace Richard’s voice with Karen’s on any of these songs and it still wouldn’t have fared any better on the charts. In one way, I’m glad Karen was saved the embarrassment of album after album bombing in the 80s, because Richard absolutely would have continued ploughing this bland, MOR path. Even by 2018, he was still stuck in the mould, employing the sickly chorale singers on the RPO album, which was a major mistake IMHO.
 
... Even by 2018, he was still stuck in the mould, employing the sickly chorale singers on the RPO album, which was a major mistake IMHO.
I politely and respectfully disagree, but that's a friendly discussion that has to take place in a British village pub over tall glasses of Guinness dark, full-bodied Stout - so, there's two chances it will happen...
 
Just heard the album all the way through for the first time - I agree with the above rather negative assessment - But, "Something in Your Eyes" and "In Love Alone" are lovely tunes by Dusty and Dionne respectively, and "I'm Still Not Over You" might have some promise if someone else had sung it (someone by the name of Karen say), but Richard is as lousy as always, even with the echo chamber and heavy reverb and the multi-tracking of his weak, unlistenable voice. Hard to believe he would crank out something this pitifully bad.
I think lousy is pretty harsh. While I don’t like everything about the album either, and think it could have been much better with Karen singing some of these tunes, I don’t find it unlistenable. I’ve said before and would love to know if its true, that he and A&M went down this path also as a way to see what it might be like for him to produce others and maybe not so much expecting it to be a solo smash hit. I know not everyone likes it, but there seems to be a feeling of hate behind some of these comments that I think is a bit unfair.
 
Replace Richard’s voice with Karen’s on any of these songs and it still wouldn’t have fared any better on the charts. In one way, I’m glad Karen was saved the embarrassment of album after album bombing in the 80s, because Richard absolutely would have continued ploughing this bland, MOR path. Even by 2018, he was still stuck in the mould, employing the sickly chorale singers on the RPO album, which was a major mistake IMHO.

By 1981, Carpenters were essentially ice cold. Heck, they were chilly since 1976. Nothing they did charted well after that. Only “Touch Me…” did much and it only got to 16. They’d already endured their fair share of chart failure here for years prior. Another Carpenters album wasn’t gonna change that. Change was in order and they didn’t really undertake it fully. They tried some things on Passage but it was a grab bag that didn’t pick an approach.

Even with Karen here, they’d likely seen the end of chart success. Certainly without her, Richard stood ZERO chance.

Ed
 
Matthew, I agree with much of what you said, and am one of the people that really like most of TIME. I can do without Scott Grimes. The rest is quite good as far as I'm concerned.

As for Ed, well he is, (to use a phrase from the very last episode of STAR TREK: TNG), "anti-TIME". I respect Ed's opinions, but fear he may run out of negative adjectives some day! :) For now, he's doing OK on that front.
 
I think lousy is pretty harsh...
You're right - lousy is harsh - I should have said "almost totally lacking in pleasant vocal qualities".

I know not everyone likes it, but there seems to be a feeling of hate behind some of these comments that I think is a bit unfair.
Well, now "hate" is a tad harsh...I dislike Richard's feeble attempts at singing, but I don't hate either him or his voice.
 
Back
Top Bottom