Amy Grant - "Baby Baby"
Printed From: Top 40 Music on CD
Category: Top 40 Music On Compact Disc
Forum Name: Chat Board
Forum Description: Chat away but please observe the chat board rules
URL: https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6777
Printed Date: 02 May 2025 at 1:13am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.07 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Amy Grant - "Baby Baby"
Posted By: prisdeej
Subject: Amy Grant - "Baby Baby"
Date Posted: 08 April 2012 at 2:39pm
|
Does anyone have the dj or commercial single information here? I've read elsewhere their was
an alternate mix that propelled this record to #1. Albeit controversial for a christian artist crossing over to secular waters at the time. The video uses the album version which is more familiar to me. ------------- DJ L. |
Replies:
Posted By: NightAire
Date Posted: 09 April 2012 at 1:26am
|
I remember hearing Rick Dees play the remix on his Weekly Top 40 when it was a hit.
I'm looking right at my (commercially purchased) CD single: A&M Records 75021 2397 2 Amy Grant Baby Baby 1 Baby Baby 7" Heart In Motion Mix* 3:50 2 Baby Baby 12" Heart In Motion Mix* 6:02 3 Lead Me On LP Version+ 5:36 + (From the A&M album, cassette & compact disc "Lead Me On" 75021 5199 1/4/2) * (Original version appears on the A&M album, cassette & compact disc "Heart In Motion" 75021 5321 1/4/2) (P) & (C) 1991/+(P) 1988 A&M Records, Inc. * Produced and Arranged by: Keith Thomas for Yellow Elephant Music, Inc. Additional Production and Remix by Daniel Abraham for White Falcon Productions. Additional Keyboards: Peter Dow. Edited by Chep Nunez. Executive Producer for the Remixes: Mark Mazzetti. Written by Amy Grant, Keith Thomas. Published by Age to Age Music, Inc./Edward Grant Inc./Yellow Elephant Music, Inc. (ASCAP), adm. by Reunion Music Group, Inc. Lovingly Dedicated to the memory of Chep Nunez from Amy, Daniel, and the entire A&M family. This song is dedicated to Millie, whose six-week old face was my inspiration. -- As I remember, the cassingle had the 7" mix on one side and the album mix on the other... but it's been a while and I don't know if I even still have the cassingle... Hope this helps! ------------- Gene Savage http://www.BlackLightRadio.com - http://www.BlackLightRadio.com http://www.facebook.com/TulsaSavage - http://www.facebook.com/TulsaSavage Tulsa, Oklahoma USA |
Posted By: prisdeej
Date Posted: 09 April 2012 at 7:17pm
|
Thanks for the information, Gene. Btw, I enjoy BlackLightRadio.
------------- DJ L. |
Posted By: NightAire
Date Posted: 09 April 2012 at 9:22pm
|
Thanks, Dave! Wish the remix of "Baby Baby" fit our format, but it was two years too late. :) ------------- Gene Savage http://www.BlackLightRadio.com - http://www.BlackLightRadio.com http://www.facebook.com/TulsaSavage - http://www.facebook.com/TulsaSavage Tulsa, Oklahoma USA |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 10 April 2012 at 12:42am
| The 7" Heart in Motion Mix was the B-side to the US cassingle. I remember reading an article in Billboard at the time that stores were furious with A&M because all of the returns they got on Amy Grant's "Heart in Motion" CD because the version that was on the album was nothing like what consumers had heard on the radio. (I also recall reading an interview with Amy Grant where she said she laughed the first time she heard the remix.) |
Posted By: Glenpwood
Date Posted: 10 April 2012 at 1:17pm
I remember that piece in Billboard as well. They noted a lot of people went looking for Heart In Motion CD in the Dance dept rather than pop or christian. I was always surprised that A&M didn't just strip them onto later pressings. At least they acknowledged those single mixes on the 1986-2004 Greatest Hits even though the Greatest Hits that replaced it when her catalog was sold to EMI reverted to the LP versions.... |
Brian W. wrote:Posted By: musicmanatl
Date Posted: 11 April 2012 at 8:09pm
| Very interesting. I only ever heard the LP version on the radio (in Atlanta and Raleigh-Durham) but I did hear the remix in a club in Durham. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 11 April 2012 at 11:09pm
|
Same here. The small market where I lived only ever played the LP version. ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: Santi Paradoa
Date Posted: 15 June 2012 at 2:50pm
------------- Santi Paradoa Miami, Florida |
Posted By: Hykker
Date Posted: 15 June 2012 at 6:35pm
As did the station I worked at in 1991. Of course, we had an AC format, so it made sense. ISTR Kiss 108 in Boston playing the remix. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 02 October 2018 at 6:03am
|
Was this another Amy Grant hit where airplay was somewhat split between the 7" Heart In Motion Mix and the LP Version? I watched a fair amount of MTV during this time, and I don't ever recall seeing anything but the regular LP version video. There are people on YouTube who claim that a video for the remix was also aired.
I have a note that jimct's station KC101 aired "Cut 1" of the promo CD, which is the LP version. Also, as I mentioned earlier, I only heard the LP version on my local top 40 station. Here are the promo CD contents: 75021 7512 2 1. LP Version (listed & actual 3:56) 2. 7" No Getting Over You Mix (listed & actual 4:01) 3. 7" Heart In Motion Mix (listed & actual 3:50) 4. 12" No Getting Over You Mix (listed & actual 5:57) 5. 12" Heart In Motion Mix (listed & actual 6:02) ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 02 October 2018 at 9:33am
|
I seem to recall hearing the 7" Heart in Motion Mix a
lot on KUBE FM, the big Top 40 station in Seattle at the time. (Same is true of Elton's "I Don't Wanna Go On With You Like That" -- all KUBE ever played was the Pettibone remix edit.) |
Posted By: garye
Date Posted: 02 October 2018 at 4:27pm
|
Have a folder with 11 different listings of Baby, Baby.
But think 4 are the same version just added to folder I received to cover every version released! A mike Cruz mix, an original extended mix, the heart in motion mixes no getting over you club mix, and a few others. The Cruz and No getting mixes am unfamiliar with. But will let all know what they are like. Did not realize late in Amy's Top 40 phase so many versions of her songs existed! |
Posted By: prisdeej
Date Posted: 02 October 2018 at 5:22pm
In 2014 In Motion: The Remixes was released. https://youtu.be/OdSFsqpzhRw ------------- DJ L. |
Posted By: eriejwg
Date Posted: 02 October 2018 at 8:09pm
|
Only the LP version received, and still receives, airplay
in my area. ------------- John Gallagher Erie, PA https://www.johngallagher.com" rel="nofollow - John Gallagher Wedding & Special Event Entertainment / Snapblast Photo Booth |
Posted By: radiofan16
Date Posted: 03 October 2018 at 2:35am
|
WYXR(Star 104.5) always played the LP version. Did the remix really get the
lion's share of airplay? BTW, if the remix's backbeat sounds familiar to you, it's because it's the backing track to "Back To Life" by "Soul II Soul". |
Posted By: NightAire
Date Posted: 05 October 2018 at 3:02am
|
All I hear the top 40 in Tulsa play was the Heat In Motion 7" mix, and like I said 6 years ago, Rick Dees played the remix on his national countdown.
The local Christian AC played the LP version of course. I can't speak for other markers. ------------- Gene Savage http://www.BlackLightRadio.com - http://www.BlackLightRadio.com http://www.facebook.com/TulsaSavage - http://www.facebook.com/TulsaSavage Tulsa, Oklahoma USA |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 12 October 2018 at 11:06am
| I recall hearing both the LP mix and 7" Heart in Motion Mix on the radio. Probably the single remix on the CHR station (KIIS-FM), and the LP mix on the AC stations KBIG and KOST. |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 17 September 2020 at 9:03pm
Amy Grant laughed because that remix is beyond bad, it is awful. It basically kills the nice vibe of the LP version. Long live the LP version! I go on record saying all I ever heard was the LP version. Talk about hearing this great song (the LP version)* and listening to this weird version that sounds like a bad techno trip! *If you didn't figure out I like the LP version, you might have missed something :) ------------- Favorite two expressions to live by on this board: "You can't download vinyl" and "Not everything is available on CD." |
Posted By: Bellenger1981
Date Posted: 18 September 2020 at 11:26am
|
I'm quite certain that I heard the 7" No Getting Over
You Mix, which is actually my preferred version. ------------- Jason Bellenger Byron Center, Michigan, USA |
Posted By: eriejwg
Date Posted: 18 September 2020 at 2:50pm
|
Such confusion over a song rarely or never played anymore
lol. The 7" No Getting Over Me mix at least is close to the Lp version ------------- John Gallagher Erie, PA https://www.johngallagher.com" rel="nofollow - John Gallagher Wedding & Special Event Entertainment / Snapblast Photo Booth |
Posted By: AdvprosD
Date Posted: 18 September 2020 at 7:08pm
I'm going out on a limb here and saying the "7 inch Heart In Motion Mix" was mostly what was played on stations around these parts. At least that's how I remember it because, I too was disappointed when I discovered the album version wasn't the same as what was played on the radio. I was working for a company that was regularly receiving HitDiscs, so my search was short to find the "Right" version. Apologies to PopArchivist! ------------- <Dave> Someone please tell I-Heart Radio that St. Louis is not known as The Loo! |
Posted By: NightAire
Date Posted: 18 September 2020 at 8:20pm
|
My local top 40 was playing the LP version while Rick Dees' Weekly Top 40 (airing locally on the same station) played the Heart In Motion edit. ------------- Gene Savage http://www.BlackLightRadio.com - http://www.BlackLightRadio.com http://www.facebook.com/TulsaSavage - http://www.facebook.com/TulsaSavage Tulsa, Oklahoma USA |
Posted By: Underground Dub
Date Posted: 18 September 2020 at 11:32pm
|
Though this falls outside the criteria of the forum, the LP version always feels more like the "hit" to me since it was the only version MTV and VH1 played.
Hourly. For months. |
Posted By: EternalStatic
Date Posted: 20 September 2020 at 8:12am
|
The 7” Heart in Motion mix is the version our local (Gadsden AL) Top
40 station played day in and out (and is what made me a fan), and I once in the car caught the 7” No Getting Over You version on a competing station in Birmingham. I never heard the LP Version on the radio until later recurrent play, probably around the time “Lucky One” was released in 1994. I also recall seeing the 7” Heart in Motion mix re-dubbed over the original video on VH-1, kind of like had been done with Madonna’s “Express Yourself” a couple of years prior— but that may have been a fluke, I wasn’t a regular VH1 watcher in those days. |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 21 September 2020 at 12:42am
If it's rarely played, that's really sad because that was one of the best #1 songs of the early '90s. A great pop song. I mostly heard the album version but I recall the remix (which I, too, felt killed the vibe of the original) was played on the radio. And maybe the video was remixed, as was pointed out here. I figured they did this mix, and especially that of "That's What Love Is For" (and to some extent, "Good For Me") to aim for urban radio play. That said, the single remix of "Every Heartbeat" is amazing, and I find the LP version very disappointing. I guess in many cases, it depends on which version we heard first - and over and over. Then, the 'other' version is a disappointment :) |
Posted By: AdvprosD
Date Posted: 21 September 2020 at 7:54am
That pretty much hits the nail on the proverbial head. I also did some regular teen night dances back in the 90's when boy bands and girl bands were at the top of their game. It was a huge disappointment to the kids when some tracks were only available as a LP version. Since the internet wasn't in full bloom at the time, it was difficult sometimes to get information as to which version was most popular. And, since just about every single issue had multiple remixes, it was getting to be more expensive to keep multiple versions on hand. Not to mention "White" Labels and Remix services. ------------- <Dave> Someone please tell I-Heart Radio that St. Louis is not known as The Loo! |
Posted By: VWestlife
Date Posted: 12 July 2021 at 9:59pm
|
Every radio station I've ever listened to has played either the album version or the "No Getting Over You Mix" of "Baby Baby". I've never heard the "Heart in Motion Mix" until just now when I played it online... and it's awful. Unlike most dance remixes, it actually sounds slower and more depressing than the original!
|
Posted By: LunarLaugh
Date Posted: 31 August 2022 at 7:17pm
|
The "Heart In Motion" remix sounds vaguely like Madonna's
'Justify My Love'. I don't ever recall hearing it on the air. I generally only remember the LP mix or the "No Getting Over You" remix. ------------- https://thelunarlaugh.bandcamp.com/ - Listen to The Lunar Laugh! |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 01 September 2022 at 6:32am
I agree the LP version was what was played back then. ------------- Favorite two expressions to live by on this board: "You can't download vinyl" and "Not everything is available on CD." |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 09 March 2025 at 2:24am
|
The database currently shows the following title notes for Amy Grant's "Baby Baby":
(commercial copies of this cd single run (3:50) the ) We've seen this a number of times in the past where a programming glitch has caused the rest of the comment to become truncated due to quotation marks being present. Therefore, the original text will need to be restored. To summarize, based on the information gathered in this message thread: Promo CD single copies (A&M 75021 7512 2) contain: 1) LP Version (actual and printed run time: 3:56) 2) 7" No Getting Over You Mix (actual and printed: 4:01) 3) 7" Heart In Motion Mix (actual and printed: 3:50) 4) 12" No Getting Over You Mix (actual and printed: 5:57) 5) 12" Heart In Motion Mix (actual and printed: 6:02) Cassette single copies contain: A) LP Version (actual and printed: 3:56) B) 7" Heart in Motion Mix (actual and printed: 3:50) Commercial CD single copies contain: 1) 7" Heart In Motion Mix (actual and printed: 3:50) 2) 12" Heart In Motion Mix (actual and printed: 6:02) Commercial vinyl 45 copies contain: A) LP Version (actual and printed: 3:56) B) 7" Heart in Motion Mix (actual and printed: 3:50) (*For what it's worth, I'm pretty certain this is the only instance I've ever seen in which the actual and printed run times are the same for every track on every single format!) There appears to be largely a split opinion in this message thread regarding which version of "Baby Baby" received the most radio airplay between the "LP Version" and the "7-Inch Heart in Motion Mix". (Between the two, I personally always heard the "LP version" played on the radio, including on Shadoe Stevens' American Top 40 countdown show, though I do recall also occasionally hearing the "7-Inch No Getting Over You" mix air on AC radio stations.) |
Posted By: Scanner
Date Posted: 09 March 2025 at 1:30pm
|
I always wondered why with this and many other Grant singles
there were so many versions or mixes. Some mixes honestly did not vary that much that it seemed worth the effort to create much less market. I have also wondered what exactly she sings at the end of "Baby Baby." Does she really sing "Damnit, you're mine" or have I just been mishearing this for all these years?!? |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 09 March 2025 at 1:56pm
I can see the full comment in Google Chrome, and I haven't changed anything. What browser are you using? ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 09 March 2025 at 2:15pm
|
I'm using Firefox, but the full title notes are showing up now, whereas they weren't before, for some reason.
Might also want to add to the existing database notes that commercial 45 and cassette single copies run (3:50) the "7 inch Heart In Motion" version. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 09 March 2025 at 2:17pm
I've always heard this lyric as "now that you're mine." ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 09 March 2025 at 2:18pm
Updated! ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 09 March 2025 at 2:30pm
| Ugh, sorry, Aaron! I screwed up my previous post... The title notes should read: (commercial 45 and cassette single copies run (3:56) the "LP version"; commercial CD single copies run (3:56) the "7-Inch Heart in Motion" mix). I went back and corrected my previous post accordingly, which incorrectly stated that commercial cassette and CD single copies contain the LP version. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 09 March 2025 at 2:45pm
|
Updated again. No big deal, and thanks for the correction. ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: sheardbeard
Date Posted: 10 March 2025 at 9:40am
|
When I'm assembling my various Billboard Hot 100-related
playlists, I tend to seek out the version that was on the most dominant commercially available single source at the time, whether it was the 45 or (later) the cassette single or (even later) the CD single. There were too many variants that radio stations played across multiple markets, so to me the "definitive" version is whatever was on the single A-side (or track 1). So, in "Baby Baby"'s case, it was the cassette single, and thus the "LP Version" is the "correct" version (to me, anyway). This forum has been a huge help to me in this regard over the years, and I'm happy to now be registered here! |
Posted By: LunarLaugh
Date Posted: 10 March 2025 at 2:14pm
I think it's "GLAD that you're mine". ------------- https://thelunarlaugh.bandcamp.com/ - Listen to The Lunar Laugh! |
Posted By: music4life75
Date Posted: 11 March 2025 at 1:05pm
Agreeing with "Glad that you're mine." Then she sings, "Baby, I'm so glad." I don't think a Christian artist would say, "Dammit". Maybe "hell" but what do I know? Lol |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 11 March 2025 at 1:33pm
|
It probably is "glad that you're mine," but I can also potentially hear the ad libs as "now that you're mine / baby I'm so glad." In any case, it's not likely "dammit." ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: EternalStatic
Date Posted: 11 March 2025 at 3:35pm
|
Just realized I have the 1991 CD of Heart in Motion on the shelf right behind me. The printed lyrics have a whole lot of instances of
"glad that you're mine" at the end of the song but no "now that you're mine", so I'm going to cast my vote for "glad" as well.
Interestingly enough, on her previous studio album (Lead Me On), there was a sort of country-ish flavored song called "If You Have to Go Away" where she did sing the phrase, "... I will be loving you / 'Til it's cold in hell", which was likely received with raised eyebrows by the more religious segment of her audience. |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 11 March 2025 at 3:39pm
| I’ve always heard “now that you’re mine.” |
Posted By: EternalStatic
Date Posted: 11 March 2025 at 3:43pm
|
To be fair, when this song was current (and I was an annoying teenager), I thought her enunciation was kind of odd (unique!) in general -- my
friends and I would always sing "vavy, vavy", instead of "baby", as it always sounded like that's what she was saying to us! |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 11 March 2025 at 11:16pm
Sheardbeard, you're certainly not alone here in trying to seek out "definitive" versions of Top 40 hits, which can especially be a major challenge with hits from the late '80s through '90s, given the plethora of remixes and commercial single formats issued during that time span. Welcome to our community, and we hope you'll continue to weigh in and share your thoughts on these types of situations! Speaking of which... Aaron, I hate to keep being a pain in the gluteus maximus here, but I think we really should include the previously mentioned promo CD single info in the database for Amy Grant's "Baby Baby", especially considering how many collectors here have demonstrated great interest in trying to determine and seek out the radio "hit" versions of Grant's early '90s songs. In the case of "Baby Baby", the first three tracks on the DJ CD single have been documented here to have received substantial airplay, and fortunately, all three have made appearances on database CDs! |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 12 March 2025 at 7:13am
|
Updated! ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 12 March 2025 at 7:33am
|
The database entry will need further updating and clarification for "Baby Baby." First, there are two entries that have the same version but different descriptions:
Greatest Hits 1986-2004 (7" Heart In Motion Mix) Heart In Motion 30th Anniversary (7" Heart In Motion Mix; 45 version) It is the second one that I fear might be opening a can of worms, but let's tackle the issue. In addition to the actual name of the mix, Pat has included "45 version" in the description. Traditionally, "45 version" has been a catch-all phrase to mean "single version." The problem here, is that there is an actual 45, and it contains the "LP Version" as the A-side, while the 7" Heart In Motion Mix is on the B-side. The "LP Version" isn't even on the commercial CD single, though, so there is an inconsistency across formats. Technically, the 30th Anniversary CD has the "45 version B-side & CD single version," so labeling this disc gets ugly. There are many other instances where "45 version" has been used when in fact those songs don't even have a vinyl 45 (songs from 1990 and later). To me, this has always been confusing and in some cases has caused me to research further to determine exactly which single format that version appeared on. A question for all: How would you like to see the database updated in the future to make it clearer? ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 12 March 2025 at 7:39am
|
To muddy things up even further, all database entries that don't have one of the remixes are labeled "LP version," which of course indicates that the "LP version" is NOT the "official single version." Am I incorrect in assuming that in 1991 when cassette singles were the dominant single format, the A-side would be considered the "official single version"? If that's the case, the LP and 45 versions are the same, and all comments reading "LP version" should be removed. ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: Paul Haney
Date Posted: 12 March 2025 at 8:11am
|
FWIW, at Record Research we consider 1990-98 to be the
"cassette single" era, when that was the dominant commercial single format in the United States. |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 12 March 2025 at 5:39pm
I think what Pat has typically done in the past in cases like "Baby Baby" where the commercial single release(s) was issued with two versions that received significant radio airplay is to list both versions, yet still treat the A-side/Track 1 as the "official" 45 version. So in this particular instance, here's what I would personally recommend for the title notes: (DJ CD single copies contain the "LP Version" (3:56), the "7-Inch No Getting Over You Mix" (4:01), the "7-Inch Heart In Motion Mix" (3:50), the "12-Inch No Getting Over You Mix" (5:57), and the "12-Inch Heart In Motion Mix" (6:02); commercial cassette single and vinyl 45 copies contain the "LP Version" (3:56) and "7-Inch Heart in Motion Mix" (3:50); commercial CD single copies contain the "7-Inch Heart in Motion Mix" (3:50) and "12-Inch Heart In Motion Mix" (6:02)) I know it's a mouthful, but I believe this comment would give database users a complete picture of everything they need to know, from both a commercial single and a radio airplay standpoint, and be very valuable in helping them determine which version(s) of "Baby Baby" they wish to seek out on CD (I know it would be for me!). As for how best to classify the comments for individual database CDs, I would suggest the following as examples (please bear in mind that the two CD releases listed below each contain multiple versions of "Baby Baby" on them): (S) (3:55) A&M/UTV Records B0003415 and B0002106 Greatest Hits 1986-2004 (LP version, cassette single, and vinyl 45 version) (S) (3:49) A&M/UTV Records B0003415 and B0002106 Greatest Hits 1986-2004 (CD single version - "7-Inch Heart In Motion Mix") (S) (3:49) Amy Grant Productions 0006890360 Heart In Motion 30th Anniversary (CD single version - 7" Heart In Motion Mix") [This comment needs to be updated in the database, by the way, because it currently incorrectly states "45 version".] (S) (6:01) Amy Grant Productions 0006890360 Heart In Motion 30th Anniversary (12" single version - "12-Inch Heart In Motion Mix") (S) (4:00) Amy Grant Productions 0006890360 Heart In Motion 30th Anniversary ("7-Inch No Getting Over You Mix") I honestly wouldn't worry about describing any of these versions as being the "B"-side to anything, given how they are all featured as the "A"-side on at least one commercial single format release, if that makes sense. (The only exception is the "7-Inch No Getting Over You Mix", which appears on the promo CD single.) |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 12 March 2025 at 6:13pm
I personally have always labeled all songs in my own digital music library with "single version", when applicable, rather than "45 version", for the simple reason that "single version" is a more all-encompassing term that can include anything released on any commercial single format. Of course, when Pat started documenting Top 40 music on compact disc back in the '80s, it was before this whole mess with multiple physical format configurations began to spiral out of control. Therefore, it's understandable why he elected to go with the "45 version" description. After all, vinyl 45s were the only commercial single format made available on the mass market from 1955 until around mid-1987. Thus, I have no qualms with continuing to use "45 version" as a database comment for Top 40 hits released during that time span. However, once cassette singles started to surface around mid-1987, and then the CD singles were introduced shortly after, the "45 version" comment does indeed start to become somewhat problematic and can generate confusion, especially in those instances you bring up, Aaron, in which a song was never even issued on a vinyl 45 release! For songs released from mid-1987 to the present, it would almost certainly be a herculean and painstaking task at this juncture to go back through the database and potentially change many thousands of "45 version" comments into something more accurate. This would no doubt involve a tremendous amount of collective research and effort. However, I'm thinking this may be one of those necessary "evils" we need to tackle over the course of the future, one entry at a time, in our relentless quest for complete and total database accuracy. I suppose the "good news" here is that physical commercial single formats largely disappeared from the U.S. market by the early 2000s, and so the "45 version" comment becomes much less of an issue from that point forward. This means the bulk of the "45 version" comments needing modified would be largely concentrated among Top 40 singles released roughly between the years 1988 and 2001. Hey, we have never been ones to shy away from a major challenge, so I'm sure we could probably assemble enough forum members here to roll up our sleeves and help tackle this issue if anyone else feels up to it! And, hey, I guess while we're at it, should we also consider changing "LP version" comments (which traditionally refers to a vinyl "Long Play" release) to "album version" for albums that got issued on 8-tracks and cassettes in the '70s and '80s? (Yikes!! LOL) Eh, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that we probably don't need to go this far, given how no one here appears to have ever gotten confused by "LP version" comments for albums made available in other formats besides vinyl. (And thank God for that! :-)) |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 12 March 2025 at 6:30pm
I've always been curious by that particular time frame, Paul, considering that CD single sales had easily surpassed that of cassette singles by 1997 after pulling nearly even with them in 1996, according to RIAA (Recording Industry Associate of America) figures: https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/ - https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/ |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 12 March 2025 at 6:38pm
That completely ignores all those "maxi" and "promo" CD's that ended up at radio stations and the affordability of a CD player at that point in time. While the "cassette single" era may have been dominant when I went shopping in the 90's as a consumer I never chose the cassette single, I went for the CD single. I mean if you want to be technical Adele and Taylor Swift release CD albums. For all intent purposes the "top 40 on CD" releases went all digital about 3-4 years ago minus these two artists. Sure you may have an artist who releases a CD or vinyl but streaming and digital releases have replaced the physical product. Not sure if Aaron wants to comment on Pat's database and if any top 40 hit artist since Taylor Swift and Adele has actually released a CD and not a digital download. Just my two cents on the modern state of music and why top40musicdigital is now here to stay sadly. ------------- Favorite two expressions to live by on this board: "You can't download vinyl" and "Not everything is available on CD." |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 12 March 2025 at 7:28pm
All I can say is that I am very anxious for the new "table" to be implemented to help summarize things better than the title notes currently do.
While it's certainly very descriptive, it's also a giant mess to look at. :( I'm not against it, pe se, but is this a special case, or does this mean there are hundreds more entries that would have to be updated in a similar way? ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 12 March 2025 at 7:36pm
Possibly not, because on the backend where the database tables sit, I could have the programmer do a find-and-replace. For instance, all entries that say "45 version" could be changed to "single version" using the "Replace" command. It might be more difficult, however, to change only entries from certain years. Also, before we make a change like this, we would need to talk through all the possible ramifications, and I'd want a lot of opinions from the regular database users.
Exactly right. "LP version" covers all "album" formats in nearly every case. It's rare that you'd find a different "album version" on a cassette vs. vinyl LP vs. CD. Yes, it does happen from time to time, but it's nowhere near as problematic as singles. There is absolutely no consistency between 7" vinyl, cassette singles, 2-track CD singles, "maxi" CD singles, and 12" singles in terms of which version(s) are featured on each. ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 12 March 2025 at 9:57pm
Me, too! Once I can actually see this "table" format in action, it's very possible that I might end up modifying my current opinions and preferences on how to best summarize the notes.
I can't estimate how many entries would need to be updated in a similar way, but there are certainly database comments that are considerably more detailed and complicated than for "Baby Baby". For example, The Chambers Brothers' "Time Has Come Today" has the following comment next to the The Time Has Come CD on Columbia/Legacy 63984 and Sony BMG Music Entertainment Custom Marketing Group 723832: (remastered edition; this is the original 45 version but not the hit 45 version; followed by a :60 radio commercial for ”The Time Has Come” vinyl LP) Another example is 5th Dimension's "Never My Love", which contains the following comment next to the Greatest Hits on Earth CD on Arista 8335: (tracks into next selection; slight edit of both the 45 and LP version because of the length of the audience applause used) Yet another is The Buckinghams' "Hey Baby (They're Playing Our Song)" with the following comment next to most of the song's CD entries: (:04 of studio talk prior to the beginning of the song; slightly longer fade than the single; slight remix) Meanwhile, we can't forget about database CDs with comments like: (edit of the LP version in an unsuccessful attempt at recreating the 45 version) and so forth. So, unfortunately, I don't think there's a whole lot we can do to fix the messiness with some CD entries. :-( |
Posted By: mjb50
Date Posted: 13 March 2025 at 4:28am
|
In software and database design, inflexibility and overengineering can easily overtake you. You can get bogged down thinking of edge cases and trying to solve evermore obscure problems. There are diminishing returns; don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good!
There's wisdom in just enabling a degree of ad-hoc-ness, e.g. having an unstructured free-text field for "wild" data (such as prose explanations) which doesn't fit in the usual boxes. The result may not be ideal, consistent, or pretty, but it will at least be useful, if not incrementally improving with time. In other words, don't sweat the messiness, as long as it's the exception rather than the rule. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 13 March 2025 at 7:03am
Yes, I largely agree with this. The data will never be 100% clutter-free, but I would like us to be as consistent as possible, so that it's not confusing going from one entry to the next. That's why in this case I think it's probably best to stick with what the database (and book) has shown since the beginning: no designation in cases where the "official single version" (aka "45 version") is the same as the LP version. That means "Baby, Baby" really does not need a designator for a majority of the entries. Instead, I've summarized the versions a little more concisely in the title note, so hopefully, we can put this one to rest for the time being. ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 13 March 2025 at 7:10am
Yes, absolutely right. I'm not really concerned about those types of cases, as they will always be messy. It's not the "wordiness" that concerned me in the case of "Baby Baby." Rather, it's seeing a designation like "commercial 45, cassette single, and LP version" and wondering why it needs to be labeled this way at all. If the commercial 45/cassette A-side and LP versions are the same, it would seem no designator is needed. The fact that airplay was split between the A- and B-sides doesn't really change anything, other than making sure database users are aware that the 7" Heart In Motion Remix was included on the various single configurations and does appear on some database CDs. Does the way I currently have it sum it up well enough? ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 13 March 2025 at 3:08pm
|
I think it'll do for now, Aaron. It's just unfortunate how the early '90s, in particular, are such a headache for collecting Top 40 music due to how many hits were released on as many as six(!) commercial single formats (vinyl 45, cassette single, maxi-cassette single, CD single, maxi-CD single, and 12" single), in addition to an album release, and record labels were clearly unconcerned with any sense of version uniformity. Contrast that to how just a few years previously, up until 1987, singles were all released on just one format, the vinyl 45 (or two at the most if there was a 12" single counterpart). But, hey, it is what it is, and we'll get it all figured out. Fortunately, things have come back around full circle, and if there's one thing to be thankful about Top 40 music in more modern times, it's the fact that most songs are now only made available in one "definitive" version due to the sharp decline in album releases, radio edits, and remixes in general!
Anyway, I'm going to hold off on further commenting on messy cases like "Baby Baby" until we have the new database design in place. Once I see the new platform in action, then I may have different thoughts and opinions on how we could possibly address these multi-format-multi-version releases going forward. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 13 March 2025 at 4:53pm
Sounds good, Todd. Yes, the '90s can be tricky to sort out, but I think the labels were purposely avoiding uniformity. That way, we would buy the same song on multiple formats, over and over again! In other cases, the labels purposely didn't release any single configurations to entice us into buying the whole album.
I absoutely agree with you here. If we can keep the database CDs labeled in a way that is simple and easy to understand, I'm all in. I don't know exactly what that should look like, and I'm open to suggestions. For the time being, using the actual version names in recent updates (Taylor Dayne, Expose, Amy Grant) is at least enough information to ID what's on those discs. ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: AaronsAmazing
Date Posted: 14 March 2025 at 10:18pm
|
In Australia, the "hit version" was this edit of the No Getting Over You remix:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxG8GAdIlCE I heard this edit (with a short instrumental intro) on Mix 106.3 a few years ago, and it appears to have been used on the commercial 45/MC/CD releases here. |
Posted By: Scanner
Date Posted: 15 March 2025 at 4:59pm
|
Thanks for your feedback on the "Damnit, you're mine" lyric.
It's funny that there are so many different interpretations of what she is singing and nothing definitive online to clarify this! I recall the "controversy" when this album was released - a Christian singer recording secular music. There was even a feature story about this on "NBC Nightly News" then when the "Every Heartbeat" video was released with a woman - gasp! - unbuttoning her top...even though she was wearing another full layer underneath. |
Posted By: prisdeej
Date Posted: 15 March 2025 at 7:03pm
Aaron, I agree wholeheartedly here. Thanks! ------------- DJ L. |
Posted By: PopArchivist
Date Posted: 16 March 2025 at 11:10am
|
I love the LP version. To me that is the "hit" the mixes are nice but sound off. Just my personal opinion. ------------- Favorite two expressions to live by on this board: "You can't download vinyl" and "Not everything is available on CD." |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 17 March 2025 at 12:37am
I very much agree with this as well. We're just trying to figure out how best to deal with situations like "Baby Baby" in which the song is issued on multiple commercial single formats, yet at least one of them features a different version on Side A/Track 1 than the others. We'd like to have other forum members share their thoughts and opinions on this as well. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 17 March 2025 at 9:00am
Correct me if I'm wrong but "Baby Baby" isn't an exception when talking about '90s hits. There are hundreds more examples where this happened, which is why I wanted to avoid the slippery slope. Using Madonna's "Secret" as another recent example, no designation is listed for database CDs with the LP version, as the commercial 2-track singles (45, cassette, 2-track CD) all use the LP version as the lead track. The fact that the maxi CD and 12" have a different lead track should not be a reason to re-label the non-described database CDs with a wordy designator that describes all the 2-track singles. Do you agree? ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 18 March 2025 at 1:08pm
|
Assuming that we're sticking with a policy stating that Side A/Track 1 on a commercial 2-track single format release is considered the "official" single version, then here is what we have with "Baby Baby":
Cassette single = LP Version (A-side) Vinyl 45 = LP version (A-side) CD single = "7-Inch Heart in Motion Mix" (Track 1) Therefore, "Baby Baby" is a case in which the song was issued on multiple commercial single formats, and yet at least one of them -- the commercial CD single -- features a different version as Side A/Track 1 than the others. Going back and reviewing the title notes currently listed in the database for "Baby Baby", it appears that the commercial CD single information is missing and, therefore, I suspect this is what's causing the confusion here. (I could swear, though, I thought you had mentioned info at one point, Aaron, but evidently it's now gone.) Perhaps you might also be confusing the https://www.discogs.com/release/447456-Amy-Grant-Baby-Baby - commercial CD single with the https://www.discogs.com/release/2820766-Amy-Grant-Baby-Baby - promo CD single , which is why I recommended just listing the contents of the promo CD single separately (or at least for Tracks 1-3 since we've established that those are the ones that got the most Top 40 radio airplay) in the title notes, along with the featured lead track on each of the individual commercial single formats (cassette single, CD single, and vinyl 45), like we've always done. I know it's a lot of information and a bit of a headache to read through, but I think this may be the only way we avoid further confusion. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether or not you think it's then necessary to make detailed comments for individual CDs ("LP, cassette single, and vinyl 45 version" vs. "CD single version"). |
Posted By: Brian W.
Date Posted: 18 March 2025 at 1:42pm
It's my recollection that the US CD single for "Baby Baby" was not issued until months after the song was a hit, after it was off the chart. I know it says 1991 in Discogs, but of course it would, that's when the the songs on it are copyrighted. It's my recollection that it was issued quite some time after the song was a hit, possibly even 1992 or 1993. Additionally, I would consider the US CD single to be a maxi-single, since it has three tracks plus the extended version, whereas the cassingle and 7" each only had two tracks. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 18 March 2025 at 1:51pm
I think this is where the confusion has come in. The policy since the beginning has not been just that it's on any commercial 2-track single; it's that the dominant 2-track single at the time is considered to be the one with the "official" single version. That means for songs charting between 1955 to around 1989 (maybe Ed or Paul H. can verify), it's the vinyl 45. From around 1990 to 1995, we've considered it to be the cassette single. And from 1996 until things went to downloads it was the 2-track CD single. Again, someone would need to verify the actual dates/years, as I'm not 100% sure. Whenever there wasn't a 2-track single on one of those formats during that time period, we've defaulted to something else, like a maxi single or 12" single. That means in the case of "Baby Baby," since the cassette single has the LP version as the A-side, that would be considered the "official" single version and therefore no database designation is needed for CDs containing the LP version (45 and LP are the same). If collectively we want to change this policy, that would definitely mean making numerous database updates. ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 18 March 2025 at 1:52pm
Ooooh, ok... If that's indeed the case, Brian, then I would agree that this pretty much negates the need for any mention of the commercial CD single release in the database, thus negating the need for any sort of single version/album version distinction for "Baby Baby". So, unless there's anything else to consider here, then you can just disregard everything in my previous post, Aaron! LOL |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 18 March 2025 at 2:03pm
Ok, I gotcha now. I don't really have a problem with that, although I agree that we probably should determine for certain which format was the dominant one for each year from approximately 1988 to 2000. I think we can glean some valuable and accurate information for this from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) figures below (which, by the way, was just newly updated with figures through 2024): https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/ - https://www.riaa.com/u-s-sales-database/ |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 18 March 2025 at 2:03pm
|
I have no problem mentioning the CD single, Todd, and perhaps the forthcoming "version table" will help make things even clearer. The main thing I've been trying to get straight is the broad policy about what we are considering to be the "official" single version.
Another reason we've always gone with "dominant" single format is because sometimes, especially in the early '90s, there might have been cases where a vinyl 45 and cassette single were released that had different A-side versions (for instance, the cassette single has an edit while the vinyl 45 has the full LP version). But in 1992, practially nobody was buying vinyl 45s anymore. Therefore, it's irrelevant to consider what version is on the vinyl 45 when it comes to labeling database CDs with the "45 version" (aka "single version"). In that example, CDs that have the edit would be considered the "official single version." This is also what I was alluding to earlier about labeling these as "single version" in the database instead of "45 version," because to me it becomes confusing when you see "45 version" but really mean whatever version was on the A-side of the cassette single. Hopefully, it's starting to become clearer, and I'd love to hear what others think about this. ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: sheardbeard
Date Posted: 18 March 2025 at 5:23pm
|
I’m most definitely the noobiest of the noobs to this forum, but I’m also for
considering Side A/Track 1 of whatever the dominant single format happened to be at the time as the “official single version“. So, “Baby Baby” – cassette single - “LP version” is our winner here :) |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 18 March 2025 at 11:16pm
It is all becoming clearer to me now, Aaron, and I agree with everything you're saying in your analysis. Also, I tend to prefer using the term "single version" over "45 version" for the reasons you state and am glad to know that it may not be such a terrible ordeal to switch out these terms throughout the entire database. I'm sure I'll have even more comments once the forthcoming "version table" platform is implemented. For now, I think I've opined enough and also would like to see more forum members weigh in with their own thoughts and opinions. So how 'bout it, guys! |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 19 March 2025 at 12:23am
| ** DUPLICATE POST - DELETED ** |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 19 March 2025 at 12:34am
I have created a separate message board thread to help serve as a reference guide highlighting the most popular 2-track commercial single formats by year from 1988 through 2005. https://www.top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10193&PN=1 - The thread is linked here. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 19 March 2025 at 9:03am
Your feedback has been super helpful, and it's partly my fault for not being clearer several posts sooner. It made sense in my head; I just couldn't figure out why nobody could read my mind! ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 19 March 2025 at 9:05am
This is a stellar post. Thanks for doing the research on it! ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 19 March 2025 at 1:58pm
| My pleasure! |
Posted By: VWestlife
Date Posted: 19 March 2025 at 4:15pm
FWIW, from 1949-1950 and then again from around 1959 to 1964 there were 7-inch 33-1/3 RPM singles as well, which even RCA Victor (inventor of the 45) got on board with, but they were a flop with consumers, so most of them went into jukeboxes (Seeburg was a big proponent of the format). And as for cassette singles, they were introduced by I.R.S. Records (who trademarked the term "Cassingle") in 1982, beginning with a 25,000-copy test market release of the Go-Go's "Vacation" in Atlanta. But you're right that cassingles didn't really take off until the late 1980s, when 45 sales were rapidly declining. Back to the topic -- the LP version of "Baby Baby" is what I always heard on the radio, not any of the remixes. |
Posted By: eriejwg
Date Posted: 19 March 2025 at 8:17pm
|
I also agree, I've only ever heard the LP version pf Baby
Baby. ------------- John Gallagher Erie, PA https://www.johngallagher.com" rel="nofollow - John Gallagher Wedding & Special Event Entertainment / Snapblast Photo Booth |
Posted By: eriejwg
Date Posted: 19 March 2025 at 8:18pm
|
BTW, Todd it's great to see you actively participating in
our little community again with excellent, detailed information! ------------- John Gallagher Erie, PA https://www.johngallagher.com" rel="nofollow - John Gallagher Wedding & Special Event Entertainment / Snapblast Photo Booth |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 20 March 2025 at 1:25am
| Thanks, John! It's great to be back here in full force after a very extensive hiatus! |
Posted By: EdisonLite
Date Posted: 01 May 2025 at 10:49am
| In L.A., I mainly heard a more urban-ish mix of "Baby Baby" on CHR radio. I didn't like it and always preferred the LP mix. Same with "Good For Me". However, for "Every Heartbeat" I preferred the single mix. And for "That's What Love Is For", IIRC the single and album versions were the same except for a guitar playing the solo (unless that was just in the video!) |