Top 40 Music on Compact Disc: Amy Grant

Active Topics

Memberlist

Help

Chat Board
Top 40 Music on Compact Disc : Chat Board

Topic: Amy Grant - "Baby Baby"

Author

Message

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

music4life75
MusicFan

Joined: 17 August 2020
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 62

Posted: 11 March 2025 at 1:05pm \| IP Logged

LunarLaugh wrote:

aaronk wrote:

Scanner wrote:

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?!?

I've always heard this lyric as "now that you're mine."

I think it's "GLAD that you're mine".

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

aaronk
Admin Group

Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6600

Posted: 11 March 2025 at 1:33pm \| IP Logged

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
Uptown Sound
91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop

EternalStatic
MusicFan

Joined: 28 September 2019
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 263

Posted: 11 March 2025 at 3:35pm \| IP Logged

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.

music4life75 wrote:

I don't think a Christian artist would say, "Dammit". Maybe "hell" but what do I know? Lol

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.

Edited by EternalStatic on 11 March 2025 at 3:37pm

Brian W.
MusicFan

Joined: 13 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2514

Posted: 11 March 2025 at 3:39pm \| IP Logged

I’ve always heard “now that you’re mine.”

EternalStatic
MusicFan

Joined: 28 September 2019
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 263

Posted: 11 March 2025 at 3:43pm \| IP Logged

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!

Edited by EternalStatic on 11 March 2025 at 3:44pm

Todd Ireland
MusicFan

Joined: 16 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Online
Posts: 4294

Posted: 11 March 2025 at 11:16pm \| IP Logged

sheardbeard wrote:

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!

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!

aaronk
Admin Group

Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6600

Posted: 12 March 2025 at 7:13am \| IP Logged

Updated!

__________________
Aaron Kannowski
Uptown Sound
91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop

aaronk
Admin Group

Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6600

Posted: 12 March 2025 at 7:33am \| IP Logged

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
Uptown Sound
91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop

aaronk
Admin Group

Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6600

Posted: 12 March 2025 at 7:39am \| IP Logged

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
Uptown Sound
91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop

Paul Haney
MusicFan

Joined: 01 April 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1756

Posted: 12 March 2025 at 8:11am \| IP Logged

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.

Edited by Paul Haney on 12 March 2025 at 8:11am

Todd Ireland
MusicFan

Joined: 16 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Online
Posts: 4294

Posted: 12 March 2025 at 5:39pm \| IP Logged

aaronk wrote:

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.)

Edited by Todd Ireland on 12 March 2025 at 5:49pm

Todd Ireland
MusicFan

Joined: 16 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Online
Posts: 4294

Posted: 12 March 2025 at 6:13pm \| IP Logged

aaronk wrote:

...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."...

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?

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! :-))

Todd Ireland
MusicFan

Joined: 16 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Online
Posts: 4294

Posted: 12 March 2025 at 6:30pm \| IP Logged

Paul Haney wrote:

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.

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/

PopArchivist
MusicFan

Joined: 30 June 2018
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1553

Posted: 12 March 2025 at 6:38pm \| IP Logged

Paul Haney wrote:

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.

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.

__________________
"I'm a pop archivist, not a chart philosopher, I seek to listen, observe and document the chart position of music."

aaronk
Admin Group

Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6600

Posted: 12 March 2025 at 7:28pm \| IP Logged

Todd Ireland wrote:

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!).

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.

Todd Ireland wrote:

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")

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
Uptown Sound
91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop

aaronk
Admin Group

Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6600

Posted: 12 March 2025 at 7:36pm \| IP Logged

Todd Ireland wrote:

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.

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.

Todd Ireland wrote:

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! :-))

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
Uptown Sound
91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop

Todd Ireland
MusicFan

Joined: 16 October 2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Online
Posts: 4294

Posted: 12 March 2025 at 9:57pm \| IP Logged

aaronk wrote:

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.

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.

aaronk wrote:

Todd Ireland wrote:

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. :-(

Edited by Todd Ireland on 12 March 2025 at 10:06pm

mjb50
MusicFan

Joined: 28 April 2021
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326

Posted: 13 March 2025 at 4:28am \| IP Logged

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.

aaronk
Admin Group

Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6600

Posted: 13 March 2025 at 7:03am \| IP Logged

mjb50 wrote:

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
Uptown Sound
91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop

aaronk
Admin Group

Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6600

Posted: 13 March 2025 at 7:10am \| IP Logged

Todd Ireland wrote:

...but there are certainly database comments that are considerably more detailed and complicated than for "Baby Baby".

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
Uptown Sound
91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop

<< Prev Page of 4 Next >>

Printable version

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

This page was generated in 0.0654 seconds.