https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/ Copyright (c) 2006-2013 Web Wiz Forums - All Rights Reserved. Sat, 02 May 2026 16:24:04 +0000 Sun, 09 Mar 2025 01:25:35 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Web Wiz Forums 12.07 360 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/RSS_post_feed.asp?TID=10160 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum//images/Top-40-Music-on-CD-Forum-Logo.png https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/ https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10160&PID=65948&title=expose-what-you-dont-know#65948 Author: Todd Ireland
Subject: 10160
Posted: 09 March 2025 at 1:25am

Ha! I originally was going to call them "rookies", but then I got to thinking that a sports-related euphemism would probably go over even less well here (even though some of us do treat music-collecting like a sport)! :-)

Edited by Todd Ireland]]> Sun, 09 Mar 2025 01:25:35 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10160&PID=65948&title=expose-what-you-dont-know#65948 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10160&PID=65940&title=expose-what-you-dont-know#65940 Author: aaronk
Subject: 10160
Posted: 07 March 2025 at 9:48pm

Todd Ireland wrote: I could see a more novice user possibly getting confused

Calling all novice users! Please report in this thread. Anyone? Bueller?]]> Fri, 07 Mar 2025 21:48:25 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10160&PID=65940&title=expose-what-you-dont-know#65940 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10160&PID=65919&title=expose-what-you-dont-know#65919 Author: Todd Ireland
Subject: 10160
Posted: 06 March 2025 at 8:19pm

Yes, I think this works! Everything is documented quite well. Now, this may seem highly trivial, but the only minor suggestion I'll make is to maybe consider slightly modifying the comment: (CD maxi version - "Edit") to instead read (CD maxi single version - "Edit"). I'm sure the vast majority of us will already understand what you mean by "CD maxi", but I could see a more novice user possibly getting confused and wondering if a CD maxi is a special edition deluxe CD release of some kind! :-)

EDIT: I just went back and realized that the title notes for Madonna's "Secret" do state "commercial maxi CD single" in it already, so it may not be completely necessary to use the full terminology in the individual CD comments. I probably still would, but you know how obsessively thorough I tend to be. So it's your call!

Edited by Todd Ireland]]> Thu, 06 Mar 2025 20:19:06 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10160&PID=65919&title=expose-what-you-dont-know#65919 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10160&PID=65911&title=expose-what-you-dont-know#65911 Author: aaronk
Subject: 10160
Posted: 06 March 2025 at 5:51pm

Todd, thanks for saving me a trip to grab my GHV2 CD. That disc does indeed include the same "Edit" as what's on promo and commercial CD singles. Rather than listing a dozen different mixes, I've updated the title note to include the "Album Version," "Edit" (aka "Album Edit"), and "Junior's Luscious Single Mix." Please take a look at the note as well as the comments for the database discs and let me know if you think that works.]]> Thu, 06 Mar 2025 17:51:40 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10160&PID=65911&title=expose-what-you-dont-know#65911 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10160&PID=65909&title=expose-what-you-dont-know#65909 Author: Todd Ireland
Subject: 10160
Posted: 06 March 2025 at 4:14pm

aaronk wrote: Todd, I truly appreciate your thoughts and feedback. I agree with everything you've brought up, including the sentiment about sticking to the 45/LP/DJ versions as the areas of focus, as well as mixes that appear on database CDs. What I think you'll find, though, is that nearly every "maxi" CD remix that came out commercially also was released on a promo CD. Many of those haven't been detailed here on the forum, but I suppose they would technically be eligible for mentioning if you're considering those to be "DJ versions."

You are right, I have noticed how maxi-CD singles and promo CD singles very often have identical or at least similar track listings not only to one another but also to their 12" single counterparts. Getting into the business of trying to document all of this information for every format configuration has been viewed as a slippery slope that I think we've been trying to avoid for so long, yet I realize now that it's becoming increasingly difficult to continue doing so... especially when considering how whenever there is an edit or version of a hit song featured on both a promo single and commercial single release, the database has traditionally assigned a (45 version) comment to CDs containing this version, rather than a (DJ edit and 45 version) comment. So, logically speaking, I see why it becomes impractical, and perhaps even negligent, to just ignore a maxi-CD single release featuring an edit or version as it's lead track that is included on a promo single counterpart but not on any other commercial single format releases.

Oy vey.

aaronk wrote: Todd Ireland wrote: By the way, one database change I might suggest is to perhaps consider reformatting the title notes to appear in a more organized and easier-to-read fashion. Yes, that's exactly the idea behind the "version table." I've sometimes found that the title notes can be difficult to wade through, espeically when it starts getting into incorrectly printed run times. If you want a good example, go and read the title note for "Lay Your Hands On Me" by Thompson Twins. I think we can clean those up by using a concise table. There's another column in the table that I hadn't mentioned yet, because I'm not sure how easy it will be for the programmer to implement: Format. I would like this column to describe where that version originally appeared, such as on a commercial 7", promo 7", promo CD single, etc. I'm also hoping we can make it linkable, such as to the Discogs release page. Again, these are all just ideas that I've been giving to the programmer, some of which can be tricky (and costly) to implement. Ultimately, I have to decide whether it's worth spending hundreds of dollars to make some of these things happen. With regards to "Secret," I've known about that promo CD for quite a while, and I do have a copy. It's just a matter of me retrieving my GHV2 CD and ripping it to be sure they are the same. I can say with 100% certainty that PRO-CD-7199 which has the "Edit," PRO-CD-7243-R which includes the "Album Edit," and the CD maxi "Edit" all have the exact same version, and all three discs have actual run times of 4:29 or 4:30. Therefore, the promo CD single's "Edit" is not an exclusive DJ version; it was also released commercially on the maxi CD single.

Yeah, I recall many years ago how we generally used to focus only on reporting edits and mixes of Top 40 hits from promo singles that were shorter in length than what was on their commercial single and/or album version counterparts. We even relied on what we specifically recalled hearing (or playing) on radio stations as a barometer! However, it appears that over time we've slowly evolved into becoming more "inclusive" with promo CD single track listings by also listing versions and remixes in the database that are longer in length.

All I can say is, thank God we have a very dedicated and diligent community here that is always willing to roll up its collective sleeves and tackle all this minutia!

By the way, Aaron, I do have a ripped copy of Madonna's "Secret" from her GHV2 CD that I can send to you, if you're interested.

Edited by Todd Ireland]]> Thu, 06 Mar 2025 16:14:26 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10160&PID=65909&title=expose-what-you-dont-know#65909 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10160&PID=65908&title=expose-what-you-dont-know#65908 Author: aaronk
Subject: 10160
Posted: 06 March 2025 at 3:04pm

Todd, I truly appreciate your thoughts and feedback. I agree with everything you've brought up, including the sentiment about sticking to the 45/LP/DJ versions as the areas of focus, as well as mixes that appear on database CDs. What I think you'll find, though, is that nearly every "maxi" CD remix that came out commercially also was released on a promo CD. Many of those haven't been detailed here on the forum, but I suppose they would technically be eligible for mentioning if you're considering those to be "DJ versions."

Todd Ireland wrote: By the way, one database change I might suggest is to perhaps consider reformatting the title notes to appear in a more organized and easier-to-read fashion.

Yes, that's exactly the idea behind the "version table." I've sometimes found that the title notes can be difficult to wade through, espeically when it starts getting into incorrectly printed run times. If you want a good example, go and read the title note for "Lay Your Hands On Me" by Thompson Twins. I think we can clean those up by using a concise table. There's another column in the table that I hadn't mentioned yet, because I'm not sure how easy it will be for the programmer to implement: Format. I would like this column to describe where that version originally appeared, such as on a commercial 7", promo 7", promo CD single, etc. I'm also hoping we can make it linkable, such as to the Discogs release page. Again, these are all just ideas that I've been giving to the programmer, some of which can be tricky (and costly) to implement. Ultimately, I have to decide whether it's worth spending hundreds of dollars to make some of these things happen.

With regards to "Secret," I've known about that promo CD for quite a while, and I do have a copy. It's just a matter of me retrieving my GHV2 CD and ripping it to be sure they are the same. I can say with 100% certainty that PRO-CD-7199 which has the "Edit," PRO-CD-7243-R which includes the "Album Edit," and the CD maxi "Edit" all have the exact same version, and all three discs have actual run times of 4:29 or 4:30. Therefore, the promo CD single's "Edit" is not an exclusive DJ version; it was also released commercially on the maxi CD single.]]> Thu, 06 Mar 2025 15:04:44 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10160&PID=65908&title=expose-what-you-dont-know#65908 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10160&PID=65907&title=expose-what-you-dont-know#65907 Author: Todd Ireland
Subject: 10160
Posted: 06 March 2025 at 2:26pm

aaronk wrote: Lots of good points. While I do follow your logic, do we apply this to all other formats, or is it limited to 12" singles? For instance, if a song was released on 7", 12", cassette single, and CD single, and if those formats use different versions for the lead tracks, then what? I'm just trying to wrap my head around how these can be labeled in the database without heading down a different slippery slope. Again, that's why when I made the update to Expose, I just went with "Atomic Mix."

Let me first clarify when it comes to the topic of 12" single versions and multiple remixes that typically appear on those releases (and on maxi-CD and maxi-cassette singles), I do want to state for the record that I think it's best that our primary focus continues to be centered on uncovering commercial single versions/lengths, album versions/lengths, and DJ edits appearing on CD because these items tend to be of the greatest interest to the largest number of database users and collectors. Therefore, I believe that continuing to place an emphasis on making 45/LP/DJ versions/lengths on CD very readily identifiable for database users should remain our top priority. What that said, however, if a 12" version happens to appear on a database CD, then I believe a comment should clearly state so next to that particular CD release.

Regarding cases in which a Top 40 hit has been released on multiple formats with a different lead track on each, I think Pat generally did a commendable job over the years with documenting these differences in the song title notes and, thus, I would recommend just sticking with his template. In fact, here is a very good example with the database notes for Richard Marx's "Keep Coming Back", which were just recently updated:

(promo CD singles contain the Album Version-Edit (4:48), 12" Edit (4:33), 3rd World Edit (4:35), Quiet Storm Mix (6:03) and 3rd World Mix (6:46); commercial 45's have the "Edit" (4:49); commercial CD singles contain the LP version (6:49), "AOR Mix" (5:25), and "Spanish Version" (6:46)

I think the information listed in the above comment is well-documented and quite sufficient. Again, I don't think we should be concerned about also listing remixes from, say, maxi-CD singles or 12" vinyl single releases, but that's just my personal opinion. Now, if a remix from either of those formats happens to appear on a database CD, then I would just list a comment next to that CD stating exactly what that remix or version is. For example, let's just say that there was a version of "Keep Coming Back" called the "Thunderpuss Mix" that appeared only on a maxi-CD single or 12" single configuration and was not the lead track on either. Then, I would just simply list the comment as: ("Thunderpuss Mix").

By the way, one database change I might suggest is to perhaps consider reformatting the title notes to appear in a more organized and easier-to-read fashion. (I know this would require quite a bit of extra work to go back and reformat potentially thousands of entries, however.) For instance, the "Keep Coming Back" notes might be better and more cleanly reformatted as follows:


(DJ CD singles contain the "Album Version-Edit" (4:48), "12-Inch Edit" (4:33), "3rd World Edit" (4:35), "Quiet Storm Mix" (6:03), and "3rd World Mix" (6:46).

Commercial CD singles contain the LP version (6:49), "AOR Mix" (5:25), and "Spanish Version" (6:46).

Commercial 45s contain the "Edit" (4:49).


Anyway, it's just a thought (and not what I consider to be a pressing issue!).

aaronk wrote: As another example, let's look at Madonna's "Secret." Here's what appears on the various commerical releases as the lead track: 2-track CD single: Album Version cassette single: Album Version 7" vinyl single: Album Version 12" single: Junior's Sound Factory Mix CD maxi single: Edit (actual time of 4:30) We all agree that the "Album Version" is the official single version. There are two CDs in the database, however, that say "edited" and have run times of 4:30 and 4:28, respectively. It's possible that these database CDs have the "Edit" that appears as the lead track on CD maxi (I haven't checked yet). If that's the case, do we label those as ("Edit" CD maxi version)?

Actually, Aaron, it turns out that, upon further research (and I'm quite frankly shocked that this hasn't been uncovered until now!), there is a promo CD single release of Madonna's "Secret" listed on the Discogs website with the following track listing and printed run times:

Maverick/Sire/Warner Bros. PRO-CD-7199
1) Edit (4:24)
2) Album Version (5:03)

https://www.discogs.com/release/687540-Madonna-Secret

Therefore, I would submit that the edited version of "Secret" appearing on the database CDs could very well be the DJ edit! The run times don't sync up completely, however, so someone will need to listen to the "Edit" on the promo CD single to determine the actual run time. Certainly, someone in the message board community must have a copy available? (Perhaps you, Aaron? Brian W.?)

But getting back to your original point, Aaron... If this particular scenario with "Secret" were to turn out to be a rather odd and unusual one in which the "edited" version was made available exclusively only on a maxi-CD single release, then I would just list a comment next to the individual database CDs in which the edit appears as either: ("Edit" version) or (maxi-CD single version ("Edit")) or ("Edit" version, which appears only on maxi-CD single copies). (I would probably opt for the second option myself.)

aaronk wrote: One last thing to consider is what happens when the new "version table" is implemented, as well as the filter system. In order for these to work properly, the versions noted next to each CD will appear in the "version table" exactly the same. As an example, here's what Expose would look like using your proposed wording: [X] Song Version.......................Printed Time.........Actual Time [X] LP version..............................4:43...............4:46 [X] 45 version.............................3:58................4:10 [X] "Atomic Mix" 12" version.........6:35...............6:29 [X] Bass Mix..............................7:09...............7:09 Yes, that means designators like "neither 45 nor LP version" and "mastered from vinyl" will also show up in the table, as that is how the filter system will allow you to show/hide those entries. As such, keeping the designators as consise as possible is probably wise. I'd love to hear some additional feedback on all of this, as we think about future database updates.

Oh, ok... Then judging by the manner in which the "version table" filters and generates results, I would probably prefer to have the query for "What You Don't Know" come up as: 12" version ("Atomic Mix") or 12" version - "Atomic Mix" (as you previously suggested, Aaron). I would rather have the media format listed first (12" version), followed by the version description ("Atomic Mix"), if applicable.

Anyway, these are all just my personal opinions. I'm going to bow out of the discussion for now and encourage other forum members to please weigh in.

Edited by Todd Ireland]]> Thu, 06 Mar 2025 14:26:33 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10160&PID=65907&title=expose-what-you-dont-know#65907 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10160&PID=65897&title=expose-what-you-dont-know#65897 Author: aaronk
Subject: 10160
Posted: 05 March 2025 at 8:12pm

Lots of good points. While I do follow your logic, do we apply this to all other formats, or is it limited to 12" singles? For instance, if a song was released on 7", 12", cassette single, and CD single, and if those formats use different versions for the lead tracks, then what? I'm just trying to wrap my head around how these can be labeled in the database without heading down a different slippery slope. Again, that's why when I made the update to Expose, I just went with "Atomic Mix."

As another example, let's look at Madonna's "Secret." Here's what appears on the various commerical releases as the lead track:

2-track CD single: Album Version
cassette single: Album Version
7" vinyl single: Album Version
12" single: Junior's Sound Factory Mix
CD maxi single: Edit (actual time of 4:30)

We all agree that the "Album Version" is the official single version. There are two CDs in the database, however, that say "edited" and have run times of 4:30 and 4:28, respectively. It's possible that these database CDs have the "Edit" that appears as the lead track on CD maxi (I haven't checked yet). If that's the case, do we label those as ("Edit" CD maxi version)?

One last thing to consider is what happens when the new "version table" is implemented, as well as the filter system. In order for these to work properly, the versions noted next to each CD will appear in the "version table" exactly the same. As an example, here's what Expose would look like using your proposed wording:

[X] Song Version.......................Printed Time.........Actual Time
[X] LP version..............................4:43...............4:46
[X] 45 version.............................3:58................4:10
[X] "Atomic Mix" 12" version.........6:35...............6:29
[X] Bass Mix..............................7:09...............7:09

Yes, that means designators like "neither 45 nor LP version" and "mastered from vinyl" will also show up in the table, as that is how the filter system will allow you to show/hide those entries. As such, keeping the designators as consise as possible is probably wise.

I'd love to hear some additional feedback on all of this, as we think about future database updates.

Edited by aaronk]]> Wed, 05 Mar 2025 20:12:02 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10160&PID=65897&title=expose-what-you-dont-know#65897 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10160&PID=65894&title=expose-what-you-dont-know#65894 Author: Todd Ireland
Subject: 10160
Posted: 05 March 2025 at 6:52pm

aaronk wrote: I'm good with whatever as long as it's consistent and easy to understand. This might mean we have to make updates to past entries, and I'm okay with that if it helps make things clearer. I do follow your logic on using "track 1" or the "lead track" when it comes to the "official single version." I think there is some inconsistency, though, when it comes to other formats. For instance, Janet Jackson's Control - The Remixes lists the actual version names in the database; none are labeled (12" version). Furthermore, "Nasty" has two different retail 12" singles: one with the "Extended" version and one with the "Cool Summer Mixes." Would both of these be considered the "official 12" version"?

I'll start by answering your last question, Aaron... If a song like Janet Jackson's "Nasty" has been issued on two separate 12" single releases and each feature a different lead track on Side A, then I would make a motion to state them both individually, when applicable, such as: ("Extended Version" 12" single version) and ("Cool Summer Mix [Part I & Part II]" 12" single version) or even something like: (this is the "Extended Version", which is one of two commercial 12" single versions).

As for the scenario you mentioned regarding how the database currently has specific version descriptions listed for Top 40 hits on the Janet Jackson Control - The Remixes CD, I think what Pat has often done in the past is simply take whatever version information is provided on a CD release's inserts and liner notes and then enters this info into the database accordingly. However, I'm convinced that sometimes CD producers and compilers aren't even aware of the origins of some song versions and may never even give any thought as to whether these versions ever appeared on a CD/cassette/7" vinyl/12" vinyl/promo single format. As a result, sometimes the version information provided on CD releases just isn't as accurate as it could be.

I very much agree that we're probably going to need to go back and make updates to some past entries so that the database is more consistent. As I've stated elsewhere, I've been making many careful notes on a Microsoft Word document in recent years, including 12" single versions that are available on CD but not currently stated in the database as such. Again, I plan to gradually divulge all this information on the message board during the coming weeks and months.

aaronk wrote: Regarding CD singles, in cases where there are 2-track CD singles and "maxi" CD singles, have we ever labeled the additional remixes "CD maxi version" (or similar)? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we've just called them whatever the name of the mix is. If we apply that same logic to vinyl singles (45s and 12" singles), how should those be labeled for consistency? I'm definitely in favor of being more specific and more descriptive, so perhaps all vinyl 12" mixes should be labeled like this: (12" version - Mix Name). Again, I'm open to suggestions, and we will have some database cleaning up to do.

You bring up some great questions, Aaron. Let's take Expose's "What You Don't Know", for instance. For now, we have agreed that "The Atomic Mix" running 6:29 is the official 12" single version since it appears as the lead track on Side A. However, there are four other remixes appearing on the 12" single, including the "Bass Mix", which has been issued on one CD in the database. In this scenario, I'm more inclined to just leave the version as "Bass Mix" with no further qualifiers, especially considering that this version also happens to appear on the promo CD single release. Otherwise, I'm concerned that if we start mentioning that the "Bass Mix" is a track on the 12" single, then it could start creating confusion as to which version is the official 12" single version.

As you acknowledge, Aaron, there are typically multiple remixes that appear on maxi-CD single, maxi-cassette single, and 12" single formats. I believe we risk going down a slippery slope if we start getting into the business of attempting to acknowledge every remix that appears on every commercial single format release. Things become even more messy and entangled whenever remixes for a particular song appear across multiple formats. We have wisely avoided this headache to date, and I think we should continue to do so, in my humble opinion.

Meanwhile, I realize that not all policies we adopt are always going to be "fool-proof". For instance, most of the Top 40 hits from Taylor Dayne's Tell It to My Heart album have also been made available as "extended" mixes on 12" single releases. However, I just uncovered that, in one case, the 12" release of "I'll Always Love You" actually lists the "Single Mix" as Track 1 and the "Extended Mix" as Track 2! I have no idea why in the world the tracks were sequenced this way on this release; nonetheless, it begs the question as to which one should be considered the "official" 12" single version? Therefore, some of these we're just going to have to examine on a case-by-case basis and try to come up with a consensus among message board users (though you, Aaron, of course, reserve the right to make the final call on all such matters).

Man, how I wish that the folks who compiled all these commercial releases with so many remixes had just been a little more considerate as to how much of a complicated jumble they were creating for future Top-40-music-on-CD-collecting "geeks" like us! :-D



Edited by Todd Ireland]]> Wed, 05 Mar 2025 18:52:12 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10160&PID=65894&title=expose-what-you-dont-know#65894 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10160&PID=65885&title=expose-what-you-dont-know#65885 Author: aaronk
Subject: 10160
Posted: 05 March 2025 at 7:47am

I'm good with whatever as long as it's consistent and easy to understand. This might mean we have to make updates to past entries, and I'm okay with that if it helps make things clearer.

I do follow your logic on using "track 1" or the "lead track" when it comes to the "official single version." I think there is some inconsistency, though, when it comes to other formats. For instance, Janet Jackson's Control - The Remixes lists the actual version names in the database; none are labeled (12" version). Furthermore, "Nasty" has two different retail 12" singles: one with the "Extended" version and one with the "Cool Summer Mixes." Would both of these be considered the "official 12" version"?

Regarding CD singles, in cases where there are 2-track CD singles and "maxi" CD singles, have we ever labeled the additional remixes "CD maxi version" (or similar)? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we've just called them whatever the name of the mix is. If we apply that same logic to vinyl singles (45s and 12" singles), how should those be labeled for consistency?

I'm definitely in favor of being more specific and more descriptive, so perhaps all vinyl 12" mixes should be labeled like this: (12" version - Mix Name). Again, I'm open to suggestions, and we will have some database cleaning up to do.]]> Wed, 05 Mar 2025 07:47:20 +0000 https://top40musiconcd.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10160&PID=65885&title=expose-what-you-dont-know#65885