Expose - What You Don’t Know
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=10160
Printed Date: 19 April 2025 at 7:21am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.07 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Expose - What You Don’t Know
Posted By: prisdeej
Subject: Expose - What You Don’t Know
Date Posted: 26 January 2025 at 7:04pm
|
Here's one I didn't know, the Radio Mix from the promo CD single is
not the same as the hit 45 mix (which is used in the video). This Radio Mix sounds like it's edited from the LP mix. Was the hit 45 mix also labeled Radio Mix on vinyl? ------------- DJ L. |
Replies:
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 26 January 2025 at 8:16pm
|
The "Radio Mix" on my copy of the promo CD single does not sound like an edit of the LP version. It has the same intro as the music video, whereas the LP version intro is noticeably different. I didn't listen beyond the intros. ------------- 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: AndrewChouffi
Date Posted: 27 January 2025 at 4:45am
|
This song is confusing.
The commercial 45 has a different listed time than the promo 45. (I don't own either). The 'Radio Mix' on the promo CD has a different ending than the version on 'The Top Ten Hits Of Expose' promo sampler. Can anyone offer any distillation? Andy |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 27 January 2025 at 7:38am
|
The "Radio Mix" on my promo CD and the version on Top Ten Hits are the same mix and length. Top Ten Hits does have a very minor difference in the fade out, as if someone helped it along by lowering the volume a bit more over the last 10 seconds. All the audio is there; it's just lower than what's on the promo CD single. ------------- 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: 27 January 2025 at 10:17am
To clear up confusion, a few forum members appear to have what they thought was a rip of the promo CD single, but in fact what they have are tracks from the 2017 Cherry Red expanded CD. That disc has a track labeled "Radio Mix" but it is not the same mix as what's on the US promo CD. ------------- Aaron Kannowski http://www.uptownsound.com" rel="nofollow - Uptown Sound http://www.919thepeak.com" rel="nofollow - 91.9 The Peak - Classic Hip Hop |
AndrewChouffi wrote:Posted By: prisdeej
Date Posted: 27 January 2025 at 10:31am
|
Well, I'll be. The copy of the US promo CD I received was NOT
genuine. This other Radio Mix jumped right out at me and sounded like it was edited from the LP Mix. My apologies for initiating the confusion. Please delete the copy I shared earlier. ------------- DJ L. |
Posted By: Todd Ireland
Date Posted: 03 March 2025 at 1:12am
|
The 12" single version of "What You Don’t Know" is called the "Atomic Mix” and runs 6:30, not 6:35 as stated on the label. This version appears on Expose's Greatest Dance Mixes CD (Thump 206579024).
By the way, most of the group's Top 40 hits currently listed in the database as "remix" on the latter CD are actually the 12" single versions. I will go ahead and make a note for each of these songs in their respective message board threads. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 03 March 2025 at 8:17am
|
The database has been 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: 03 March 2025 at 12:05pm
|
Thanks for the prompt database updates, Aaron! One other minor addendum I might suggest here is to specifically note that the version of "What You Don't Know" on Expose's Greatest Dance Mixes CD is also the 12" single version, for the benefit of collectors who are actively seeking out 12" versions of Top 40 hits on CD (which happens to be yet another music project I've recently decided to take on... It never ends!).
I have accumulated notes over the years of other database CDs with "remix" comments that are actually 12" single versions, in addition to many, MANY other general database notes, corrections, and clarifications (as I have told you about in private conversations, Aaron). I would be happy to start slowly divulging all this gathered information over the course of the coming weeks and months. I can also do this via a handful of posts at a time because I know you're a busy man, Aaron! ;-) |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 03 March 2025 at 3:12pm
|
I started to label it as (12” version), but then I discovered the 12” has
multiple mixes, including the “Bass Mix” which appears on a different database CD. Technically, they are both 12” versions, and the actual 12” has a third “long” mix labeled “Crossover Mix” (6:36). As such, I decided it would be clearest to just label it the actual name of the mix. I suppose we could use both: (12” version - Atomic Mix). What does everyone feel is the best way to address these instances when there are multiple 12” mixes? A very near future update to the database will allow me to neatly list in a table all the various versions of a song, rather than trying to explain it in a long paragraph (the way it currently is). ------------- 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: 04 March 2025 at 11:39pm
|
For consistency purposes, I think whatever appears as the lead track on the "A" side of a vinyl 12" single release should be considered the official 12" single version, just like we currently do with commercial CD and cassette singles. (At least, it's my understanding that, as a rule of thumb, we've always considered Track 1 or the first track on an "A" side as the official single version, except in rare and unusual circumstances.) With that said, Aaron, I very much prefer the idea of having a comment be listed to mention that it's a 12" single version (at minimum) *and* state the specific version, if applicable. So, for instance, my personal suggestion for the wording of the comment for "What You Don't Know" on the Expose Greatest Dance Mixes CD would be something like what you suggested or:
(12" single version, which is the "Atomic Mix") Another major reason why I would prefer the comment be listed this way is because, as I mentioned previously, this is very helpful in assisting collectors like me interested in seeking out 12" single versions of Top 40 hits on CD with being able to readily identify them in the database as such. Also, since the database has been using ("12 single version) comments for the past two decades, I think it's important we continue to use them for consistency reasons. Anyway, those are just my two cents. Since you manage the database now, Aaron, we will of course accept whatever policy you decide to go with! |
Posted By: aaronk
Date 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. ------------- 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: 05 March 2025 at 6:52pm
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.
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 |
Posted By: aaronk
Date 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. ------------- 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: 06 March 2025 at 2:26pm
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!).
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 - 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.)
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. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date 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."
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. ------------- 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: 06 March 2025 at 4:14pm
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.
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. |
Posted By: aaronk
Date 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. ------------- 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: 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! |
Posted By: aaronk
Date Posted: 07 March 2025 at 9:48pm
Calling all novice users! Please report in this thread. Anyone? Bueller? ------------- 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 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)! :-) |