More > JRiver Media Center 27 for Windows
Feature Request: Better Support for Classical Music
dtc:
So a composition has properties similar to an album but defined by [Composition] and [Composer] rather than by [Album] and [Album Artist] , and you can have more than one composition on an album. Some tags are unique to the composition and some are shared with the album. Maybe just create a new full set of tags with a unique identified (e.g. prefaced by comp. (e.g. comp.date, comp.rating, etc.)) with those tags inherited from the track tag unless overriden by a input value. Then, pretty much any operation that can be done with [Album] can be done for [Composition]. And automatically link any tracks in a composition by track number.
Or something like that.
wer:
It couldn't just be Composition and Composer. Album has to be considered, since you might have different recordings of the same Composition. How many recordings does one have of Beethoven's 5th? They all would probably have the same Composer and Composition tags, but they would each be on different Albums.
In terms of other tags, I don't see any tags being shared with the Album. That would be new functionality wouldn't it? I don't think there are any tags share between tracks and Album now, aside from Album-relational tags. I do see tags at the Composition level being inherited from constituent tracks: date, composer, genre, etc. Maybe that's what you meant, but if not please expand on that.
What are the tags, or properties, a Composition would have to have exposed to the search language? In other words, you'd want to be able to include Compositions in a smartlist based on what properties?
Ferdi:
I am late to join the discussion.
For some composers, a 'catalog of work', or 'werksverzeichnis' has been created, for example the BWV for Bach. All compositions are assigned a number, number intervals often represent a specific date range for the individual composer. For me, this is a very relevant field, would see this as important part of a design for meta data handling.
MikeO:
I use Catalog # , I assume it’s designed for the Album Catalog, ie record label number etc
The alternative is to use Opus No, some composers have both, indeed sometimes multiple cataloged eg Chopin, I tend to select one. Opus if it exists or for Mozart, K, Schubert D , Bach BWV etc
It depends how comprehensive you want your naming to be. Personally I just want it to unique and simple.
Works for me
dtc:
--- Quote from: wer on March 16, 2021, 09:02:01 pm ---It couldn't just be Composition and Composer. Album has to be considered, since you might have different recordings of the same Composition. How many recordings does one have of Beethoven's 5th? They all would probably have the same Composer and Composition tags, but they would each be on different Albums.
In terms of other tags, I don't see any tags being shared with the Album. That would be new functionality wouldn't it? I don't think there are any tags share between tracks and Album now, aside from Album-relational tags. I do see tags at the Composition level being inherited from constituent tracks: date, composer, genre, etc. Maybe that's what you meant, but if not please expand on that.
What are the tags, or properties, a Composition would have to have exposed to the search language? In other words, you'd want to be able to include Compositions in a smartlist based on what properties?
--- End quote ---
Yes, you probably need [Album] or something like that to define the composition. The point was that once you have a definition that uniquely defines a composition, then the rest of the MC functionality should follow pretty easily. Whatever you can do for an album you should then be able to do for a composition. There may be a few special cases, but most everything should work if it is set up correctly. The idea is to be able to use most of the existing code for a composition, not to define it in such a way as to have to change pretty much all MC functionality.
As to tags, the same basic tags that are used for each track in an album can probably be the same for a composition. Things like file size, compression, bitrate, number of channels, last played, even conductor, composer, and a whole lot more do not have to have unique values independent of the track values. The values can be inherited from the standard track values. Then there are only a few tags that the user has to re-enter. If all tags could be shared it would make the task even easier. It might make more sense to create a small number of new tags, than trying to maintain two separate sets. The new tags can be blank for tracks that are not part of a composition.
I just wanted to suggestion some structure that would be easy to handle, rather than inventing a completely new one that does not fit easily into the existing code. Hence the comparison to [Album].
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version