Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[henning65]

+1

sorry for being late!
I like to support the feature request for composition - support

[Hendrik]

One note on any plans you make, not to dampen any excitement, but we have to work within the confines of what the MC database functionality offers, and the main concern with reading the suggestions is that the database is not a relational database, its basically just a list of files with properties. As such, we don't store any abstract "entities" like an Album, a Series, or a future Composition. They are all virtual concepts created on the fly, based on the files it's currently looking at.

This means that for example a Composition, or an Album, are not "things" in the database, as such they can't have metadata attached directly. Any information about a Composition, an Album, or any such metadata-based grouping concept, would need to be attached to the files within. For the same reason Albums don't have ratings, for example. You could make an argument for a relational Composition field that's their rating, or just form an average rating based on the files ratings, but either are of course more clunky solutions.

We're happy to work within the confines of how the MC database works to support Compositions, similar to eg. Albums, but re-designing the internal database structure to support such abstract entities is out of scope currently, I'm afraid.

[wer]

Understood about the underlying nature of the database. 

However, JRiver already chose to apply the term "relational" to fields. So Composition can and should have "relational" fields in exactly the same way that Album and Artist currently do.

I have in fact frequently told people who are confused that the Album doesn't really exist as an entity in MC: it's just a bunch of tracks that happen to share field values.  Composition would be exactly the same.

The [Composition Rating] field, if that's what JRiver chooses to call it, could be the calculated average of the ratings of the constituent tracks, if that's how you choose to implement it.

The most important point is that it, like other stats like [Composition Duration] (which would just be the total duration of constituent tracks) should be easily, and quickly, accessible through the search language. Currently users would have to use complicated GroupSummaryQuery expressions which are so slow as to be unusable.  But MC already calculates stats like this in Category views instantly.

So I was mindful of the limitation you mentioned when I crafted the proposal. I'm talking about things that can be done within the current db framework.

[Hendrik]

Thats fine. Some of the suggestions, like the Rating, sounded like there were expectations to have a Composition "entity", with the ability to independently rate a Composition like a track, and I just wanted to make sure.
We can definitely give it handling similar to an Album with additional considerations, once the rules are clearly understood.

[sarcanon]

+1 on the proposal here. Also, I would have like wer's automation to be included as well, but I support anything that promotes musical work/composition to be a first-class citizen.

[EnglishTiger]

2. Recognize the user-defined Composition field.  All tracks on the same album that have a common Composition field shall be considered part of the same Composition.

Wer - While working thru my Classical Music Collection I came across situations where the Same Composition were on Different Albums, which the above "Point 2" handles. But, I also came across more than 1 occurrence of the Same Composition performed by Different Artists on the Same Album, usually those 30+ CD Boxset's that MC thinks are Incomplete Albums.

So it looks like "Point 2" may need modifying to include Same Artist so that anything MC does in the background doesn't, incorrectly, end up linking the Same Composition by Different Artists on the Same Album.

[Dennis in FL]

Thanks, but the enhancements needed aren't "simple".  You can't always make significant advancements just by doing simple easy things.

Isn't there a standard somewhere in the universe already worked out for classical?   I found this

https://www.dailyrindblog.com/classical-music-metadata-101/

and this

https://icmd.org/introducing-international-classical-music-database/

But it is pretty basic

[EnglishTiger]

Isn't there a standard somewhere in the universe already worked out for classical?   I found this

https://www.dailyrindblog.com/classical-music-metadata-101/

and this

https://icmd.org/introducing-international-classical-music-database/

But it is pretty basic

No - Different record companies, and even different divisions of those companies, use different ways of presenting what we refer to as MetaData, to the consumer. Then to add to the chaos you have countless people who submit incomplete/wrong info to all those "scrapeable MetaData" web-sites.

[MikeO]

You said it before I got there .

Lovely websites , shame the reality is far from what is described ...

EnglishTiger has it, the worst offenders ironically are the big Classical lablelsDG, Decca Philips etc (all Universal) 

[flac.rules]

For the same reason Albums don't have ratings, for example. You could make an argument for a relational Composition field that's their rating, or just form an average rating based on the files ratings, but either are of course more clunky solutions.

Sorry, this is slightly off topic, but for albums, can it be solved by letting playlists have ratings? It is easy(?) to have a playlist for an album.

[Dennis in FL]

>>>Are there any further comments, suggestions, or messages of support or dissent for the latest version of the proposal?


Three thumbs up in favor of the proposal !!!!!

[JimH]

Split Musichi

[Dennis in FL]

Classical music movements being treated as separate tracks instead of as part of a composers complete “work" is one of those pet peeves I have with most softwares.   With the help from Wer and others, I used MC's hidden talents to group them as one.

And just for fun, I took a screen shot of how others handle classical music files.   So far, primephonic, and Roon do it right (or close to it).   The rest do it the same way - as separate tracks. 

Here, is JRiver, and then in alphabetical order are Amazon Unlimited, Idagio, Primephonic, Roon, Spotify, and Tidal.

[Dennis in FL]

continued from above with one more --- tidal

[EnglishTiger]

Dennis - Your conclusion about "who got it right" is based an a wrong assumption.
They all got it right - They are all correctly listing the Tracks on the Version of the Album in their System.
According to Discogs over the years 11 Versions of that Album we released - some with "1 Track per Composition" and some with "1 Track Per Movement"

The ones you believe "got it right" used a "1 Track per Composition" recording
The ones you believe "got it wrong" used a "1 Track Per Movement" recording

If they had all used a "1 Track per Composition" release they all would have got it right.
If they had all used a "1 Track Per Movement" release  they all would have got it  wrong.

There will be people out there that prefer to listen to "1 Track per Composition" recordings whilst others will prefer  a "1 Track Per Movement" recordings, neither way is right and neither is wrong. Both methods exist because there is sufficient demand for both versions to make both of them Economically Viable

[Dennis in FL]

Let's say they cataloged books the same way.   

You search for "The Lost World" and you get Chapter 6 by Doyle and Chapter 3 by Michael Crighton and maybe the middle of a Blu Ray movie by the same name.  And a few newspaper reviews.

Why would you want that?  That's what I get when I search for Beethoven's 5th with the Vienna Symphony.

Check out the first post in this thread by Wer.   You don't want to start with the middle movement of the 5th.  But, you may want to play "Billy Jean" from the Thriller album without starting at the beginning.

I'd rather they combined the three movements into one composition instead of treating them as indipendent tracks.   Sort of like when you view a symphony on You Tube....it's all together.  Or better yet, a checkbox in SETTINGS to toggle the work with the movements combined or seperate.

[EnglishTiger]

I'd rather they combined the three movements into one composition instead of treating them as indipendent tracks.   Sort of like when you view a symphony on You Tube....it's all together.  Or better yet, a checkbox in SETTINGS to toggle the work with the movements combined or seperate.

MC already provides the ability to play the Movements from Beethoven's 5th Symphony, or any other Multi-Movement Composition, as one "Composition" or as independent  tracks. If you "Link" the tracks/movements that make up a composition/work when adding any one of those tracks to a playlist, smartlist or playing now MC will add the "Composition" (all the linked tracks) and not just the selected track/movement. If the tracks are "Not Linked" then it will only add the selected track/movement to the playlist/playing now.

This thread and wer's How to Automatically Parse Composition and Movement info in Classical Music thread https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php/topic,128884.0.html provide is an easier way to identify and keep the tracks for a single "Composition" together thus making it easier to either Link those Tracks or Remove/Break the Link between them.

[Dennis in FL]

Exactly what I do in MC for classical.   I posted a pic above (first one)

[EnglishTiger]

Because you had linked the movements for Violin Concerto #1 just like primephonic, and Roon MC plays it as a Composition but displays it as Individual Tracks

Which means that MC is able to tell you something about that Composition that neither primephonic or Roon can - which of the movements you are currently listening to.

[timwtheov]

@EnglishTiger

I just demoed Roon 1.8 recently, and you certainly can tell what movement you're on, as they're basically using tracks per movement as well. I believe it's highlighted when playing, if I recall rightly.

@Dennis in FL

While it would be nice to make [Composition] a relational field, as per Wer's original request/suggestion, you can basically get what you want if you tag well and make particular view schemes based on those tags. For example, in the image below, the way I've organized the view, I basically get the album divided into compositions, though obviously I tag [Name] as

composition: movement number. movement name

but this could be easily changed to

movement number. movement name

as it is in Roon, et al. You just have to tag consistently. And yes, you can link tracks together too, though if you set up your views well, I don't really see the need outside of certain playlist situations. Just a thought . . . .

[Dennis in FL]

Wow...how did you get all that tag info?  Is that the All Music Guide metadata?

[timwtheov]

Yes, from AMG. Check out

https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=100449.0

and particularly amg.pl. PM me if you want some help, especially with albums not fully present on AMG, as I have a workaround for those.

[EnglishTiger]

Those TrackInfo Plugins designed specifically for Classical Music I mentioned in my first post, Reply #2, are now available for download

You can read about them here - https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php/topic,129621.0.html

And download them here - https://yabb.jriver.com/mediacenter/accessories.php

[kr4]

Very cool.  Greatly appreciated!