More > Media Center 12 (Development Ended)
Discussion: Classical Music
JimH:
Close. Just edit the link slightly:
http://www.pix01.com/gallery/FB8DEA61-C2C2-4381-A0E1-D3A38E66CB76/Composer_work/689462699_orig0.jpg
and put it between the [ img ] and [ /img ] tags.
And when you post on Pix01, please choose not to make them public. Everything else will work, but they won't be displayed on www.pix01.com home.
DBB:
Thanks, I don't know why this works now but not before (Da!), but here is the Composer/Work set up. It works well for me except for the labor in setting it up. It seems that every scheme suggested takes a lot of work. My thinking was that the name of the work by itself without the composer and the performing artists included is not very useful. For example Symphony no 1, by itself is not helpful. Are there 10,000 Symphony no 1's? I feel that MC13 should have at least one suggested template for classical. Possibly one that could be set up with a "Wizard"
Click to enlarge.
darichman:
Not bad... I guess it's nice to be able to view them all together like that, and I especially like the way they line up nicely together. I wonder, do you store these bits of info in separate fields as well (and use an expression to combine them like that)? or do you maintain it manually?
I've always had separate fields (apart from the calculated "Piece" one) with a separate column for each. The advantage of that is you can find a particular opus no. or catalog no. easily, for example. Say I want to find Bach's "The Art of Fugue" (BWV 1080). I have the option to click on the work (The Art of Fugue) or on the catalog no. (BWV 1080) - whichever I can remember at the time.
I'm staying in Sydney at the moment and don't have my main library with me, but I'll post a screenshot when I get back (remind me!)
Do you have a standard way of filling out the name field? What I was trying to do with the [Classical: Piece] field was to find an automatic way of displaying the information you've tagged - whether all tags are filled in or not. It needs some work.
DBB:
--- Quote from: darichman on December 05, 2008, 07:50:39 pm --- I wonder, do you store these bits of info in separate fields as well (and use an expression to combine them like that)? or do you maintain it manually?
--- End quote ---
I have a separate field for "artist", which means performing artist(s) that includes conductor, orchestra, ensemble soloist etc. in my system and "Composer" but I have no way of automatically combining them in the "Composer, Work, Performing Artist(s)" field. I do it manually. Some kind of automated system would make it easier to maintain.
--- Quote from: darichman on December 05, 2008, 07:50:39 pm ---I've always had separate fields (apart from the calculated "Piece" one) with a separate column for each. The advantage of that is you can find a particular opus no. or catalog no. easily, for example. Say I want to find Bach's "The Art of Fugue" (BWV 1080). I have the option to click on the work (The Art of Fugue) or on the catalog no. (BWV 1080) - whichever I can remember at the time.
--- End quote ---
I think most would search first by Composer, then Genre, Period and Performing Artist would probably follow, but not necessarily in that order. In my scheme this can be done with one or two mouse clicks. I think very few will search by BWW number, or K number in the case of Mozart. Who can remember these numbers? Opus numbers would be meaningless in a large collection. Some, like you, might search by the name of the work, ie "The Well Tempered Clavier" an opera or vocal recording. My system does not break this out in a readily searchable way, but names and numbers can be found easily using the regular search function. I don't see this as an inconvenience because it is probably rare not to remember the name of the composer which is easily searchable.
--- Quote from: darichman on December 05, 2008, 07:50:39 pm ---Do you have a standard way of filling out the name field? What I was trying to do with the [Classical: Piece] field was to find an automatic way of displaying the information you've tagged - whether all tags are filled in or not. It needs some work.
--- End quote ---
I use the standard default name field to refer to each movement. I name the field I usually [or prefer to] repeat the composer's name, the name of the work, and the movement number and name ie "Bartok, Piano Concerto No. 3: I Adgietto" I do this because it shows beautifully in the "neotropic" track info window, which I prefer.
http://www.pix01.com/gallery/FB8DEA61-C2C2-4381-A0E1-D3A38E66CB76/Bartok_3_Boulez/
The composite field for the entire work contains the name of the work and, as noted, the composer and the performing artist(s). As far I I can tell this works well for all classical music. The problem is that the spacing and grammar must be uniform for the same work by different artists to line up . It takes some care in entering the data. Some type of automated system would be a dream.
eric999:
I restarted this thread about a couple of weeks ago with a question about darichman's [Classical: Piece] calculated expression. I've continued to experiment with the small amount of classical recordings I've ripped and have, by now, answered most of my questions on my own.
I'm still having trouble with one piece of the calculated expression. I created the six [Classical: whatever] fields that darichman provides in his post of March 26. Everything works as anticipated except -
when I have a work that has both the [Classical: Opus] and [Classical: Number] fields utilized (ex. Weber's Sonata for Piano No. 1 - [Classical: Opus] = Op.24 and [Classical: Number] = J138) both the opus and number display correctly in the [Classical: Piece] field.
when I have a work that doesn't have a opus number but has a reference number (ex. Mozart's Symphony No. 41 - [Classical: Opus] is blank and [Classical: Number] = K551, the K551 does not display in the [Classical: Piece] field.
What am I doing wrong?
I'm particularly hoping for an answer from darichman. He posted asking for details regarding my questions on December 5th. Thanks for all your work in both creating and posting an explanation of your system for organizing classical music. I'm really looking forward to ripping my collection and having it searchable and better organized than it's ever been.
Eric
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version