Print

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

[Charliemb]

Hi Folks,

I was invited to post here in an initial email.  I checked the faq and I don't see an answer.

While I appreciate that the whole intention of the latest media servers and players seems to be to eliminate the mere concept of folders and directories, without apologies, I already have organized all of my media based on folders.  I know where to find stuff and fast, because I put it there.  I wish not to disorganize what I've done.

So my question is (in an Ebenezer Scrooge kind of way) how can I set up a "custom view" or a "library" or whatever you call it in MC that simply shows certain folders on my disk?

[Jonahsdad]

Point your mouse at "Audio" in the Tree on the left of the screen.  Right click.  Choose "Add Library View".  When the dialog pops up, choose "Disk Location."  Then fool around with the settings in Library view, and also in "Options" in the Tools menu to modify to your taste. 

I encourage you to experiment.  MC is very powerful, and very flexible.

[rick.ca]

Now that you have the answer you wanted to hear, let's see if you can handle the better alternative. After all, even Scrooge saw the light...

If your media is truly well organized, your folders and files have been consistently named based on attributes of the media. If so, MC can more or less instantly extract that information and save it, properly categorized, in it's database (using the Fill Properties from Filename command). Now, in addition to browsing your media by disk location, you can search, sort, categorize and view your media using any or all of those attributes. And, while you may not need it (because your files are perfectly organized), MC can more or less instantly reorganize your filing system based on any recorded attributes (using the Rename, Move and Copy Files command).

As an MC user, the only relevant question is then, how are you going to handle media that is added to this collection? In most cases, the media will have meta data or MC will provide it. It also provides you with a broad and very powerful set of tools for managing all that data according to your own standards and requirements. That information will include all the attributes required for any filing scheme you may want to use, and MC will do the filing for you.

So it's not a matter of "eliminating the concept of folders." MC will actually help you do a much better job of maintaining order in your filing system. But, at the same time, it will free you from being a slave to that fixed, hierarchical form of organization.

[rjm]

Welcome.

Imagine the most brilliant way you can think of to navigate and play your media. Imagine using all of the effort you have already invested without changing anything you've already done (just in case you decide to bale). MC will do all of this and much much more.

Just ask for help if you get stuck. And remember that right click is your friend when poking around trying to figure it out.

[Charliemb]

Point your mouse at "Audio" in the Tree on the left of the screen.  Right click.  Choose "Add Library View".  When the dialog pops up, choose "Disk Location."  Then fool around with the settings in Library view, and also in "Options" in the Tools menu to modify to your taste. 

I encourage you to experiment.  MC is very powerful, and very flexible.

Well, that works, sort of.  It works for audio.  Under Images there is nothing similar that I can see.  I need this primarily for photos.  Is there a way to do this under Images?   What about Video?

Thanks

[Charliemb]

... If so, MC can more or less instantly extract that information and save it, properly categorized, in it's database (using the Fill Properties from Filename command). Now, in addition to browsing your media by disk location, you can search, sort, categorize and view your media using any or all of those attributes. And, while you may not need it (because your files are perfectly organized), MC can more or less instantly reorganize your filing system based on any recorded attributes (using the Rename, Move and Copy Files command).

...

I played with this feature for photos and it warned me that if I accept, it would move files on my disk.  No, I don't want to do that!  They are already organized and where I want them.  So either I'm too green for this or I miss the point you are trying to make.  Why would I want to do this?

[rick.ca]

Well, that works, sort of.  It works for audio.  Under Images there is nothing similar that I can see.  I need this primarily for photos.  Is there a way to do this under Images?   What about Video?

A few things are unique to audio, like special handling for multiple-artist albums. Other than such things, however, all the capabilities of the program with respect to creating views are available to all media types.

I played with this feature for photos and it warned me that if I accept, it would move files on my disk.  No, I don't want to do that!  They are already organized and where I want them.  So either I'm too green for this or I miss the point you are trying to make.  Why would I want to do this?

I'm suggesting that regardless of how you're doing it now, using MC to file any new media added to your collection will be more efficient. To the extent you have used meaningful attributes in the folder structure for existing media, MC can extract those attributes and record them in the database. But this is much more relevant to music than it is to photos...

There are many different ways photos might be organized. If you're going to use MC to manage them, you'll likely find your existing folder structure irrelevant. A hierarchical folder structure works nicely for most types of music. I suspect most people use some variation of Genre\Artist\Album\, and that same structure probably exists in their primary music view in MC. It's unlikely a hierarchical structure can be anywhere near as useful for photos. My choice has been to record Events, Places, People and Keywords—all as nested lists. Others record everything in Keywords (events, places and people can be top-level branches in Keywords). Either way, this allows any event, place, people or keyword value to be located quickly, and all photos tagged with those values displayed instantly. All my photos stay in original batches by date, retaining the original filename assigned by the camera. I find that works best for maintaining their physical integrity, backup, etc. For finding any particular photo or group of photos, I use the library.

[Lunatique]

I'm one of those people who already have organized folders on my hard drive into genre/artist/album, and I find that sorting the columns by File(path) is the best option for me. Very often, I have music that I know which folder to put into, but many of their actual genre tagging are not what I'd personally use, as many people who decide on what genres to tag audio files are not well-versed enough in musical genres and makes all kinds dumb mistakes--naming electronic tracks "blues" or something else just as wrong. Having a gigantic library (600+ GB) makes it almost impossible to always be correcting these types of mistakes, so I just sort by file(path) and it'll be just fine. Also, once sorting by file(path), I can just select a large selection of tracks all in the same genre directory and rename them all to the correct genre names.

[rick.ca]

Also, once sorting by file(path), I can just select a large selection of tracks all in the same genre directory and rename them all to the correct genre names.

I don't understand. If your files are not tagged with the correct genre, where does the genre in your file path come from? If you're supplying the correct genre in the file path, why can't you tag them correctly?

[Lunatique]

I don't understand. If your files are not tagged with the correct genre, where does the genre in your file path come from? If you're supplying the correct genre in the file path, why can't you tag them correctly?

Basically, my file directories on my computer are really well organized, not just for music, but for videos, images, apps...etc. When I download stuff or rip stuff, I put the files in proper directories as a habit, so that I can always find stuff easily on my computer. This is why when I sort by file(path), all my music are sorted based on my file directories (which corresponds to various genres) already. But many of the tracks have improperly tagged genres because the person who created the tracks (I download tons of music made by fellow musicians who share them online, so they are not "official" commercial releases) didn't tag them properly, or picked a genre category that I feel is incorrect (for example, some guy makes a an electronic track that happens to contain some orchestral strings loops and he tags it as "orchestral" when it really should be "electronic." Commercial releases often have badly chosen genre tags too, or simply ones that don't match my own system. For example, if I have an album from a Japanese rock band, it'll likely be tagged as "Rock," but according to my system, I'd much prefer to tag it "J-Rock" since I want to be sure all the Japanese rock stuff is separate from English-language rock.

[rick.ca]

I understand why existing genre tags in downloaded files do not match your classification system. With no standard classification system, there's no basis for expecting otherwise. What I can't understand is why you would choose to keep inconsistent and incorrect data when you could very easily replace it with your own. It doesn't even depend on your preferred work flow. You can either tag new files correctly and then use that information to move them, or move them to the correct location and then use that information (genre, at least) to set the tags.

[Lunatique]

What I can't understand is why you would choose to keep inconsistent and incorrect data when you could very easily replace it with your own.

I think you misread my initial post. I do change the tags according to my own system, and I do put them in proper genre/artist/album folders when possible, but I simply do not have the time to do all the files--it would take full-time involvement of 12 hours a day, and will go on for days and maybe even weeks, because there are many individual tracks from various sources that don't have any proper tagging--many don't even have proper names for artists because they were created by bedroom musicians, or are from pro audio demo tracks. Tagging individual files spanning across dozens of possible genres and doing it for tens of thousands of tracks will drive anyone insane. I try to do a little bit whenever I have an hour to spare here and there, maybe once or twice a month, and that's about as much time as I can devote to this on-going task. For the time being, simply putting them in proper genre/artist/album folders when possible is already good enough for a start (and those that has to be sorted to just be placed in proper folders is already a lot), and the tagging will have to get done sloooowly. It'll take years. This is what happens when your musical taste strays far from established commercial releases and you are a musician/composer who listens to tons of what other bedroom musicians around the world are creating.

[rick.ca]

The fact your task is difficult and time-consuming only means you'd benefit more by using the program the way it has been designed to be used.

[Lunatique]

The fact your task is difficult and time-consuming only means you'd benefit more by using the program the way it has been designed to be used.

And how is it supposed to be used to make my task easier? Media Center can't possibly know which genre categories to assign the tens of thousands of tracks that either has no genre tagging or uses inappropriate ones. So whether I set MC to automatically rearrange my file directories based on my manual tagging of the files, or I place the files in proper directories and then sort them by file(path) and then select tracks to re-tag them manually, MC cannot do any of this on its own. If there's a better way I'm all ears. If there's a "smart automatic genre categorization" button in MC somewhere, I sure would like to know where it is.

[rick.ca]

And how is it supposed to be used to make my task easier?

It has nothing to do with how you get the information. You're the one claiming that organizing by folders—using a folder structure based on information you don't have—somehow makes the task easier. Obviously, it can't.

The case for organizing by folders and foregoing all the powerful database features provided by MC is strongest in the situation where all the information required for a meaningful and consistent folder structure is known from the outset, and there's no need for any further metadata. Your situation is the opposite. While MC can't magically produce data for you, it offers a lot of features that could make any effort you care to give to the task more productive. You'd benefit at least from the fact changing database data is easier and less error-prone than changing file paths. Incorrect or inconsistent data in a database is easily detected and corrected. The same errors in a file path result in the file being "lost." You can still use the information to change the file path—at your leisure and when you're sure the data is correct. And for all the files you don't have time to classify (which, BTW, are apparently doing just fine in their unclassified folder locations), you can use the database to quickly record whatever you do know about the files. Recording their source, for example, would probably help in their later classification. In the meantime, it at least provides another way to organize the files.

I download tons of music made by fellow musicians who share them online, so they are not "official" commercial releases.

Perhaps your fellow musicians aren't using the technology, but the sensible way to facilitate such sharing is with podcasts. You could then configure MC to download each source, automatically tagging the files correctly.

[Lunatique]

Ok, I see what you mean now.

I've tried to use MC's database feature before, allowing the directories to be automatically rearranged based on tagging, but the problem I immediately encountered is that all the wrongly tagged files immediately started to cause all kinds of crazy chaos in my already very well organized folder structures. Comparing that to just putting files I haven't had time to put into proper folders yet, I prefer the second option, because at least MC isn't doing anything on its own that will drastically change my painstakingly kept directories of genres without me having any control. AFAIK, there is no way to have MC differentiate between which files are already correctly tagged, and which ones are not, so MC just rearranges my folder directories automatically. It was like a nightmare, seeing my carefully managed folders that's been refined over the years getting completely messed up right before my eyes. I had to kill MC via the task manager immediately and restore my folder structure using an older backup.

[rick.ca]

AFAIK, there's no way to configure MC to automatically move files. In any case, what I said was...

MC can more or less instantly reorganize your filing system based on any recorded attributes using the Rename, Move and Copy Files command.

AFAIK, there is no way to have MC differentiate between which files are already correctly tagged, and which ones are not...

Of course not. So you're doing that now by moving the files to a new location. It would be easier and faster to record this in the database. You could, for example, clear incorrect and inconsistent data from [Genre], [Artist] and [Album] on import (perhaps moving it to an [Original Tags] nested list field for reference)—reserving those fields for your correct data. Or just use set a [Tag Status] field to indicate whether you can rely on that data or not.

I'm not trying to tell anyone how they should organize their data. I'm only suggesting it makes no sense to use the file system to do so when so many features of the program are dependent on a properly maintained database.