Print

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

[bodiebill]

I am not sure whether the tag-less library is a new subject, but I could not find anything else on the web about it.

Let me try to put it simply to start with (details can be confusing but I am happy to supply them when asked), by describing my OLD way of working and my NEW way of working with my (mainly music, but applies to video also) library:

My OLD method was:
(1)   rip or download files
(2)   name the files and put them in folders, both in a meaningful and consistent way
(3)   tag them based on the file names and folder structure – in my case using mp3tag
(4)   import them into MC

Thanks to the power of MC, I have now simplified this to:
(1)   rip or download files
(2)   put the files in folders and name them, both in a meaningful and consistent way
(3)   import them into MC

This means that I now skip the tagging step and still get perfect access to all required information, by means of MC-defined calculated fields. The trick is that most of these fields are calculated based on the file names and folder structure and my views only use these calculated fields, and NOT the actual tags in the files.

Setting this up in MC was a lot of work, but the result makes my life a lot easier :-) Hardly any manual tagging needed!

Anyone else doing this?

[rudyrednose]

Nope.  Why would you limit yourself only to tags available in the directory/filename structure ?

I hardly need any manual tagging anyway, mostly when ripping vinyl.
F6 (Library Tools --> Rename, Move and Copy Files) is your friend !

[RoderickGI]

Anyone else doing this?

No. I use the built in features of MC to tag newly imported files, or update tags in the file and/or library.

Actually, you do this as well. If you are structuring your file names, when you import them into MC it is using the CARNAC functionality to parse information from the file name and update or create tags in the file, or in a sidecar.

As Rudy said;
F6 (Library Tools --> Rename, Move and Copy Files)
F12 (Library Tools --> Fill Properties From Filename)
Library Tools --> Update Tags (from library)
Library Tools --> Update Library (from tags)

Plus the various data lookups.

[bodiebill]

Actually I am not saving the tags into the file, they are only recognized as fields within MC: when I define a calculated field I un-check "Save in file tags (if possible)".

[Vocalpoint]

Actually I am not saving the tags into the file, they are only recognized as fields within MC: when I define a calculated field I un-check "Save in file tags (if possible)".

Strange thread. Metadata and it's powerful use of it is what makes MC so cool. I could not survive (or use) MC without my full compliment of tags - written in full to every file.

VP

[DeaneG]

As Rudy said;
F6 (Library Tools --> Rename, Move and Copy Files)
F12 (Library Tools --> Fill Properties From Filename)
Library Tools --> Update Tags (from library)
Library Tools --> Update Library (from tags)

Pardon my apparent density... so what do items 2, 3, 4 do / when would I use each?

[ferday]

Fill properties from file name - if your music is in (say)

artist/album-year/track # - track name.flac

You could use this tool to tag all the tracks automatically by telling MC how they are named

Update tags (from library) - fills the file tags with the library tags (ensures you are saving to the file)

Update library (from tags) fills the library tags from file tags (say you migrated well tagged stuff from another program)

[DeaneG]

I see, thank you. I was thinking of DVDs and Blurays, where copying tags to/from "the file" isn't an appropriate idea.

[RoderickGI]

Strange thread. Metadata and it's powerful use of it is what makes MC so cool. I could not survive (or use) MC without my full compliment of tags - written in full to every file.

VP

It is a pity that this forum software doesn't have an "I Agree" or "Thumbs Up" button. Because I would press one or both.

Oh, and yes, I agree.

Perhaps Duchhart would explain why he is doing it this hard way, because I wouldn't want to speculate.

[ferday]

It is a pity that this forum software doesn't have an "I Agree" or "Thumbs Up" button. Because I would press one or both.

Oh, and yes, I agree.

Perhaps Duchhart would explain why he is doing it this hard way, because I wouldn't want to speculate.

one thing i've learned from Interact is that many people use MC for many different reasons, and for many different things...and there are nearly an infinite amount of different workflows used to get there.  it's a testament to the power of the software that this creative freedom can exist

while i sometimes scratch my head (like in this case), i certainly learn a better way to do things some of the time. 

[bodiebill]

oops, sorry I caused some confusion...

Actually, I see this as the easy way, not the hard way. At least in use. The setting up is not so easy I admit :-|

The tags that come with ripped or downloaded music are often a mess, and inconsistent. So I had to create new tags, using my own conventions. And the easiest way for me to do this used to be the 'tagging from file- and folder-names' in mp3 tag. Actually MC can also do that but is less powerful. However, this was a lot of work, and had to be done for all new files.
Now I am skipping that by having MC calculate custom tags from these file- and folder-names, and I don't care any longer what the actual tags contained in the files are. I no longer see them, as all my views in MC are such that I only see the calculated tags, and NOT the original tags.

Sorry if this sounds complicated. As said, setting it up was complicated, but working with it is very easy.

I have different conventions for pop, jazz and classical.
Pop is pretty simple, so here is an example:

file = "01 Time Has Told Me"
folder 1st level = "1969 Five Leaves Left"
folder 2nd level = "Nick Drake"
folder 3rd level = "Pop"

Now MC retrieves the following data from the filename and the folders above it, and puts them into custom calculated fields that do NOT store the field contents in the file itself.
These fields are distinguished (in my case) from the normally used fields by having a dot in front of them. For instance:
.Track = "01"
.Title = "Time Has Told Me"
.Album = "Five Leaves Left"
.RecDate = "1969"
.Artist = "Nick Drake"
.Genre = "Pop"

All my views use these custom fields. Alas, for classical, it gets substantially more complex, but the resulting possibilities for querying my database are powerful.

Two code examples to give an idea:

.Album field:
If(IsEqual([.GenreHL],Nonclassical),If(Isempty(Regex(FileFolder(),/#(.+) - (.+)#/,-1)[R2]),FileFolder(),Regex(FileFolder(),/#(.+) - (.+)#/,-1)[R1]),)

.RecDate field:
If(Isequal([.GenreHL],Nonclassical),Regex(FileFolder(),/#([0-9])(.+?) (.+)#/,-1)[R1][R2],)

Of course, this only works, when you start with consistent folders and file names...

For what it is worth... :-|

[Vocalpoint]

Sorry if this sounds complicated. As said, setting it up was complicated, but working with it is very easy.For what it is worth... :-|

You do realize that if things change and you move to a different platform (Not MC) in the future and you have filled your files with non-standard tags (or nothing it seems?) - that you are setting yourself up for well - disaster.

Tag standard exist to ensure one can move their files around - therefore I fill every standard FLAC tag possible, my way with my stuff - but at least I know my "work" (thousands of tagging hours by now) will be there if I decide to move the entire library to another player some day.

In your case - it's MC or do the entire library over again. Not to mention the overhead of all those calculated fields.

Like others in here - each to their own - but this does classify as the "hard way".

VP

[blgentry]

I guess if you're happy I'm happy.  Keep doing what you like.

But what you've really done here is shifted the meta data tagging into file names.  You still have to manage all of this yourself.  You have to get it from somewhere.  If the metadata in the tags is wrong, then you are correcting it in the file name instead of inside the file tags.  Which seems totally backwards to me.

Why would you not write your calculated tags back into the file tags?

Why would you not just do all the work with the tags in the first place?

Again, if you're happy, keep on keeping on.  I just don't see it as a useful technique personally.

Brian.

[bodiebill]

Actually, I also have the code to convert all the fields (or rather file- and folder info) to the tags embedded in the files, using mp3tag. Or I could do that using MC. Such as 'replace Album with .Album' etc. Of course, I could do that any time. But there is no need, and if I did, I would have to run my backup for a full week :-|

[Vocalpoint]

Why would you not just do all the work with the tags in the first place?

This.

VP