INTERACT FORUM

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Tagging nomenclature  (Read 2919 times)

NickM

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
  • Simplicity isn't always best, but it's easy to fix
Tagging nomenclature
« on: September 13, 2005, 02:10:17 am »

Many compliation CD's have remixed tracks.  When ripping CD's, once a lookup has been done, I manually edit all file names to the following format:-
Name (mix)
If the Name contains brakets, I put these in using []
For the mix, I use ()
e.g. "Protect Your Mind [For The Love Of A Princess] (Lange Remix)"

At some stage I will rename all the track names, stripping out the mix information and putting this into a new custom field called Mix.

Having done this, I would then like to upload to YADB.  So....  can YADB receive the mix information?  Is there any standard accepted (by most people!) for this type of additional information??

nick
Logged

hit_ny

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3310
  • nothing more to say...
Re: Tagging nomenclature
« Reply #1 on: September 13, 2005, 03:40:32 am »

Not really and this can make using automated soultions a real pain. Lots of tedious editing to do as you initially import your existing collection into MC. You never cared about it b4 but once with MC you can easily see these inconsistancies stick out like a sore thumb.

SO i do it manually and it's become a part of my workflow when importing albums now.

i use "Protect Your Mind (For The Love Of A Princess) (Lange Remix)"

[ can be used in a smartlist to denote the beginning of a string or the end so i prefer to not use it.

Logged

NickM

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
  • Simplicity isn't always best, but it's easy to fix
Re: Tagging nomenclature
« Reply #2 on: September 13, 2005, 08:46:56 am »

I understand about the [ for smart lists.  If you follow your nomenclature, how would you strip out Mix from "name (description) (mix)" or "name (description)" or "name (mix)".  Or can you not??

nick
Logged

hit_ny

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3310
  • nothing more to say...
Re: Tagging nomenclature
« Reply #3 on: September 13, 2005, 10:43:30 am »

Oh i have not bothered to stirip it out as yet (why?)

so i end up with

[Artist] = Artist A [Name] = Track B (feat. Artist C) (Artist D Mix)
[Artist] = Artist A [Name] = Track B (feat. Artist C) (Artist E Mix)
[Artist] = Artist A [Name] = Track B (feat. Artist C) (Artist F Mix)  ..etc

or even

It's easier (for me anyways) to see all tracks + mixes of that track when doing a Locate->Artist..rather than see the name then shift eyes over to who is the feat artist or whose mix it is by.

Exceptions arise some times when you get DJs mixing in multiple tracks as one eg.

[Artist] = Artist A / Artist B  [Name] = Track C (feat. Artist D) (Artist E Mix) / Track F (feat. Artist G) (Accapella)
Logged

jgreen

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 2419
Re: Tagging nomenclature
« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2005, 11:03:02 am »

FWIW, I created two custom fields, "version", and "mix".  For the mix field, I include any info related to remastering or post work.  Because I download a lot of tracks from etree.org, I may have several remasters of the same tape.

For version, since I've fallen victim to the "greatest hits" hoax, wherein any long song is edited down so more tracks can fit on one CD, I use notations such as "edited", "extended", etc. etc.

The reason I started doing all this is that I found that  "right click / locate / tracks" will only perform an exact phrase search.  So if I want to see all versions of a particular track, they must have identical names.

Of course, out of 15,000 tracks I think I've got 5 or 6 all done, but I'm hopeful for the future...
Logged

NickM

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
  • Simplicity isn't always best, but it's easy to fix
Re: Tagging nomenclature
« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2005, 08:17:35 pm »

Another aspect for tagging - what about multi CD albums.

I tag this way:-
Album - CD1
and if the CD's have specific names, then
Album - CD1 CD Name

e.g. Buddha Bar VI - CD1 Rebirth

Again, is there an accepted norm for this??
nick
Logged

hit_ny

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3310
  • nothing more to say...
Re: Tagging nomenclature
« Reply #6 on: September 14, 2005, 01:58:09 am »

For version, since I've fallen victim to the "greatest hits" hoax, wherein any long song is edited down so more tracks can fit on one CD, I use notations such as "edited", "extended", etc. etc.

The reason I started doing all this is that I found that  "right click / locate / tracks" will only perform an exact phrase search.  So if I want to see all versions of a particular track, they must have identical names.

Of course, out of 15,000 tracks I think I've got 5 or 6 all done, but I'm hopeful for the future...

Which is fine if you don't have more than Edit or Extended to qualify track names. But in my case there might be many versions of a single track, splitting this info into separate fields means more coulmns in the view scheme ie more scrolling, it also might increase load times for larger libraries.

Another aspect for tagging - what about multi CD albums.

I tag this way:-
Album - CD1 and if the CD's have specific names, then
Album - CD1 CD Name

e.g. Buddha Bar VI - CD1 Rebirth

Again, is there an accepted norm for this??
nick

For multi albums

Album (xCD) where x denotes the number of CDs that comprise the whole album. So in the above example.

Buddha Bar 06 - Rebirth & Rejoice (2CD)

Since this is also a mixed album ie ripped with cue, the two big files have a [Name] field of
Buddha Bar 06 - Rebirth (CD 1)
Buddha Bar 06 - Rejoice (CD 2)

and the individual cue tracks would also share the same album name. Those cue items would have the [Disc #] fields set for 1  or 2.

I chose to use the same album name for multi-cd compilations since i feel regardless of the # of cd's an album has, it is still one album. So in a view scheme only 1 album entry will be shown. This way my album counts reflect how i perceive the actual physical album.

And if you were displaying album thumbnails only 1 cover art image would be shown since they are both by the same artist.. If each CD was compiled by a different artist then 2 or more images would be displayed.
Logged

NickM

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
  • Simplicity isn't always best, but it's easy to fix
Re: Tagging nomenclature
« Reply #7 on: September 14, 2005, 06:15:12 am »

If you choose not to rip the whole CD into a single file, then how do you deal with the album & track naming?

nick
Logged

hit_ny

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3310
  • nothing more to say...
Re: Tagging nomenclature
« Reply #8 on: September 14, 2005, 06:42:09 am »

Buddha Bar 06 - Rebirth & Rejoice (2CD) as [Album]

for all tracks.

Logged

NickM

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
  • Simplicity isn't always best, but it's easy to fix
Re: Tagging nomenclature
« Reply #9 on: September 14, 2005, 09:12:49 pm »

Presumeably if a disc set has two CD's each of ten songs, then your track numbers are then 1-20?

What about when the disc's are not part of a contiguous group - you would listen to one but not the other. e.g. A Buggen In Selection vs. A Bugged Out Selection?

And lastly... If the name of the 2nd CD starts with a letter earlier in the alphabet than the first, won't the order of your tracks be messed up? e.g. Gatecrasher_ Disco-Tech - CD1 Plasma & Gatecrasher_ Disco-Tech - CD2 Future.

nick
Logged

hit_ny

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3310
  • nothing more to say...
Re: Tagging nomenclature
« Reply #10 on: September 15, 2005, 03:05:36 am »

Presumeably if a disc set has two CD's each of ten songs, then your track numbers are then 1-20?
Each CD would have track#s of 1-10, set the Disc# field for each set of 10.

Sort order in the PN view scheme is (right click->Customize Current View)
Filename(a-z)
Disc#
Track#

What about when the disc's are not part of a contiguous group - you would listen to one but not the other. e.g. A Buggen In Selection vs. A Bugged Out Selection?
Don't understand what you mean here. If Discs are not part of a contiguous group does it follow that they are not from the same album. Otherwise i would grp them together as one album.

And lastly... If the name of the 2nd CD starts with a letter earlier in the alphabet than the first, won't the order of your tracks be messed up? e.g. Gatecrasher_ Disco-Tech - CD1 Plasma & Gatecrasher_ Disco-Tech - CD2 Future.
Those gatecrasher CDs are usually mixed, so there would be a cue file, which would be presented in the right order thanks to the sorting rule. If they are ripped as separate tracks, then the Disc# would take care of it. All i do is Album->Add to Playing Now from a suitable view scheme and it sorts itself out automatically in PN.
Logged

NickM

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
  • Simplicity isn't always best, but it's easy to fix
Re: Tagging nomenclature
« Reply #11 on: September 22, 2005, 03:05:19 am »

So here’s the killer app…

As we are all (Painfully) aware, there has been a lot of talk about YADB versus other lookup services.  So, why not make it a REAL database, not just a flat file lookup?

We should be able to set a number of preferences for naming that would automatically take the YADB information and apply it as each user wants.  Just like I, or hit_ny or jgreen would like…

That is, if YADB wants to distinguish itself from others in the market!!!!

KingSparta – what about an add-in to do this?

nick
Logged

hit_ny

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3310
  • nothing more to say...
Re: Tagging nomenclature
« Reply #12 on: September 22, 2005, 08:46:21 am »

It's possible but the level of work required to keep it accurate as time goes on is quite hard. So i can't really see any improvements from the way YADB is currently, (it's uptime is for another thread)

The naming conventions that i suggested are totally arbitrary, in many cases a reflection of one's preferred genres, MC does not impose anything. Each user has their own level of what is complete or looks nice. Jim's said they had to clean out the freedb data because even they had their preferences.

I see these websites where ppl spend tons of time modding their car, home etc. MC is in the same vein, just make sure you have multiple copies of the library saved in different locations.

Logged

JimH

  • Administrator
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 71706
  • Where did I put my teeth?
Re: Tagging nomenclature
« Reply #13 on: September 22, 2005, 08:48:15 am »

The naming conventions that i suggested are totally arbitrary, in many cases a reflection of one's preferred genres, MC does not impose anything. Each user has their own level of what is complete or looks nice. Jim's said they had to clean out the freedb data because even they had their preferences.
The cleaning was for typos and duplicates.
Logged

KingSparta

  • MC Beta Team
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 20056
Re: Tagging nomenclature
« Reply #14 on: September 22, 2005, 09:13:34 am »

Quote
Each user has their own level of what is complete or looks nice
When looking at most peoples Library data

The dictator in me tells me we need to conform to "KingSparta's" Belief's.

Logged
Retired Military, Airborne, Air Assault, And Flight Wings.
Model Trains, Internet, Ham Radio
https://MyAAGrapevines.com
https://centercitybbs.com
Fayetteville, NC, USA

NickM

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
  • Simplicity isn't always best, but it's easy to fix
Re: Tagging nomenclature
« Reply #15 on: September 23, 2005, 02:59:38 am »

SO does that mean KingSparta's new plugin will only allow his file naming conventions LOL...

nick
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up