Print

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

[pepar]

I am coming to JRiver from Popcorn Hour, and hopefully what I already have in place will work.  My movies are named as per the IMDB name, i.e. Movie Name (Year).  They are all in individual folders with the same names.  Concerts/live performances are simliarly treated.

It is for TV series and music library that I am at square one with populating my library and want to proceed with the best scheme for JRiver. 

For TV Series, what is the recommended folder structure?  Series | Year | Episode folders, i.e. each episode in its own folder?  I do already have the episode files named, for example, Series Name - S01E01 - Episode Name.  Is that good?

For music, I had been using file (song) names as Artist - Track # - Song Name with meta data having Album Name associated with each song.  It would not be a problem redoing the file name scheme to be Artist - Album - Track # - Song Name if that's the best scheme.  Then the music folders - Artist | Album,  with the Album folder containing the individual song files?

Jeff

[MusicHawk]

Short answer: It depends. Long answer: There are almost as many file and folder schemes as there are users.

Because, JR Media Center does the heavy-lifting. It is a powerful, flexible database manager that understands media. If you provide suitable metadata (tags) for every file/track, the database keeps track of where it is. You rarely if-ever have to go directly to a file, just click in Media Center.

However, it is smart to do some degree of organization of folders and files, something logical that will help you at the rare times when you need to dive in (when setting up a backup system, for instance). I have mostly music, and I give each song a Grade (I avoid the built-in Rating system), then I have MC store music files based on their Grade so I can easily copy the highly-Graded songs to the laptop I use for music in my vehicle. And even this situation could be handled in other ways using other aspects of MC.

Best advice (after using MC for more than 15 years) is to think carefully about the Tags that will help you, not just to identify files, but to organize, categorize, retrieve, play, etc. Whatever you might need, someday, get it tagged appropriately up-front and you'll forever thank yourself. This can be done regardless of folder\file structure... no structure at all would even work if the tags are correct.

Second key is to get to know the tool known as Rename, Move & Copy files. When used with appropriate Rules (which can be complex), MC will do the work of organizing folders and files based on the meta data (tags). Change your mind later, just change the Rules and run it again. Very powerful.

[pepar]

Thanks.  So the tags are for MC and the folders are for me?

But, I get it.  Thanks again.

Jeff

[MusicHawk]

Yes, the database is for you, to tag and organize and use your files any way you wish. You can use views (standard and custom) to see your files organized any way you wish, including in views that look very much like folders and subfolders and files, if you desire.

The cool thing is, you can have several views of exactly the same collection of files (tens of thousands in my case), each looking at your files in a different way, as if you had many copies of your files, each in a distinct arrangement. I can view my files as if they are organized into folders and subfolders by Artist, or Album, or Year, or Type (of music or whatever), and many more, all without ever touching the files.

For instance, my Artists view lets me wander through my tracks something like this:
B
B\Beatles\
B\Beatles\Norwegian Wood

Or, I can use my Decades view:
1960s
1960s\1965
1960s\1965\Beatles
1960s\1965\Beatles\Norwegian Wood

Or my Albums view:
R
R\Rubber Soul\Norwegian Wood

Or my Titles view:
N
N\Norwegian Wood

Etc, etc, etc, almost anything is possible, with the right tags in place. The above are not alternative ways to organize files, they all exist at the same time as virtual structures. Contrast with relying on physical folders\files, where only ONE organization is possible.

In each database record, MC stores a link to the physical media file (or files, because it can link to the main media, plus a related image/cover art, plus related extra files). Again, no right or wrong, so I do mine simply. My physical files are in a folder called Music, then subfolders based on Artist name first letter,, A, B, C, etc. That's it. After many years I haven't found a need to make the physical storage more complex. I use Rename to put files into this arrangement, AND to give each file a consistent name derived from certain tags, so they all live happily together.

Thanks to MC's expression language, tag manipulation can lead to more ways to organize. Years ago, desiring a Decades view of my music, I stored a Decades value tag for each track, AND I also tagged each track with its Year of original release. But putting in the right Decade tag for each track was a pain. So I came up with an expression that lets me derive the Decade from the Year, allowing the same Decades view but without the Decades tags, which I then deleted. The view dynamically determines and shows all tracks in Decades without actually storing that data as tags. The flipside, if I ever want to recreate the Decades tags it will be simple based on the Year values.

Keep in mind that MC already has a variety of Standard tags that are common among many media player/manager systems. And it has a bunch of suggested additional tags that might be unique to MC. PLUS, the coolest feature, you can create custom tags (database fields) as desired, to help you tag as precisely as desired. I have a bunch in my Music library.

Sorry to be long-winded but for me, the database aspect of MC is the source of its power.

[pepar]

Sorry to be long-winded but for me, the database aspect of MC is the source of its power.

Long, but not too long.  It was a great read that drove it all home for me.  So much so that I can move on to the next item I need to research!

Jeff