Print

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

[alexppg]

When I go to the PANE view I almost see my library the way I like, with the exception that albums are not listed alphabetically.   I played with many parameters but have not been able to crack the way to do this.

As you can see in the screenshot I have artist = Beethoven but the albums Quartet String are not listed numerically...

the result I would like is that songs are grouped in an album with its art (the way it is) but in the order of Artist + Album.

[wer]

Sorting is accomplished by clicking on the column headers, or by using the sort by menu on the tab. You can add more columns (to sort by them) by right clicking on he column header.

You should read these:
https://wiki.jriver.com/index.php/Sort_the_Content_Pane
https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=108255.0

Then if you google "jriver sort" you will see all the threads where similar questions have been asked and you can get lots of good tips.

[alexppg]

If I do as suggested I only change the Sort inside the group and not sort the groups.

Let me ask differently... If I want my groups to be by ALBUM but these should be listed alphabetically by ARTIST+ALBUM how do I do this?

The only thing I see that almost does it, it's under panes--> group by --> more (sort groups a-z) --> ARTIST - ALBUM (YEAR).

However with this, if the year of the songs are different it no longer groups them in the same album.   Is there a way to just do by ARTIST - ALBUM.

[wer]

First, I'll comment that if your YEAR tag (which is based on the DATE tag) is different amongst tracks of the same album, that is something of a mistake, and results in the problem you're having.  The best practice is to use the DATE field to hold the date of the album's release. Therefore, if tracks are on the same album, they by definition have the same year of release.  You can use additional (or custom) fields to hold date of recording, or date of first release (there is the standard "Date (release)" field for this), or any other date/year that you like, so as to preserve this info for compilation or greatest hits albums.

Albums do not really have their own existence in MC: they are just a collection of individual tracks that are grouped together.  So if you want to talk about a date for an "album", there MUST be a date field that all the tracks of that album share in common, with the same value for each track. This is fundamental, so you must accept it or give up being able to sort albums by date.  If all the files in the album do not have a common date/year value (in some field at least) then it is impossible to say that there is "one date or year" for the album. And MC is showing you now what happens in that case, and you don't like it.  I strongly urge you to standardize the DATE field, as there is another built-in field "Year - Album" that depends on this.

Although I gave you a best practice for the DATE field, you are not constrained. You could put that information into some other field if you wish. You could call it "Year (Album Release)" or "Alex's Special Date for Album Sorting".

Once you have settled on what field is going to hold your standardized date/year of release for an album, you can sort by that, no matter what field it is.

I'll mention you will probably also run into problems if you are trying to sort by [Artist].  Sorting by [Album Artist] or [Album Artist (Auto)] will produce much better results.  Look at this post for a discussion of the issues with the Artist field: https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php/topic,127191.msg882060.html#msg882060   (or this post:  https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php/topic,127215.msg882301.html#msg882301 )  So when you find your albums are broken apart because of differing Artist values just like they are being broken up by differing Year values, you will know to look at that thread and do some thinking.

JRiver can sort your music in any way you can think of. That is it's strength.  If you want to use the prebuilt ARTIST - ALBUM (YEAR) sort method you mentioned, standardize your DATE field. 

EDIT: Skip this next bit, because I misremembered that one used a custom sort here, but it's actually a calculated field; refer to my later post.

But if one of the prebuilt sorting options does not suit you, you can create a custom sort method.

Creating and using a custom sort method for grouping albums is a two-step process.

First, go to that "Sort Inside Groups By" (Or "Sort by") menu, and select Custom.
Here, you can build a custom sorting profile, using any fields that exist, including your custom fields.  Add the fields in the order you want. For example:
Album Artist
Year - Album

Once you have that set in the dialog, click the Preset button, and select Save.  Give the preset a name, and you have created a new sorting preset.

Now you can go back to the "Group By" menu, and select the new sorting preset you just created; you'll find it under More...

So you have a couple options: fix your DATE tags to comport with standards, and the existing sort method will produce the results you want;  OR, standardize your album date into another field, and create and use a custom sort method using that field, as described above below.

Does this make sense?

[RoderickGI]

Hey Will, I encourage you to build the Panes View that Alex is trying to create. It just doesn't work. At least, not when "All Artists" and "All Albums" are selected.

Also, follow your instructions as written, and you will find some issues. Specifically the Sort Preset created doesn't exist under the "Group By > More" menu. It does exist under the "Sort Inside Groups By" and "Columns > Sorting" menus though.

This kind of sorting requirement has always been an issue for me. It is why I asked for some changes to make the sorting being used more visible to the user. But that was never delivered completely, because when you select "Default" as the sort, the sort used in not shown anywhere. So sorting is still an issue.

In the case of this Panes View, MC says it is sorting by [Album Artist (auto)]¹ then [Album] for me, but it is sorting by [Album] actually, unless I first select an Artist from the first column in the top Pane. It even mucks up the [Disc #] sort, even when I explicitly specify a sort Preset of [Album Artist (auto)][Album][Disc #][Track #], all ascending, it sorts the [Disc #] in descending order.

If you build a Categories View of the same type you will see other sorting anomalies.

If you can work out how to make MC do what it is told, and indicating it is doing, that would be great.

1. I am using [Album Artist (auto)] rather than [Album] or [Album Artist], but the process is the same, though the waters get muddied a bit by the (Multiple Artists) grouping. Also, to add to the confusion, when I select [Album Artist (auto)] as the first field in the View definition, MC shows the column heading in the Panes View as "Artist", rather than using the field name.

[wer]

I'll take another look, but some sort presets I have made show under the group by menu...

Edit: Ah, it seems I have some custom fields that have the same name as some custom sort methods. It's the custom fields that show on the group by menu, not the sort methods.  Sorry for that confusion. I set off the bad part in my previous post.  (The trick is to use a custom calculated field to sort, not a custom sort preset; I'll explain below.)

So it seems if you select Group By "Album" it actually sorts by Album Artist then Year then Album.  But this is only if you select the "Album" entry that appears directly on the Group By menu.

If you select Group By->More->Album  THEN it sorts all albums alphabetically, regardless of artist or date.

That's a bit of a confusing ambiguous use of the term Album by MC I think...

So Rod, to your point, Group By will only sort by fields, but you can build a semi-custom sort into a field by using calculated data.  And the Group sorting is totally separate from, and supersedes, the column sorting that you're looking at.  You see what I mean?



So Alex, to get what you want, here's what I did:

Create a user defined field named "Album Artist - Album" of type Calculated Data. The definition is:
[Album Artist] - [Album]

Now in your view, Select Group By->More->Album Artist - Album

Your albums will be sorted/grouped by Album Artist, and then by Album name, in alphabetical order.  If you don't like using the [Album Artist] field, you can use [Album Artist (auto)]

That will get you the result you're after, and you don't need a custom sort method, as the sort is inherent in the calculated data.  If you want your sorting to include Year, you can build that into the calculated data too, but it still requires you standardize your date somehow, as I said before.

[wer]

So as a demonstration:

The first picture is Group By->Album.
You can see it is sorted by Album Artist, then Year, Then Album

Second picture is Group By->More->Album Artist - Album    (a custom field)
You can see it sorts by Album Artist, then Album alphabetically.

This sorting is not affected in any way by the filters you have selected in the panes above.

[RoderickGI]

Yeah, a custom field would make a difference. But having to create a custom field just for a sort, when there are already Preset Sorts that can be custom created, seems like more work than it should be.

I thought about creating a video to show just how non-intuitive sorting is in these situations, but I'm not sure it's worth it. The functionality seems to be there now to do what I expect, but the hardcoded sorts used in Views override the sorts I try to apply, and how MC is sorting just isn't shown. You really have to go looking for it, as you did with the "Group By->Album", which non-intuitively sorts by Album Artist, then Year, then Album (I haven't checked that in my Library, as I trust you.  )

Must get on to other things though. So that's all for now.

[wer]

If you can work out how to make MC do what it is told, and indicating it is doing, that would be great.

Done.

And yet still you're giving me "seems like more work than it should be."  You're just never satisfied!   

[RoderickGI]

Nope. Never!