Print

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

[darichman]

Other discussion threads:
   Discussion: Interface, Views & Tagging (http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=45758.0)
   Discussion: Photo Handling (http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=45759.0)
   Discussion: Classical Music (http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=45824.0)

Classical music is different from “Popular” music for a number of reasons.
The default fields (artist, album, year) simply don't cut it as:
   - each piece will have multiple artists (composer, conductor, performer, arranger, orchestra/ensemble)
   - tracks will belong to a physical album (eg Best of Bach) and to a work (eg Brandenburg Concertos) so a single album tag won't suffice...
   - there can be a multitude of dates for the same piece (date written, date performed, date the album was released)

So when we deal with classical music, there’s a few things we need to consider.
Please note that this is of course only one way of doing it! Everyone has different tastes and different needs, so it's important to fiddle around and find what's best for you...

STEP 1: DEFINING YOUR GENRES
First of all, we need to decide on a system of genres. “Classical” is very non-descriptive, and if you have a large classical collection, a single genre like this to cover hundreds of years of classical styles and movements is like setting the [Genre] field of all your modern music to “Popular”
This will be different depending on your individual tastes. Personally, I organise all of my music (classical & popular) by three levels of genre: [Genre 1], [Genre 2] & [Genre 3]. All are custom, list-type fields. I do not use the standard [Genre] field.

[Genre 1] = the uppermost level of organisation. For classical music, I use the period it was written in
    Middle Ages
    Renaissance
    Classical
    Baroque
    Romantic
    20th Century   


[Genre 2] = major styles of music within each period
     Avant-Garde
     Ballet
     Band Music
     Chamber Music
     Choral Music
     Concerto
     Keyboard Music
     Opera
     Orchestral Music
     Symphony
     Vocal Music

[Genre 3] = specific styles of music
      Too many to list them all, but: Concerto, Symphony, Prelude, Fugue, Waltz etc

I try to use information from cduniverse or AMG where available

[darichman]

STEP 2: SETTING UP YOUR FIELDS
Classical music has a multitude of contributors to a single piece of music. MC has many standard fields (some of which we’ll use), but it is necessary that we set up some of our own fields to catalog this data. To add a custom field: Tools - Options - Library & Folders - User Library Fields - Add Field
Here is a list of all the fields I (try to!) fill in when tagging classical music:

Eg. Bach's: Brandenburg Concerto No.1 BWV 1046 in F Major I. Allegro

[Default Field]
[Custom Field]

[Composer] = Bach, Johann Sebastian
[Artist] = Johann Sebastian Bach
[Album] = Brandenburg Concertos 1-6 (ie the CD album purchased)
[Performer] = Emanuel Hurwitz (Violin); Peter Graeme (Oboe); Ifor James (French Horn); Anthony Randall (French Horn)
[Conductor] = Benjamin Britten
[Band] = English Chamber Orchestra (ie the orchestra or ensemble)

[Genre 1] = Baroque
[Genre 2] = Chamber Music
[Genre 3] = Concerto

[Works 1] = Concertos and Orchestral Suites
[Works 2] = Brandenburg Concertos

[Classical: Title] = Brandenburg Concerto No.1
[Classical: Name] = -- (ie common name of piece: not used for this piece)
[Classical: Opus] = BWV 1046
[Classical: Number] = -- (used for opus parts: eg Op. 7 No. 4 not used for this piece)
[Classical: Movement] = I. Allegro
[Key] = F Major
[Classical: Piece] = Calculated expression to format above info (see below)

[Date Written] = 1721
[Date Recorded] = 1995
[Date Released] = 1995

Note – You can put what you want into the artist field, as all the specific artist info (conductor, composer, performer etc) is safely in the respective field

[darichman]

STEP 3: DISPLAYING YOUR WORK
As seen in the screenshot, you can then create view schemes  to view the information in pretty much any way you want. I won’t go into how to create view schemes, as the wiki covers that info pretty well...

I also put together an expression (as a new field: "Piece") based on the above fields, which formats the output based on which fields are filled... ie Brandenburg Concerto No.1 BWV 1046 in F Major I. Allegro

Create a new field – I called it [Classical: Piece] and set field type to “Calculated”
Copy the expression below into field (yes it’s a long one!)

Code: [Select]

if(IsEmpty([Classical: Title]), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Opus]), if(IsEmpty([Key]), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Movement]), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), , /(“[Classical: Name]”/)), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Movement], [Classical: Movement] /(“[Classical: Name]”/))), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Movement]), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), , /(“[Classical: Name]”/) in [Key]), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Movement] in [Key], [Classical: Movement] in [Key] /(“[Classical: Name]”/)))), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Number]), if(IsEmpty([Key]), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Movement]), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Opus], [Classical: Opus] /(“[Classical: Name]”/)), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Opus] [Classical: Movement], [Classical: Opus] [Classical: Movement] /(“[Classical: Name]”/))), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Movement]), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Opus] in [Key], [Classical: Opus] in [Key] /(“[Classical: Name]”/)), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Opus] in [Key] [Classical: Movement], [Classical: Opus] in [Key] [Classical: Movement] /(“[Classical: Name]”/)))), if(isequal([Classical: Number],--,1), if(IsEmpty([Key]), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Movement]), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Opus], [Classical: Opus] /(“[Classical: Name]”/)), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Opus] [Classical: Movement], [Classical: Opus] [Classical: Movement] /(“[Classical: Name]”/))), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Movement]), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Opus] in [Key], [Classical: Opus] in [Key] /(“[Classical: Name]”/)), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Opus] in [Key] [Classical: Movement], [Classical: Opus] in [Key] [Classical: Movement] /(“[Classical: Name]”/)))), if(IsEmpty([Key]), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Movement]), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Opus] No. [Classical: Number], [Classical: Opus] No. [Classical: Number] /(“[Classical: Name]”/)), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Opus] No. [Classical: Number] [Classical: Movement], [Classical: Opus] No. [Classical: Number] [Classical: Movement] /(“[Classical: Name]”/))), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Movement]), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Opus] No. [Classical: Number] in [Key], [Classical: Opus] No. [Classical: Number] in [Key] /(“[Classical: Name]”/)), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Opus] No. [Classical: Number] in [Key] [Classical: Movement], [Classical: Opus] No. [Classical: Number] in [Key] [Classical: Movement] /(“[Classical: Name]”/))))))), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Opus]), if(IsEmpty([Key]), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Movement]), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Title], [Classical: Title] /(“[Classical: Name]”/)), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Title] [Classical: Movement], [Classical: Title] [Classical: Movement] /(“[Classical: Name]”/))), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Movement]), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Title], [Classical: Title] /(“[Classical: Name]”/) in [Key]), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Title] [Classical: Movement] in [Key], [Classical: Title] [Classical: Movement] in [Key] /(“[Classical: Name]”/)))), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Number]), if(IsEmpty([Key]), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Movement]), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Title] [Classical: Opus], [Classical: Title] [Classical: Opus] /(“[Classical: Name]”/)), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Title] [Classical: Opus] [Classical: Movement], [Classical: Title] [Classical: Opus] [Classical: Movement] /(“[Classical: Name]”/))), if(IsEmpty([Key]), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Movement]), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Title] [Classical: Opus], [Classical: Title] [Classical: Opus] /(“[Classical: Name]”/)), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Title] [Classical: Opus] [Classical: Movement], [Classical: Title] [Classical: Opus] [Classical: Movement] /(“[Classical: Name]”/))), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Movement]), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Title] in [Key] [Classical: Opus], [Classical: Title] in [Key] [Classical: Opus] /(“[Classical: Name]”/)), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Title] in [Key] [Classical: Opus] [Classical: Movement], [Classical: Title] in [Key] [Classical: Opus] [Classical: Movement] /(“[Classical: Name]”/))))), if(isequal([Classical: Number],--,1), if(IsEmpty([Key]), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Movement]), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Title] [Classical: Opus], [Classical: Title] [Classical: Opus] /(“[Classical: Name]”/)), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Title] [Classical: Opus] [Classical: Movement], [Classical: Title] [Classical: Opus] [Classical: Movement] /(“[Classical: Name]”/))), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Movement]), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Title] in [Key] [Classical: Opus], [Classical: Title] in [Key] [Classical: Opus] /(“[Classical: Name]”/)), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Title] in [Key] [Classical: Opus] [Classical: Movement], [Classical: Title] in [Key] [Classical: Opus] [Classical: Movement] /(“[Classical: Name]”/)))), if(IsEmpty([Key]), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Movement]), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Title] [Classical: Opus] No. [Classical: Number], [Classical: Title] [Classical: Opus] No. [Classical: Number] /(“[Classical: Name]”/)), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Title] [Classical: Opus] No. [Classical: Number] [Classical: Movement], [Classical: Title] [Classical: Opus] No. [Classical: Number] [Classical: Movement] /(“[Classical: Name]”/))), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Movement]), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Title] [Classical: Opus] No. [Classical: Number] in [Key], [Classical: Title] [Classical: Opus] No. [Classical: Number] in [Key] /(“[Classical: Name]”/)), if(IsEmpty([Classical: Name]), [Classical: Title] [Classical: Opus] No. [Classical: Number] in [Key] [Classical: Movement], [Classical: Title] [Classical: Opus] No. [Classical: Number] in [Key] [Classical: Movement] /(“[Classical: Name]”/))))))))
Save the field and you’re done
You can then copy this field to the [Name] field if you wish, or use it in rename file from properties.

That way you can fill out whichever fields you've got the information for, and still get a nice clean display to browse your classical music...


Click to enlarge.

[darichman]

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

There has been some talk of giving YADB an overhaul to properly handle classical music.

In my opinion, for this to happen, YADB would need to be split into two separate databases: one for classical music and one for popular music, as the search and tagging requirements are significantly different between the two.

A search interface would probably have to be developed, where the user could select which fields are to be searched (eg composer, work etc) and which fields are to be filled.

In order for this to happen, MC would also need to make some standard fields for classical music (like some of those described above). The users of MC would need to agree on what’s included and what they’re called.

[Listener]

I think that Darichman's posts describe one way of tagging classical music.  There is no need to force everyone to use the genres he suggests.

MC 12 is almost unique in providing the features you need to rip, tag and play classical music in a sensible way. 

1. You can use Composer, Conductor and Band/Orchestra tags with the same power as the Album, Artist and (track) Name tags other tools support.  You can also use database fields you define.  You ndon't have to stuff the Composer name into the Album, Artist or Name tags.

2. You can tag your files as you want them when you rip CDs or when you import files.  You can also edit all the tags and database fields at any time in MC 12.

3. You can set up View Schemes with filter criteria and panes to support browsing the way you want it.

MC 12 is as close to heaven as you are going to get for classical music.  What's missing?

- No MC documentation explains how to use these marvelous features to organize a classical music library in a sensible way.
The MC 12 manual and/or the Wiki needs some good material explaining concepts and then providing some step-by-step now-tos.

- The YADB database isn't much use for classical music.  For classical music, I just typed my own tag values.  MC 12 has lots of nice tag editing features that make it pretty fast and nearly routine but manual tag value entry should not be necessary.  There are several sticking points:

a. The current YADB doesn't have a separate Composer field.  A lot of work will be required to get this information in place.

b. The current YADB doesn't have a consistent approach for storing the Composer name.  Sometimes it is stored in the Artist tag.  Sometimes it is stored in the Album field along with the work name.  (The performers name is not stored in a consistent way.) A lot of work would be needed to remove the Composer name from these other fields and to put the performer name and the work name in consistent places.

c. Consistent spelling and order for Composer, performer, work name and movement will be necessary.

d. Since portable players don't provide good support for the Composer tag, some way will be required to map the new tag values to tags that your favorite portable player can use.

e. Some users have already bent themselves into pretzels using just the Album, Artist and (track) Name tags.  You have to continue accommodate them.

Most YADB entries probably have both the Composer name and the performer name somewhere in the standard  set of tags.  With tables of common composer name and performer names, you might be able to write some code that rearranges the contents (and standardizes spelling.) It would not be perfect but it would provide a start.

Sorry, Darichman.  I'm stuck on the basics of just being able to find Beethoven's Symphony No. 1  performed by George Szell and the Cleveland Orchestra in a library of over 2000 CDs.  I counted 14 performances of that work in my library.  I use a Sun_genre tag like your tag 2 to keep the list of works by a single composer.  (Haydn wrote over 100 symphonies, a lot of string quartets and a lot of trios.  I just want to shorten the list I have to browse.)

Bill

[flac.rules]

I have done it almost the same way you do it for some years with a couple of diffrences

1. I don't have any more genres than "classical"
2. I usually try to put the most important performer in the title of the album, as I want it to be pretty understandable when just using "basic tags" also, so in you expample it would be something like. "Brandenburg Concertos 1-6 (English Chamber Orchestra feat. conductor: Benjamin Britten)"

[John Gateley]

Thanks for all the suggestions.

What I have been considering is a separate database. Lookup would access both, returning the best match, but submission would be to one or the other.

Design and implementation is a fairly large task...

j

[darichman]

Thanks for all the suggestions.

What I have been considering is a separate database. Lookup would access both, returning the best match, but submission would be to one or the other.

Design and implementation is a fairly large task...

Can only imagine...
Take your time... classical music isn't going anywhere

[ThoBar]

Can only imagine...
Take your time... classical music isn't going anywhere

... I hope it's still going forward at least ;-)

[Frobozz]

I don't know how those of you with big classical collections managed to get everything ripped and tagged.  It takes a lot of time.  I'm in the middle of ripping my classical CDs.  I have about 200 classical CDs and have about 40 to go till I'm done.  It's a project that has stretched on for months.

I'm going to have to digest some of those ideas for tagging and organization.  Once I get everything ripped and the basic tags and the cover art, I'm going to have to go through and organize and fix things that are inconsistent.

My basic tagging has been to put the composers last name in the Artist field.  That seems to make the most sense for interoperability with other media players and with portables.  All players support the Artist field and can sort or organize by artist.  Makes it convenient for browsing by composer in other players.

The full name of the composer goes in the composer field.

Performers have gone into the Conductor tag.  I'll put the conductor and orchestra there and/or soloists or primary performers there.

The Name tag gets filled with a big long string of text giving the name of the work and the movement, etc.  It makes for a bit of a mess.  I'll have to clean that up later.

What's a good way for dividing up the whole audio library amongst rock, jazz, classical, etc. to make it easy and convenient to jump from one to the next?

What I have right now is a filed called mylibrary that contains a list: rock;jazz;classical;other
Then I have various view schemes that display just rock or just classical or just jazz or just other.  That works, but I'm open to other ideas for other methods.  I'm still a newbie to the ways of Media Center.

[darichman]

I don't know how those of you with big classical collections managed to get everything ripped and tagged.  It takes a lot of time.  I'm in the middle of ripping my classical CDs.  I have about 200 classical CDs and have about 40 to go till I'm done.  It's a project that has stretched on for months.

Honestly I think it's something you never really finish... you fill in bits and pieces as much as you can here and there, but in the end you just have to settle for what you're happy with in the database. I didn't rip all the music I have myself but I did most of the tagging, and I'm nowhere near finished...

What's a good way for dividing up the whole audio library amongst rock, jazz, classical, etc. to make it easy and convenient to jump from one to the next?

There's no perfect way... here's a screenshot of how I do it, but depending on what you have and how you want to view it, it may not suit...

As you've done, I set up lots of view schemes with various filters based mainly on the genres fields mentioned above to filter the different styles of music, and then select appropriate panes to find those individual tracks... Pretty much all of my genres are based off of AMG's classifications (not perfect, but it is a standard at least to work from)

The alternative is to have all your music in view schemes which don't filter by genres, and to filter by genre through the panes instead... whatever works best for you.

Music

Click to enlarge.

Edit: Woops I just realised I should have expanded the music part of the tree, so that screen probably won't help you that much. Will repost if I get around to it

[BillT]

I'm stuck on the basics of just being able to find Beethoven's Symphony No. 1  performed by George Szell and the Cleveland Orchestra in a library of over 2000 CDs.  I counted 14 performances of that work in my library.  I use a Sun_genre tag like your tag 2 to keep the list of works by a single composer.  (Haydn wrote over 100 symphonies, a lot of string quartets and a lot of trios.  I just want to shorten the list I have to browse.)

Bill

My scheme for classical is pretty similar to Darichmans, with 2 subsidiary genres for better categorisation, but I've added a custom field called work, and my composer names are stored in the form "Britten, Benjamin". Then I've made a view scheme which selects composer (grouped), work and band. This lets you  get to any specific performance of a given work with relatively few mouse clicks, and it works well in theatre view and with Music Lobby.

[Listener]

I don't know how those of you with big classical collections managed to get everything ripped and tagged.  It takes a lot of time.  I'm in the middle of ripping my classical CDs.  I have about 200 classical CDs and have about 40 to go till I'm done.  It's a project that has stretched on for months.

Ripping and tagging about 2000 CDs took me between 3 and 4 months.

My basic tagging has been to put the composers last name in the Artist field.  That seems to make the most sense for interoperability with other media players and with portables.  All players support the Artist field and can sort or organize by artist.  Makes it convenient for browsing by composer in other players.

You have to make a basic choice about classical music.  Do you conform to the limits of the majority of players out there?  Or do you choose the s/w player and portable player that permits a better solution?  Once you make that choice you can choose the appropriate tagging scheme.

I didn't want to settle for an LCD solution.  Flac and MC 11/12 let me do what I wanted without compromise.  When I got around to buying a portable player a couple of months ago, I researched the alternatives.  Now, I have an 80 GB iPod loaded with a subset of my music was the best choice for me.  A few compromises were necessary:

- I make MP3 copies of everything to be stored on the iPod.

- I selected one or two performances of each work for the iPod.  This allowed me to fit everything.  It also keeps the lists I'm browsing small enough to be manageable on the small iPod screen.

- For a work with several movements in separate music files, I combined all the movements into a single file.  (MC 12 didn't seem to provide a command for doing this so I used Foobar.)  This reduces the number of files and makes it easier to select works to play.  It also allows me to live with the iPod's limitations.  And gaps or gapless between movements are handled corectly.

- I tagged the files slightly differently than in my PC based Flac files.  Composer = Composer, Album = Work name, Artist = Performer(s) and (track) Name = Composer_Work_Artist = Song on the iPod.

- I use the following iPod browse sequence: Composer/Album/Song.  For the last step, I'm usually picking from one or two different performances.  I can also use the Artist/Album/Song browse sequence.

I make do some tagging variations for cases where there are a lot of small works on a type such as Chopin mazurkas.  (Album = Mazurkas_Artist, Song = specific mazurka name.)

Since hard disk iPods are cheaper than most alternatives, it isn't a hardship.

You have a choice.  Conform yourself to other people's bad designs or find a better way.  Takes some work but it's worthwhile.

Bill

[darichman]

You have to make a basic choice about classical music.  Do you conform to the limits of the majority of players out there?  Or do you choose the s/w player and portable player that permits a better solution?  Once you make that choice you can choose the appropriate tagging scheme.

Now that's somewhere I haven't even been yet... figuring out a good way to sync what you want to a portable player and still any relevant info you want.
Good advice!

[Frobozz]

You have to make a basic choice about classical music.  Do you conform to the limits of the majority of players out there?  Or do you choose the s/w player and portable player that permits a better solution?  Once you make that choice you can choose the appropriate tagging scheme.

True.  I intentionally went with a LCD and KISS approach.  In part to have a tagging system that isn't tied too closely to custom tags in Media Center.  In part because I can get a little too engrossed in filling out tagging details and relations if I let myself.  So I made a conscious decision at the start that I was going to with a LCD and KISS approach.

I am mostly following the classical style guide at MusicBrainz for track, title, and format while trying to keep things within the standard MP3 tags.  I diverge from the style guide in places.  For example, I use "No.5" or "Op.125" (no space after the period) because that makes searching easier.  It is easier to search on "No.5" than "No. 5" with most search engines. 

I'm able to find what I want using my system.  And my library is small enough that I can also browse and find what I want as well.  Once I finish the ripping I'm going to go back and add Genre1 and Genre2 fields or something similar like darichman suggests.  That will make searching and browsing even easier, but those tags would be MC specific custom tags.

[Listener]

True.  I intentionally went with a LCD and KISS approach.  In part to have a tagging system that isn't tied too closely to custom tags in Media Center.  In part because I can get a little too engrossed in filling out tagging details and relations if I let myself.  So I made a conscious decision at the start that I was going to with a LCD and KISS approach.

Your choice.  I don't think that my approach is any harder.  You just have to figure out what you want and how to accomplish it before you start.  I spend several weeks playing with players and tagging approaches on a small library before I plunged in on my actual library. 

I am mostly following the classical style guide at MusicBrainz for track, title, and format while trying to keep things within the standard MP3 tags.   

I found Musicbrainz after I had seen just how bad CDDB and FreeDB were for classical music.  I had high hopes. It was a huge disappointment!  They did all that work and the result is no better than FreeDB for classical music.  Music brain dead.

For example, I use "No.5" or "Op.125" (no space after the period) because that makes searching easier.  It is easier to search on "No.5" than "No. 5" with most search engines. 

What search engines are you using to find your music files by tags?

You seem to value keeping the possibility of using any s/w player or any portable player.  If I am unable to use MC 12, I'll probably write my own s/w player. If the iPod is no longer a possibility, I'll go with a portable player that lets me browse a hierarchy of folders.  I see no point in living with unsatisfactory compromises in the meantime.

Bill

[Frobozz]

What search engines are you using to find your music files by tags?

Search features in other media players, or even the search feature built in Vista (it can search some MP3 tags).

You seem to value keeping the possibility of using any s/w player or any portable player.

Yes, perhaps unnecessarily so.  Keeping the tags friendly for portable players was the main concern.

I can always expand my tagging later to take better advantage of Media Center's features. 

It might be useful to have a suggested classical music tagging style guild in the wiki.  A style guide that is friendly and consistent to however it is that YADB has (or will) handle classical music tags.  Something to get more people on the same page with tagging in YADB.

I can always change and adapt to a suggested style for tags in YADB.

[ThoBar]

I've taken almost exactly the opposite approach to Fobozz, making my tagging scheme as detailed as possible (similar to darichman). My assumption is that if I want to resort to standard tags, MC lets me use expressions to build a tag how it needs to be for that field (eg, Artist would use the expression [Artists], [Composer], [Conductor], [Orchestra]).

As an aside, I'd *really* like JRiver to unlock the 'standard' fields for editing. This would be especially helpful for the situation I have just described, as it would enable me to set the std fields to a calculated field to achieve what I've described automatically, rather than being a manual process. TBH, I find the std fields almost useless quite often as they are single item fields (which is also no good for the nested keyword feature - if that ever gets expanded ) and as I've said can not be set to be calculated fields.

[darichman]

As an aside, I'd *really* like JRiver to unlock the 'standard' fields for editing.

A big fat giant "here here!" from me on this one...
I'd settle for being able to set the artist field as a "list"

[eric999]

I just discovered, downloaded, and am trying to see if MC 12 makes it worth my while to rip and tag several thousand CD's worth of classical music. The process of attempting to use itunes to do this a year or so ago is still a painful memory. I searched these forums and have attempted to use darichman's method as outlined in this thread.

I'm having trouble with the [Classical: Piece] field and getting it to use the expression darichman included in his post to pull together the various name fields and display them properly. I copied and pasted the expression from this thread and find that it sometimes works correctly, and sometimes doesn't (not including the key or number, etc... in it's output).

I guess my first question is whether it's possible to somehow share the tag, view and other aspects of setup for MC12 for use with classical music. I'm not much of a tech person and, if others have setup MC12 for use with classical music and are willing to share that setup, is it possible to somehow provide the customizations that have been created to others to install themselves?

If not, does anyone have any suggestions as to where to start to try and fix the issues I'm having with the [Classical: Piece] expression not working consistently.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. 

Eric

[Listener]

I guess my first question is whether it's possible to somehow share the tag, view and other aspects of setup for MC12 for use with classical music. I'm not much of a tech person and, if others have setup MC12 for use with classical music and are willing to share that setup, is it possible to somehow provide the customizations that have been created to others to install themselves?

If not, does anyone have any suggestions as to where to start to try and fix the issues I'm having with the [Classical: Piece] expression not working consistently.

This thread has good info.  Search for other threads about classical music.  In addition to searching for 'classical', search for posts by people who posted to this thread.

You need to decide what tag information you will need.  Darichman clearly has different needs than I do.  I was focused on the way I would browse classical music.  Screen real estate is limited.  I asked myself some questions

Am I going to use panes with text lists of tag values of album covers to browse?  (panes with tag value lists)

How many panes do I have room for across the screen?  (5 at most)

What tags or expressions do I need to find music to be played?  (Sub_genre, Composer, Work name, Artist, sometimes version)

How do I want to format these fields?
   Composer - last name only if that is unique.  If not, last name, first name
   Work name - category then something to identify the specific work  It varies with Composer and type of work.
       For Mozart, sometimes I use No. 20 and sometimes I use a K. number.
       (e.g. Concerto, Piano No. 20 or Serenade, K320 'Posthorn')
   Artist - all the performers I need to identify the performance - last name first with underscores separating performers
   Sub_genre - type of work (I use this to shorten list of works by composers such as Haydn.)
   Name - movement number and name only - 1 Allegro  (I had to enter lots of these so I kept it short.
   
The answers to those questions told me what tags I wanted and how I would use them. When I rip a classical CD, I add the following tags:

Composer (e.g. Haydn)
Album and Work name = enough to identify it  (e.g. Symphony No. 53 'La Imperiale')
Artist = concatenated performers (e.g. Fischer, Adam_Austro-Hungarian Haydn Orchestra)
Name = movement ( e.g. 3 - menuetto)
genre (e.g. Classical)
sub-genre  (e.g. orchestral / Concerto, Piano / Chamber / Sonata, Piano )
Version = performance reissue version( e.g. mono/stereo or CBS / Essential classics )
Date = date on Cd usually
Track number is filled out automatically

Anything else I add later.  MC has great facilities for editing tags later so filling out other tags can be pretty quick and painless.

Do you have to have the [Classical:period} field working right away?  Or can you implement it later and let MC fill it out then?

MC has lots of nice features that make entering tag info fast and nearly error free when you rip Cds.  It will take time to ripand tag 2000 CDs worth of files but it was certainly worthwhile for me.

Try things out for a small number of files.  See what fits your needs. Then take the plunge on your CD library.

Bill

[221bBS]

I think this thread should be pinned to the top of the board or the info moved to the wiki. I found the info on this page to be of great help to me when I was trying to figure out how I was going to organize my classical music.

[globetrotters1]

I posted some months ago a question here on this forum regarding the structuring of classical music within a combined MC database. Got no bigger response then. Some comments though. But my impression was that no one took me really for serious with my problem as it was "just a music library question". The funniest comment was that I won't need to care about all that in the ripping stage, I could do all the tagging and such in a later stage. Which (as I could find out on a daily base) is totally wrong! You have to do it AT ONCE, everything else is just not manageable!

Well, then started some months ago to rip my collection and came up (as a result of the music import and upcoming problem solving) with a similar structure. My structure reads (within only the classical music section)

1) Music era (from Medieval to 20th Century - 7 entries)
2) Type (Orchestral, Sacred, Secular etc - 6 entries)
3) Subtype (Symphony, Sonata, etc pp - approx 30 entries, growing)
4) Instrument (Violin, Voice, etc pp - the main instrument - 20 entries)
5) Solo Performer(s)

For the Band (=Orchestra), the Composer, the Conductor and all the rest I use the standard fields (which I leave empty within the modern music section)

Within the classical music pane (a custom view I created) I show hierarchically

1) Classical Music Era
2) Artist (can be composer, can be performer)
3) Type
4) Subtype
5) Instrument
6) Year - Album

Works very well for me and especially the fact that I can choose also the main instrument according to my actual mood is very rewarding. So I can sit down and decide that I want to listen to a violin concerto of a certain music era and within a few clicks everything is there

[Listener]

globetrotters 1,

Your memory seems to be faulty.

> I posted some months ago a question here on this forum regarding the structuring of classical music
> within a combined MC database. Got no bigger response then. Some comments though.

I searched and found this thread: "Help/Hints Needed: Modern And Classical Music "
that you started.

The very first reply answered your question: same library for both with different view schemes for different kinds of music.

Later in the post you replied

" thanks guys for your hints, especially the column layout helps!  appreciated!"

> The funniest comment was that I won't need to care about all that in the ripping stage,
> I could do all the tagging and such in a later stage. Which (as I could find out on a daily base)
> is totally wrong! You have to do it AT ONCE, everything else is just not manageable!

I didn't see a comment like that.  Alex B commented

"I wouldn't worry too much about the view schemes configuration on ripping stage. 
You can do that later. You could just add a couple of columns to your ripping details view
and fill some additional information before putting the CD box away."

Alex B went on to show the columns he uses in the devices view when he rips a CD.

I think you got good advice then from a number of people.

Bill

[globetrotters1]

listener,

I'm sorry if you understood it as an offense, never intended that - just understood it the way I described it

And once again I have to say: we speak different languages or grew up with different languages, and that can always lead to these kind of misunderstandings - for your information: I originally talk German and in daily life Spanish... a source of misunderstandings indeed

I fought for weeks with the best DB setup for my classical music collection. And the more CDs I ripped the more problems I had to solve. Re-adjusting the data in a later stage was more and more difficult the broader the set of criteria got (hope you understand what I mean with that)

Anyway, sorry for any misunderstanding and I'm very happy that someone started this discussion thread, because I really think that a bigger classical music collection generates a lot more problems than the 'modern' music - and it would be cool to have a general guideline for those who do a similar tedious job (as we do) in the future

No intention for putting down any kind of remarks or help attempts here, that's what this forum is for

Peace
Martin

[JimH]

I've added a link to this thread from a new topic called "Classical Music" in the Wiki.  Thanks for all of the details.

globetrotter, with respect to ideas that don't translate well from one language to another, please allow me to comment on part of your post above.  Perhaps you may find it useful.

I posted some months ago a question here on this forum regarding the structuring of classical music within a combined MC database. Got no bigger response then. Some comments though. But my impression was that no one took me really for serious with my problem as it was "just a music library question". The funniest comment was that I won't need to care about all that in the ripping stage, I could do all the tagging and such in a later stage. Which (as I could find out on a daily base) is totally wrong! You have to do it AT ONCE, everything else is just not manageable!

This leading paragraph seems to be primarily a general complaint, or even a series of complaints.  If you dropped the paragraph, the entire post reads more agreeably.  In fact, it is quite useful and informative.

Back to the subject, we're aware of the different needs of classical music and would like to address them.  We've added some new default fields recently for that purpose.  We know that more could be done, but the needs are so different that we're not certain how to proceed.

I've mentioned a partner of ours before.  Digibit.es of Spain.  They specialize in this area and are encouraging us to improve our support for classical music.

[globetrotters1]

Jim

appreciate your comment and I think I got the idea of what you want to say.

There is one problem around which always bothers me while working with classical music (tagging) and it seems that Darichman solved it somehow (and I don't know how to do it, didn't find the solution until now): I'd like to have another order of the tag fields in the action/tag window - and until now I can just have it sorted alphabetically - is there a trick to have them in a logical order?

---------------------

update: I think I found it, sorry for the comment - it's "show tags in current view" and I have to set the view the way I want before, now I got the idea, I think

[DBB]

I custom made a single field with three parts: "Composer, Work, Performing Artist(s)" eg "Beethoven, Symphony no 9, Bernstein/NY Philharmonic" It works like an album field in that it refers to a group of tracks, ie movements in a classical work. The fields associated with this are: [Performing Artist] [composer] [name of movement] [genre]   

MC 13 could improve on this by having a default field like "Composer, Work, Performing Artist(s)", but one that has standard grammar or spacing so the result will be uniform. You want all the the Beethoven Symphony no 9's to line up together.

[Listener]

I custom made a single field with three parts: "Composer, Work, Performing Artist(s)" eg "Beethoven, Symphony no 9, Bernstein/NY Philharmonic" It works like an album field in that it refers to a group of tracks, ie movements in a classical work. The fields associated with this are: [Performing Artist] [composer] [name of movement] [genre]   

MC 13 could you improve on this by having a default field like "Composer, Work, Performing Artist(s)", but one that has standard grammar or spacing so the result will be uniform. You want all the the Beethoven Symphony no 9's to line up together.

> You want all the the Beethoven Symphony no 9's to line up together.

In my classical music views, I just specify the sort order for files as Composer, Work name, Artist and Track # in the view.   Movements appear in order and are played in order.

---
I see another use for a composite field that identifies a particular performance of a work.  If MC 12 is playing selections at random, I'd like to be sure that if it selects a file with the composite tag "Beethoven, Symphony no 9, Bernstein/NY Philharmonic", it plays all movements of that performance in the right order.  And I don't want it to add any files corresponding to a different performance of the same work.

I've spent some time trying to figure out how to use the expression language and find it frustrating.  There seems to be some special logic for ensuring that all files for a single album are played.  I want to be able to specify my own tag for that sort of grouping.

Bill Hunt

[DBB]

In my pane I have two columns. The first is "Composer", the next is "Composer, work, Performing Artists". Once a composer is selected, each work appears in the second vertical column without repeating. All the Beethoven Symphony no 9's come up together so I can choose the performance I want to listen to. I can then choose which Beethoven Symphony no 9 I want to listen to. When  a specific "Composer, work, Performing Artists" is selected in the second vertical column, the bottom horizontal column identifies each movement.

If I understand your scheme, it seems it would repeat the name on the work 4 times, assuming 4 movements, one for each movement. Is this correct? If so isn't this too cluttered?

I don't ever listen to works using shuffle, since I tend not to listen to them as background. That would be useful if you wanted to keep the music going all day long like a radio station. Interesting.

[DBB]

I would like to illustrate my above comment. How do I load a screenshot? Thanks.

[Listener]

In my pane I have two columns. The first is "Composer", the next is "Composer, work, Performing Artists". Once a composer is selected, each work appears in the second virticle column without repeating. All the Beethoven Symphony no 9's come up together so I can choose the performance I want to listen to. I can then choose which Beethoven Symphony no 9 I want to listen to. When  a specific "Composer, work, Performing Artists" is selected in the second vertical, the bottom horizontal column identifies each movement.

If I under your scheme, it seems it would repeat the name on the work 4 times, assuming 4 movements, one for each movement. Is this correct? If so isn't this too cluttered?

I think I understand what you are doing. I just don't think it is necessary.

For classical music, I use 5 tags for browsing:

Sub_genre ("Orchestral" or "Concerto, Piano"
Composer  ("Beethoven", "Mozart")
Work Name  ("Symphony No. 1" or "Concerto, Piano No. 9")
Artist ("Szell_Cleveland Orchestra" or "Brendel_Marriner_ASMF")
Version ("CBS Masterworks" or "Essential Classics")

(The Name tag contains the movement name ("3 - Minuet" or "1 - Allegro").)

Each of these 5 tags has a browser pane.  If I were looking for performances of Beethoven's symphony No. 1, I might start by picking "Orchestral" from the Sub_genre pane.  The remaining panes would then list only tag values for "Orchestral" works.  Then I would select "Beethoven" from the Composer pane.  The Work Name would have a list of "Orchestral" works by Beethoven and none by other Composers.  Each work would be listed in the Work Name pane just once.  After I selected "Symphony No. 1" from the Work Name pane, I would see a list of Artists for whom I have a recording of this work.  After I select an Artist, I would see a list of the 4 music files that make up the performance's 4 movements.  Then I could click the Play button or select all the files, right click and choose "Add to playing now".

I only use the Version tag when I have several recordings with the same Composer, Work Name and Artist.  In the most common case, I bought a re-mastered version of a CD I already owned.

I chose this way of tagging files and using the tag values to fit the way I wanted to select music.  At every step of the process, I am selecting from a list of manageable size.   I distributed information to the tags to keep each value reasonably short.  Screen real estate matters.  It is also good UI design to have the information you need at the beginning of a string.

Bill

[DBB]

Hello Bill:

I think my system may be simpler to use because it only uses two vertical pains (columns) at a time, but it requires more typing to enter data into the "Composer, work, Performing Artists" field and the spacing and grammar must be uniform if the performances are to come up together. My view scheme on the left (the tree?) allows me to search by composer/work; Performing Artist/Work; or Genre/Work. Usually I leave the  "Composer/Work" selected, which results in two clicks to find the performance I want.  It takes 1 click of the mouse on the composer's name to bring up all the works of that composer, and all the performances by various performing artists. It then only takes a second click to choose the specific performance. It never takes more than three clicks to find a specific performance of a work. I have a lot of multiple performances of the same work by different performing artists (conductors, orchestras soloists etc.). For instance, I have 11 versions of the Beethoven violin concerto.  If I can figure out how to load a screen shot, I will show you.

Thanks,

David

[darichman]

O wow... looks like this threads been getting some attention recently. Sorry I haven't been around as much as I should.

If not, does anyone have any suggestions as to where to start to try and fix the issues I'm having with the [Classical: Piece] expression not working consistently.

Hey hey! What's not working for you at the moment? I can take a look at it if... maybe if you tell me which fields you are using and what output you're getting?
I must admit I haven't touched it in quite a while.

I would like to illustrate my above comment. How do I load a screenshot? Thanks.

Replied to your PM - would like to see your screenshot!

Some nice ideas in this thread. It would be nice to get classical music fields standardised in some way (especially if there's talks of an online database for sharing info etc) but as Listener's pointed out, we all use our info differently.

I'm happy to have as many fields as it takes (thank you 26'' screen ) to have a fairly decent catalog, but I know for some, it's all about getting the info in there and displaying it concisely.

Well I've posted mine, as have a few others... so how do we feel about what info is "essential" (ie should be included as a field by default) and what should be left only to obsessive-compulsive taggers ?

The thread Jim was referring to can be found here: http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=48504.msg338552

[DBB]

Thanks for the instructions Chris. I still couldn't get the image in. but the hyperlink did work. I list the three schemes I use to browse my classical. I feel that it is fairly simple once set up. I also use other fields (ie location, type of file, track, source ie LP CD or SACD, notes) but they are out of view. What do you think?

http://www.pix01.com/gallery/FB8DEA61-C2C2-4381-A0E1-D3A38E66CB76/Composer_work/bigpage.html?image=689462699_orig0.jpg


http://www.pix01.com/gallery/FB8DEA61-C2C2-4381-A0E1-D3A38E66CB76/Screenshot_2/bigpage.html?image=1023299217_orig0.jpg

http://www.pix01.com/gallery/FB8DEA61-C2C2-4381-A0E1-D3A38E66CB76/Screenshot_3/bigpage.html?image=60914156_orig0.jpg

[JimH]

Close.  Just edit the link slightly:

http://www.pix01.com/gallery/FB8DEA61-C2C2-4381-A0E1-D3A38E66CB76/Composer_work/689462699_orig0.jpg

and put it between the  [ img ] and [ /img ] tags.

And when you post on Pix01, please choose not to make them public.  Everything else will work, but they won't be displayed on www.pix01.com home.

[DBB]

Thanks, I don't know why this works now but not before  (Da!), but here is the Composer/Work set up. It works well for me except for the labor in setting it up. It seems that every scheme suggested takes a lot of work. My thinking was that the name of the work by itself without the composer and the performing artists included is not very useful. For example Symphony no 1, by itself is not helpful. Are there 10,000 Symphony no 1's? I feel that MC13 should have at least one suggested template for classical. Possibly one that could be set up with a "Wizard"




Click to enlarge.

[darichman]

Not bad... I guess it's nice to be able to view them all together like that, and I especially like the way they line up nicely together. I wonder, do you store these bits of info in separate fields as well (and use an expression to combine them like that)? or do you maintain it manually?

I've always had separate fields (apart from the calculated "Piece" one) with a separate column for each. The advantage of that is you can find a particular opus no. or catalog no. easily, for example. Say I want to find Bach's "The Art of Fugue" (BWV 1080). I have the option to click on the work (The Art of Fugue) or on the catalog no. (BWV 1080) - whichever I can remember at the time.

I'm staying in Sydney at the moment and don't have my main library with me, but I'll post a screenshot when I get back (remind me!)

Do you have a standard way of filling out the name field? What I was trying to do with the [Classical: Piece] field was to find an automatic way of displaying the information you've tagged - whether all tags are filled in or not. It needs some work.

[DBB]

I wonder, do you store these bits of info in separate fields as well (and use an expression to combine them like that)? or do you maintain it manually?

 I have a separate field for "artist", which means performing artist(s) that includes conductor, orchestra, ensemble soloist etc. in my system and "Composer" but I have no way of automatically combining them in the "Composer, Work, Performing Artist(s)" field. I do it manually. Some kind of automated system would make it easier to maintain.

I've always had separate fields (apart from the calculated "Piece" one) with a separate column for each. The advantage of that is you can find a particular opus no. or catalog no. easily, for example. Say I want to find Bach's "The Art of Fugue" (BWV 1080). I have the option to click on the work (The Art of Fugue) or on the catalog no. (BWV 1080) - whichever I can remember at the time.

I think most would search first by Composer, then Genre, Period and Performing Artist would probably follow, but not necessarily in that order. In my scheme this can be done with one or two mouse clicks. I think very few will search by BWW number, or K number in the case of Mozart. Who can remember these numbers? Opus numbers would be meaningless in a large collection.  Some, like you, might search by the name of the work, ie "The Well Tempered Clavier"  an opera or vocal recording. My system does not break this out in a readily searchable way, but names and numbers can be found easily using the regular search function. I don't see this as an inconvenience because it is probably rare not to remember the name of the composer which is easily searchable.

Do you have a standard way of filling out the name field? What I was trying to do with the [Classical: Piece] field was to find an automatic way of displaying the information you've tagged - whether all tags are filled in or not. It needs some work.

I use the standard default name field to refer to each movement. I name the field I usually [or prefer to] repeat the composer's name, the name of the work, and the movement number and name ie "Bartok, Piano Concerto No. 3: I  Adgietto" I do this because it shows beautifully in the "neotropic" track info window, which I prefer.

http://www.pix01.com/gallery/FB8DEA61-C2C2-4381-A0E1-D3A38E66CB76/Bartok_3_Boulez/

The composite field for the entire work contains the name of the work and, as noted, the composer and the performing artist(s). As far I I can tell this works well for all classical music. The problem is that the spacing and grammar must be uniform for the same work by different artists to line up . It takes some care in entering the data. Some type of automated system would be a dream.

[eric999]

I restarted this thread about a couple of weeks ago with a question about darichman's [Classical: Piece] calculated expression. I've continued to experiment with the small amount of classical recordings I've ripped and have, by now, answered most of my questions on my own.

I'm still having trouble with one piece of the calculated expression. I created the six [Classical: whatever] fields that darichman provides in his post of March 26. Everything works as anticipated except -

when I have a work that has both the [Classical: Opus] and [Classical: Number] fields utilized (ex. Weber's Sonata for Piano No. 1 - [Classical: Opus] = Op.24 and [Classical: Number] = J138) both the opus and number display correctly in the [Classical: Piece] field.

when I have a work that doesn't have a opus number but has a reference number (ex. Mozart's Symphony No. 41 - [Classical: Opus] is blank and [Classical: Number] = K551, the K551 does not display in the [Classical: Piece] field.

What am I doing wrong?

I'm particularly hoping for an answer from darichman. He posted asking for details regarding my questions on December 5th. Thanks for all your work in both creating and posting an explanation of your system for organizing classical music. I'm really looking forward to ripping my collection and having it searchable and better organized than it's ever been.

Eric

 

   

[DBB]

I am curious why you would employ this system with so many variables if you have a small classical collection. Of course I feel the same about darichman's system. Would you actually search by opus numbers? Also I don't understand the concept of "Classical number"

[darichman]

Eric (and DBB this will probably answer your final question too), I think your problem with the expression lies in our different definitions of what we put in the "opus" and "number" fields.

I use [Classical: Opus] to display whichever collection shorthand is standard for that particular composer. Eg, I use BWV _ here for Bach, but Op. _ for Chopin. I pick whichever one seems more widely referred to with respect to a particular composer.

I use [Classical: Number] in the situation of a single opus/collection/catalog (which we've specified in the Opus field above!) when there are multiple recognised parts to it ... this is what's causing your problem, I think - you're putting the catalog number in here instead (J_, K_ etc) - the expression designed with the above usage in mind

For example if we have opus no. 38 with 4 recognised separate parts:
Op. 38 No. 1 [Classical: Opus] = 38    ,    [Classical: Number] = 1
Op. 38 No. 2 [Classical: Opus] = 38    ,    [Classical: Number] = 2
Op. 38 No. 3 [Classical: Opus] = 38    ,    [Classical: Number] = 3
Op. 38 No. 4 [Classical: Opus] = 38    ,    [Classical: Number] = 4

Another Opus might not have parts and might appear as such:
Op. 21         [Classical: Opus] = 21    ,    [Classical: Number] = Empty

With these definitions, you will never have a "Number" without an "Opus", as the number refers to multiple parts of the first.
So I guess the specific hierarchy would go: [Work] > [Opus] (which might be Op._ or J_ or K_ or BWV) > [Number] > [Movement]

With respect to your first example - you're trying to show an Opus No. and Catalog No. at the same time. I never designed the expression for that (sorry!). My advice though? Pick your reference system for each composer and stick with it. Some composers have Opus No's and two separate catalog systems - splitting them into multiple fields and trying to manage all of them will give you nightmares. I can rewrite the expression to be able to show both, if you have them, but it would take a long time To write this one, I already had to have an output for each possible combination of fields a user might have filled out. There are 6 fields - It took ages!

With respect to your second example, if you store K551 in the Opus field and leave Number Empty, you should get what you want.

I am curious why you would employ this system with so many variables if you have a small classical collection. Of course I feel the same about darichman's system. Would you actually search by opus numbers? Also I don't understand the concept of "Classical number"

1. The larger the library, the more info you need to store to be able to find things reliably and consistently.
2. Sometimes track names on classical albums give common names only for a piece (Moonlight Sonata eg) - if you are interested in seeing all the details in a standard way, an automatic formatted expression like this is really useful.
3. I might have mentioned before, I rarely search by opus numbers. Sometimes, in specific circumstances, (eg if I need to find a piece from a sheet music book, which will usually note the Op. # or BWV etc) it can be really useful however.
4. The main reason I store it though is to have a formatted display of the piece which (1) is consistent throughout the library and (2) allows you to easily refer to a piece (good for track info displays, playing now bar etc)

[okvaal]

Being aware that this topic has been discussed on several occasions, the last post is nonetheless three years old, and I - for one - haven't been able to keep up with whatever changes having been made to MC in the latest versions. To keep it short: are there any (known) issues/changes that make the postings above more or less outdated?