[quote="olddog"]The above "guest" was me, don't know why I got logged out.

Looks like I still can't upload pictures, so I put it on display here: http://realgsd.ca/mm/

[u]A quick translation:[/u]
Werk = Work or composition
Verz. = Cataloging name and number of the composition
Komponist = Composer
Dir. = Conductor (Dirigent)

As can be seen, I have 6 versions of the Radetzky March, conducted by 6 different conductors and performed by 5 different orchestras, indicating the strong need for all of this info to be under the "BASICS" tab of the "Properties" section. Because there are only 3 custom fields available, I had to double-use many fields (i.e. - Werk/Verz., Dir./Orchestra, and Album/Lable). Maybe the "Comment" field could be moved under the "Details" tab to make room for at least 7 or 8 more fields under the "Basics" tab?[/quote]

Lowlander,
Thanks - It works!

You can do so in the options. I believe in the appearance tab.

I'm about 80% a jazz and classical music person and I would be perfectly happy if I could simply rename just the three "custom" track properties (to Composer, Work and Conductor). I get the impression from reading the threads that this is somehow possible. If so, could someone tell me how?

Also, it seems two or three people are writing that "conductor" is already an existing track property choice but I can't find it in MM version 2.5.2.951. Could someone explain?
Thanks

Hello Bex,
looks like you posted almost at the same time I was editing my post after I realised that THAT is the only way to post my screen capture here. Nontheless, your helpfulness is appreciated.

urlwolf,
yes, I know quite a number of classical music lovers as well, that would appreciate a chance to organize their collections with a system like MM. Unfortunate for us; we are a minority compared to pop music lovers.

[b]Jiri – you may also be interested in this;[/b]
I did some research recently and found that the biggest problem in organizing a classical music collection is the classical music industry itself, and the way they use music tags. They are just simply all over the place. There appears to be no uniformity in the way they use the tags at all, at least non that I could identify with my limited knowledge of tags. The best we classical music lovers can hope for, is a chance to obtain some software like MM that offers us a sufficient number of fields/columns/nodes/(tags?) to MANUALLY identify, and record, and sort each track of each CD as we each prefer (in accordance with our individual priorities and preferences). I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the complexity of classical music simply can not be standardized.

An example of this may be the Requiems. There aren’t all that many composers (of classical music) that didn’t compose one, yet they all need to be identified individually, by composer and preferably by it’s cataloging ID and number, because some of them composed not just one, but several Requiems.

To forum admin:
How about posting an oppinion pole on what most classical music lovers really need for their collections?

hmm, very interesting conversation.
So true, if MM implements a way to keep all the info relevant for classical music, that'd be a great hit. I know many people struggling with that.

BTW, I'd hate to have to spend the time to properly tag my collection. I wonder
if there is any service that can do this right. Or maybe paying someone to do
it, such as rentAcoder.com. I mean, if you can pay for transcriptions, you can
pay for mp3 tagging, right? I would.

[img]Path provided by the host[/img]

Hi Olddog.

To provide a image on a forum you'll need to upload it to a host e.g.
http://www.imageschack.us/
http://www.imageshippers.com/
http://www.putfile.com/
There are hundreds of others...
And then link like this:
[code][img]Path provided by the host[/img][/code]

/Bex

The above "guest" was me, don't know why I got logged out.

Looks like I still can't upload pictures, so I put it on display here: http://realgsd.ca/mm/

[u]A quick translation:[/u]
Werk = Work or composition
Verz. = Cataloging name and number of the composition
Komponist = Composer
Dir. = Conductor (Dirigent)

As can be seen, I have 6 versions of the Radetzky March, conducted by 6 different conductors and performed by 5 different orchestras, indicating the strong need for all of this info to be under the "BASICS" tab of the "Properties" section. Because there are only 3 custom fields available, I had to double-use many fields (i.e. - Werk/Verz., Dir./Orchestra, and Album/Lable). Maybe the "Comment" field could be moved under the "Details" tab to make room for at least 7 or 8 more fields under the "Basics" tab?

I have tried to understand the ID3 system but it is much too technical for me, thus I can not make any suggestions in that direction. All I can do, is to show you the way I use MM for my classical collection with this screen capture (if I can manage to post it here):

It appears that this forum can not upload pictures. Any suggestions on how I can post that screen shot here?[/img]

That is rather interesting info behind those links, and obviously, THAT many fields WOULD clutter up a computer screen. I will do some research on ID3 etc., and then post my suggestions. It may take me a while.

olddog,

yes, I read this thread because I suppose it could result in some interesting ideas that could be implemented in the next version. Maybe instead of sending me whole tracks you could do what Steegy did above, i.e. write how would you expect individual fields should be filled in (although I see you already did something like this above).

As a good starting point re. how to fill individual fields possibly http://reactor-core.org/ogg-tagging.html and http://www.gophernet.org/articles/vorbiscomment.html could be used (although they are specific to OGG tagging).

Jiri

Olddog, you are completerly right about the very limited details I give to classical music tracks (I do have a custom "Instrument" field tough). The larger your collection becomes (of similar tracks), the more details you want to be able to identify them correctly. That's logical.

@all classical music lovers:
[quote]just make the columns rather narrow and then move the pointer over the field you are interested in, to see the full info in the balloon/window. [/quote]Is that Ok for all classical music lovers?

I personally always want data to be visible directly, withour having to move the mouse pointer. I wonder if some classical music minded people also have this feeling.
If not, then the solution seems easy.

Cheers
Steegy

Steegy,
Bach wrote several “Toccata und Fuge”, knowing the BWV-number could identify it much better. And I would be rather interested in which performance it is, which organ in which churche, so I can compare them with other performances, or if it was transscribed for guitare or harp, and of course, who is playing the instrument (who the artist is - certainly could NOT be J.S.Bach - as you listed it). But foremost, I would need to know the name of the album and its label.

Showing all that info on a computer screen is no problem, just make the columns rather narrow and then move the pointer over the field you are interested in, to see the full info in the balloon/window.

Rovingcowboy,
The computer screen is no problem, but your suggestion gave me another idea; Would it be possible and helpful to send a few of my mp3 tracks by e-mail to jiri for analysis, so he can study the way I used the various custom and regular fields?

[b]Jiri, are you reading this?[/b]
Would a few of my converted tracks be of interest to you? I can also put them up on a website for you to download. Just tell me how to move the tracks from which part of MM with all the tag info intact.

[quote="olddog"]Cutting that many corners isn't going to work. I have the impression that rusty doesn't really know all that much about classical music.[/quote]

well heres an idea for you and any one else?

sit at your computer take a screen shot of monkey

then go in to the photo editor and add in the fields you think you want.

do the same for the properties panel, and the folder tree.

then send the screenshots to rusty and jiri and let them see just what you want it to be like..

software devlopers and sofware users are like a married couple.

the users say what they want and the developers have to figure the compromise solutions.
8) :P

  Artist = "Johann Sebastian Bach"
  Title = "Toccata and fuge - Fuge"

  Artist = "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart"
  Title = "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik - Allegro"

Personally, I don't have much classical music (what doesn't mean I don't like it), but these I do have are just tagged like:
[code] Artist = "Johann Sebastian Bach"
Title = "Toccata and fuge - Fuge"

Artist = "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart"
Title = "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik - Allegro"[/code]

This is enough for me, but obviously not for many other people. And because MediaMonkey should be fully ID3v2.4 compatible, it would need to integrate more advanced "classical" tags anyway.

I think the biggest problem is "How to show all this information, certainly when Classical and Modern songs are used together?", and that's probably also the problem that the dev's have.
[quote]-Allow users to manage/listen to both classical music and pop music in any sitting since many listeners don't listen to one type of music exclusively[/quote]
It maybe would be very nice to be able to switch the Track Information dialog between Normal (Modern songs) and Classic view, so you only see relevant things.

[i]But then, how show this stuff together in one trackview, while having as much information shown as possible (with limited number of columns and screen width)? [/i]That's the problem as far as I can see.
So please classical-music-lovers, can you give an answer to that?

Of course, it might be a lot of work for the devs, but full ID3v2.4 support has been asked so often...

[quote]-Be compatible with existing tagging standards (ogg, id3 and ape2) and ensure consistency between the database and tags (note that tags are defined at the track level) [/quote]I would suggest to create a solution to put the massive load of information into fewer fields, by combining them into the available fields. E.g. for each tagging standard, it could be user-definable what fields are written to what tags, a bit like I'm doing in WebSourcesTagger (all "tags" can be specified with masks which represent fields). I'm doing this to put all available web information in the more limited fields of MediaMonkey tracks.

[quote]-Be compatible with existing music devices (e.g. iPods use the Artist tag for the Performer/Orchestra)[/quote]Same solution as above, e.g. For iPod, let all Composer fields be written to the Artist tag (e.g. user-definable, or "baked in").

[quote]-Not slow down MediaMonkey or burden MediaMonkey with a cluttered UI [/quote]- Speed: to be ID3v3.4 compatible, is there any other solution?
- Cluttered: like I said, maybe a switch on the track information dialog. [i]The tracklisting/tree problem doesn't go away of course.[/i] An "all tag frames" tab could be added to the track information dialog. This would be very advanced, but wouldn't clutter anything. (and could be loaded from the file's tags only if that tab is really opened)

Cheers
Steegy