XXHighEnd

All,

Maybe it looks strange to you, but I have this question in order to learn what can be pitfalls in what situation.
Notice this is related to the new feauture in 0.9z-3 which allows for "intelligently" mass rename the music folders. So, I am going to do that myself, but what is wise and what is stupid.
Actually I am talking about two situations only to decice for :

1.
\MyMusic\MyArtist01\AlbumName01FromMyArtist01\
\MyMusic\MyArtist01\AlbumName02FromMyArtist01\
\MyMusic\MyArtist01\AlbumName03FromMyArtist01\
\MyMusic\MyArtist02\AlbumName01FromMyArtist02\
\MyMusic\MyArtist02\AlbumName02FromMyArtist02\

2.
\MyMusic\MyArtist01 - AlbumName01FromMyArtist01\
\MyMusic\MyArtist01 - AlbumName02FromMyArtist01\
\MyMusic\MyArtist01 - AlbumName03FromMyArtist01\
\MyMusic\MyArtist02 - AlbumName01FromMyArtist02\
\MyMusic\MyArtist02 - AlbumName02FromMyArtist02\

Notice this is about the structure in the folders where the music really is, but that this structure comes back on us in the Galleries just the same. So, although in the Galleries it will look different depending on what you made of it, the general structure remains :

\Jazz\Modern\MyArtist01\AlbumName01FromMyArtist01\
vs.
\Jazz\Modern\MyArtist01 - AlbumName01FromMyArtist01\

IMO both have a high impact on the useability of things;
#1 is more "structured" and allows to find the artist quickly, but you won't have a quick overview of the albums in there unless you drill down.
#2 may give a list of 60 Miles Davis albums before you at last are at the next artist.
#1 may present lists of artist of which you have one album only, but you still can't see the album unless you drill down.

Of course within the Library Area of XXHighend this doesn't matter, but with the Embedded Explorer or normal Windows Explorer it does. And, it may matter a lot, depending on what you do.

So, I am interested to learn which of these both methods you use and why, or why explicitly the other not.

Thanks !
Peter

Hey Peter,

Option 2 would be best, afterall, but depends ofcourse on your needs.

You are right about the two options, if for eg. Miles Davis gives you 60 albums, you have to scroll thru all 60 albums,
before reaching the next artist.
I have 200 miles davis albums, this would be stupid, so I create a separate folder for that artist,
BUT what about Miles Davis & Gil Evans, Miles Davis & John Coltrane, Miles Davis & Quincy Jones, etc etc, haha
The Jazz section would be the hardest to organize.

The best way would be to create sub-folders that dont become to big.
3000 jazz albums in a folder created like this (option 2): jazz\artist - album    is just plain stupid.
Use sub folders like contemporary, modern, vocal, piano etc.
Or Put them in A-D, E-H, etc etc

So Option 2 would be best if you create suffient sub folders, but then again isnt this the same as option 1 ?
No, because you can create folders that keep 300 albums not just 1-3 albums.
There are only a view artists that make such big discographies, think of Tangerine Dream, Klaus Schulze, Miles Davis, Frank Zappa
So, use option 2 and make an exception on those large discographies.


This gives me: \AUDIO-CD\Jazz\Modern\Artist - Year - Album\
or                  \AUDIO-CD\Ambient\Label\Artist - Year - Album\


Are you going to use the folder-names or the Tag-names, for renaming ?
I hope the folder name.
Maybe get the year out of the tags [year] if there isnt any in the filenames.


This is pure when just all becomes to big, I personally think its better to get a 1-2TB Disc
Put all your BEST stuff on it and make that your NR1 drive.
Leave the rest as a library outside the PC.
ITS OVERKILL, hehe


Roy

PS: The downside of option 2 would be to have singles in there, they will get mixed up with the normal albums.

Hey Peter,

I never use playlists, but would like an option to search on different tags, like style, artist, year etc.
You would need a small database for this.
Don't know if this is already in there?

Use the info in file names and tags, because not all files are tagged properly.

I would recommend to create FOLDERS for genre and artist, yea maybe a search option on the year, what is released in for eg. 2007 ?
But this is optional.

I think GerardA is running into big folders with all genres mixed together, try to avoid this.

I currently use Option 1: Music\Genre\Artist\Album - to me, this just seems the most logical way to do this.

Any variations come under the 'Artist' folder. E.g. All albums by 'The Keith Jarrett Trio' come under the folder 'Keith Jarrett' - and I tend not to create a separate sub-folder for these, but then again, I don't have 200 albums by one artist!

Mani.

But the thing is:

To Proper organize you'll have to use options 1 and 2
And using Tags wouldnt work, you have to make use of the folder name, but I think you know that
and already use in your search string.

I have for Eg. \Electronic\Massive Attack\Albums\Year - Album
                   \Electronic\Massive Attack\Singles\Year - Album
                   \Electronic\Massive Attack\Singles Box 90-98\CD1 - Album
                                                             
But I also Use \Ambient\Label\Artist - Year - Album


If you want to organize in option 2 the massive attack folder wont work, it can, but the filenames become
too long for proper viewing them in the xx tree.
Then you turn a length problem into a width problem, hehe

Peter, this isnt something you want to do in mass, there are to much exclusions, think more like folder-wise.
The option can still be in there, but so can Tag&Rename do the same.

So............hmmm

Roy

You dont have 200 albums from 1 artist, this also claims that maybe option 2 would be generaly better for you.
Instead of the option 1 you are currently using

I think option 2 would be best for most !!
While option 1 is still the most logic, but not always the most convenient !!

Exactly like that. But the year isn't always in tags as well, so then I go elsewhere (still have to make that part).


Your own folders will always be the base, although in the end that doesn't matter much for the result. What does matter though, is that the formatting can be done per group of Renaming, that "group" being one of your base folders (folder structures) ...
So, think of the Library Area and what's in there being the base. This will (normally) be your "Ambient" structure etc. with its own target (result) structure. So, no problem there.
Also notice that it's always music folders being the base - never Galleries (but, the result goes along in the Galleries).


Please keep it coming ! I already learned from the responses so far !
Peter

Here are two examples to get the idea. The first goes from #1 to #2, the second the other way around.

Never mind the disappearing "\PS" which is a bug at this moment.

Or like this (see the difference with the last picture) :

Only if you use both options, you can create a "smart" gallery.

I think you want to "fix" the Cuetools output in to whatever you like, or fill up those missing spots like the release year.
 :)

Maybe you want to integrate FreeDb or Amazon/TrackType.org !

btw. Is it possible to get a album discription in each album folder is there a db that does that ?  because with movies I can.

Looks good to me Peter,
 :)

Like the one below (see attachment at the top) ? yes. Has been broken for a long time, but will be back in 0.9z-3.

What about a Undo function ?

Maybe you wont need it if you do a better job then Tag&Rename!

Yes, I like the extra info too.

My albums are like D:\Music\Jazz\Frank Zappa\1971 - Hot Rats.

No redundant data and easy to find.
For the option 2 possibility I would recommend an option in the tree to open all branches at once.
So you choose to see all artists, or all artists - albums.
This would probably need a self-made explorer window?

Yes thats nice, but now I want a txt file in every music folder, because well, the dedicated audio-pc would be off-line

I don't understand ?

Aha ! See, this would already be a "golden" solution. That is ... I assume you meant "option 1", so your structure would expand to all the underlaying albums at once - *if* there is something to expand, or otherwise they keep close. See my own (good messy) example, and watch e.g. ACDC and Achoustic Alchemy (don't forget the Aart album at the bottom of that Acoustic Alchemy list).

I think this can be done ...

ah, its a .html file, its a web page, is it possible to get that data in a txt file, so the pc can stay off-line.
or can this page be used offline, will this remain in memory.

Or is it just me!

Can Discogs be intregated too ?

Theoretically yes. But there's no efficiency in there (far too few on board; for dutch people it would be good though (IIRC)).


Yes, of course it can !
See the picture I added later to the post where the html attachment is in. It's just stored in the album folder (if you want).

Thought so, because its just a offline webpage.

GOOD, to see that back and working, thnx

hey Peter,

I use folder structure no. 1

I don't need to put the artists into genre's as I know the style of music each artist I have falls under, and sometimes an artist may have albums that span different genre's and that would just add another layer of complexity trying to figure out where to put them.

When choosing music for listening I tend to focus on the actual artist I want to be "entertained" by, rather than having a "rock" afternoon, or perhaps a "classical" evening.

If you are thinking of having the renaming based upon internal tags, please make that a de-selectable option, as data provided by CDDB and their kind don't always fall into line with how I like things. An example of this is the year field. Quite often it's depicted as year of release, whereas I normally use the year of recording. I also haven't bothered tagging my music for a number of years now since XXHE was released.

I normally append the year of recording to the album name just for reference. I would not want the year data as a prefix as it makes it harder to find a particular album if they are sorted by year order.

Cheers,

Russ

Yes, the year would be a problem as I also like the recording date not the release date.

Doing things in mass and make use of tags is to risky, make use of the folder names would be better.
We must asume that the folder names are the correct ones not the tags.

Or mass tag your music files using the info from the foldernames for eg.

Roy, I'm not sure how to see that related, although you may be right. Now, in order to have this all decent (meaning not loosing anything, and don't make a mess of it), can you show me an example (preferrably a screenshot) of where you think that will go wrong with those "singles" ?

I removed the messages of aart and the massive attack example,
because this wouldnt be a problem, if you rename within the folder, so you never loose a folder.

What i ment is that if you rename YOUR complete example folder to option 1, the aart album outside the acoustic alchemy folder will "drop" IN the acoustic alchemy folder, this is good !

So no problems, so far

But then again, Tag&Rename does this too, so what would be the "extra" in this for xx ?

I mean, whats your goal ?

just adding those 2 rename options from the first post can be handy, though, with some kind of "mask"

But if you only rename within the folder, you dont solve the problem.

you will go from jazz\artist\year - album to  jazz\artist\artist  - year - album

what you want to get is this: jazz\artist - year - album

This can only be done if you loose the folder above, in the massive attack case this would be the "singles" folder.
if you loose the singles folder, you mix-up the albums with the singles.
accually you need to loose 2 folders nl. singles and massive attack, to get on the artists-level of: electronic\massive attack - year - album (electronic\massive attack\singles\year- album)

Hope this makes sense, think not

btw this is my Cuetools Template:

Y:\Music\%artist% - [%year% - ]%album%[ - %edition%]$ifgreater($max(%discnumber%,%totaldiscs%),1, - cd %discnumber%,)[' ('%unique%')']\%artist% - %album%[ - %edition%].cue