Author Topic: Classical Music: MOVEMENTS  (Read 12004 times)

jistme

  • Guest
Just for whenever you find the time and the courage to dive into this further, an important ID3v2.4 tag for this purpose is TSST (SetSubtitle).
Both MP3Tag and foobar already support this.
Last Edit: July 21, 2012, 04:54:27 PM by jistme

Steven

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 34313
i will add this to the configuration file for the next update:
<Tag id="Set Subtitle" id3v23="TXXX/TSST" id3v24="TSST" wma="SetSubTitle" vorbisComments="SETSUBTITLE" mpeg="SETSUBTITLE" ape2="SetSubtitle" />

re: the initial request by tom_dl: i've decided to defer this to after the MusicBee version 2 release because it adds too much complication in at this point.
Last Edit: August 08, 2012, 04:11:32 PM by Steven

tom_dl

  • Guest
re: re: I'm just glad you see the importance that I do in this. Keep up the good work!

Bee-liever

  • Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3831
  • MB Version: 3.6.8849 P
re: the initial request by tom_dl: i've decided to defer this to after the MusicBee version 2 release because it adds too much complication in at this point.

Is this still on the "to do" list?
(or complexity still an over-riding factor?)
MusicBee and my library - Making bee-utiful music together


redwing

  • Guest
This is how I "resolved" the issue with the helps of other forum members.
I am completely satisfied with the result, and have never looked back:

http://getmusicbee.com/forum/index.php?topic=7650.0

Note: Everyone has a different tagging scheme. So if you want to follow my approach, you might need a customized regex script.

Edit: So my wish regarding this subject would be to support what we can do with the current "infer and update tags from filename (and other tags)" function in virtual tags so that MB alone can handle this kind of tagging needs without the assistance of plugins. That would be similar to "guess values" action of MP3tag, but with virtual tags there would be no need to constantly update tags manually. Plus, users wouldn't need help for regex scripts.


Last Edit: January 25, 2013, 03:20:10 AM by redwing

WimYogya

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 473
Being a classical lover myself and busy migrating my big library from MediaMonkey to MB now, I came across Tom's ideas about how to store movements of a classical work.
I must honestly say: I do not see the advantages of separate colums/tags for Work/Composition and/or Movements.
Because by doing that you split up your title information in various parts.
I consider it much more effective and easy to put ALL title related information of a composition in the TITLE field.
The formats that I use are - examples:
- Piano Concerto no. 09 in e flat [A}, KV 271, Jeunehomme Concerto - 1. Allegro
- La Traviata [R] - 2.19. Di Sprezzo Degno Sè Stesso Rende
(In these examples the [A] and the [R]  refer to respectively the pianist and the conductor of this specific version. It helps when I want to display my works alphabetically: it keeps all tracks of ONE specific version/recording together)

To my experience this way of entering 'movements' or 'parts' has two advantages:
1. If you play ONE track, without the surrounding movements/parts, you still have all the relevant information
2. If you split the information in multiple fields/sections you might not see well what you are listening to if you sync parts of your library with an ipod or other external device.

Maybe give it some thoughts and see if it would work for you.
But I already noticed: 1000 classical music lovers, 1000 different solutions - because the developers did not create a standard...
Last Edit: January 25, 2013, 07:05:41 PM by WimYogya
WimYogya
retired Dutchman (1944) in Yogyakarta, Indonesia

tom_dl

  • Guest
Firstly, I should I say I do appreciate the comments regarding this - they have all made me rethink the way I tag classical music, which is great.

However, I feel that the topic of this thread hasn't been completely understood (often because other users don't agree that it is as necessary as I do). Although I may not have made this as clear as I should have, I am mainly talking about simplifying and compacting the visual volume of data I have. As with most others, I have all or more of the following data for most classical tracks:

Composer
Conductor
Performer(s)
Catalogue number(s)
Opus number
Opus name
Work number
Work name
Movement number
Movement name
Tempo

With operas, one may require several performers, a director, a conductor etc.

Some people even want to include the instruments that some performers play

It is this very detail which I have been suggesting needs a way of managing in terms of visual availability (i.e. hide/show)

I really like redwing's method of tagging, and I agree that MB should try to accomodate this. However, I think it's a separate (but related) wish.

To my experience this way of entering 'movements' or 'parts' has two advantages:
1. If you play ONE track, without the surrounding movements/parts, you still have all the relevant information
One thing to note is that I think every movement should contain all of its "parent" information, but should not always be visible in a linear form. Redwing's and WimYogya's titles are all really long, and make navigation more complicated for me. Hiding the movements of a work is useful because they are not overly relevant unless you are playing them right now. Whilst browsing, everyone knows that the 3rd movement of the moonlight sonata is contained within the work "moonlight sonata", so we save space by hiding. The now playing bar, notification popup, taskbar etc. can all contain the FULL title if people really want it, but I think the option of trimming what we see of these ridiculously long titles is useful. That was my intended topic of this thread.

Thanks

redwing

  • Guest
Now I think I got the idea of what you intended to mean. Sorry for my misunderstanding in my previous post in that there's actually nothing I've "resolved" insofar as the subject of this thread is concerned. I should have read it more carefully.

Now, regarding the subject matter, though I understand your intent I don't really see much benefits of the suggested implementation in a practical sense.

Whilst browsing, everyone knows that the 3rd movement of the moonlight sonata is contained within the work "moonlight sonata", so we save space by hiding. The now playing bar, notification popup, taskbar etc. can all contain the FULL title if people really want it, but I think the option of trimming what we see of these ridiculously long titles is useful.

As you know, it's not just "moonlight sonata." Even without the movement part, the remaining "work" part will be as long as "Sonata No. 14 in C sharp minor, Op. 27 No. 2 'Moonlight.'" Yes, I read the previous discussion about trimming a little further, but still there's a limit. You can disperse some data to other tags, but then it will no longer look like the piece. I think it's just the nature of classical pieces. For my case, I don't usually add  "tempo" in the movement part as you saw. So even if it's implemented, it would only save space for "-mov1" part for me. On the other hand, the titles of lots of classical pieces (like symphonies) are not really long.

The main reason I needed work field was not for appearance or compactness but for navigation and browsing ability. If I were using other music players, the long title field should give me a big headache. But MB's track browser with sortable track count completely fulfilled my needs for browsing specific collection and accessing any track in no time. So I'm not paying much attention to title field when browsing and listening to classical music.

As you suggested, I'm gonna post a separate wish for the "guess values" function of virtual tags. Sorry for not supporting your wish.