PDA

View Full Version : Group Discs and ALBUM with (disc n)



Mark_H
2008-03-28, 03:25
I am struggling to get Squeezecenter to recognise my multi-disc albums.

After selecting the option in Squeezecenter and seeing no change in the way the discs were being handled I did a lot of searching on the forums and the wiki and started to find useful information. This stuff should be much easier to find - the options in Squeezecenter are pretty cryptic without any further information.

Anyway,

As per Musicbrainz guidelines, and indeed my own preferences, all my multi disc albums have ALBUM entries which end with (disc 1), (disc 2) etc, eg:

The Word is Live (disc 1)
The Word is Live (disc 2)
The Word is Live (disc 3)

The DISC tag for these albums is set to correctly reflect the disc number but Squeezecenter still fails to collate them. I then discovered that only if I remove (disc 1) etc from the ALBUM tags does it work, however this is far from satisfactory as I want all my tags to conform to the musicbrainz for compatibility with other services.

So my question is: is the only way for Squeezecenter to recognise multi-disc albums and group them correctly for me to remove the (disc n) bits from the ALBUM tag? Or is there another way around this?

Many thanks,

Mark

slimpy
2008-03-28, 03:37
Squeezecenter can only group multi-disc albums together if they share the same album name.
How should SC otherwise know if two discs with different name belong to the same album?
You only need to change your tags to the same name, you can still have the "disc x" part in the filename if you like.

-s.

Mark_H
2008-03-28, 03:43
OK, thanks, I feared as much :(

Squeezecenter is just one of the pieces of software which accesses my music so altering ALBUM tags to suit it is not an option.

Perhaps there could be some extra logic in the GROUP DISC procedure that knows to look for ALBUM tags with (disc ...) appended and to then lump those in with the other discs of the same album...

Cheers,

Mark

slimpy
2008-03-28, 04:58
Perhaps there could be some extra logic in the GROUP DISC procedure that knows to look for ALBUM tags with (disc ...) appended and to then lump those in with the other discs of the same album...
What should it look for?
The album tag is free text so there are numerous ways to tag multi-disc albums.
Here are just a few examples:
(disc x)
disc x
(CDx)
CDx
# x
No x
Nr. x
(x of y)
...

Anyway, feel free to file an enhancement request at http://bugs.slimdevices.com

-s.

Mark_H
2008-03-28, 05:27
Sure, it's a good point, but the Squeeze wiki regularly refers to using Musicbrainz for good tagging, and yet ironically Squeezecenter doesn't recognise the (disc n) format recommended by Musicbrainz...

I'll have a look at submitting an enhancement request.

Cheers,

Mark

slimpy
2008-03-28, 06:10
Sure, it's a good point, but the Squeeze wiki regularly refers to using Musicbrainz for good tagging, and yet ironically Squeezecenter doesn't recognise the (disc n) format recommended by Musicbrainz...
The Musicbrainz style guidelines are indeed a good source for good tagging style but keep in mind that Musicbrainz needs to be disc-centric.
Individual discs need to be distinguished because you actually drop in single discs into your drive when you rip.
Squeezecenter on the other hand is album-centric. An album is one entity no matter how it is split on physical media. A single-disc album on CD can be a double-disc album on vinyl or just x tracks when you download it.
Some people even tag multi-disc albums with continuous track numbers as if all songs came from one disc.
Even if SC recognizes many of MusicBrainz' standards it's more than reasonable not to follow this one.

-s.

Mark_H
2008-03-28, 06:21
Even if SC recognizes many of MusicBrainz' standards it's more than reasonable not to follow this one.

-s.

In the respect that Squeezecenter is album centric, perhaps. But that doesn't mean that it should not understand Musicbrainz's recommendations and accommodate them. It's a win-win situation - taggers get the clarity of Musicbrainz tagging and the folding-in of albums to Squeezecenter's album-centric viewpoint.

I've submitted an enhancement request.

Mark

snarlydwarf
2008-03-28, 08:26
In the respect that Squeezecenter is album centric, perhaps. But that doesn't mean that it should not understand Musicbrainz's recommendations and accommodate them. It's a win-win situation - taggers get the clarity of Musicbrainz tagging and the folding-in of albums to Squeezecenter's album-centric viewpoint.


And Picard is quite capable of using correct tags: (ie, TPOS or DISCNUMBER is there for a reason). Use the Disc Numbers plugin on Picard and life is good.

The tags like track name, etc, are not the important distinguisher: the MusicBrainz ID is. The MBID can distinguish between release, handles the case of "I tagged this album with Picard, but then someone fixed the style on it, so my tags still differ", etc.

Album/Tracknames are constantly changing on MB. The MBID does not change. (Unless you mistagged something, but that is a bit harder to do with Picard.)

Mark_H
2008-03-28, 08:39
Album/Tracknames are constantly changing on MB.

Yes, the album/tracknames may change but the style guide is quite clear on how to handle multiple discs: http://musicbrainz.org/doc/DiscNumberStyle - *that* doesn't change...

Mark

snarlydwarf
2008-03-28, 09:04
Yes, the album/tracknames may change but the style guide is quite clear on how to handle multiple discs: http://musicbrainz.org/doc/DiscNumberStyle - *that* doesn't change...


Actually, I have edited a bunch of things according to Disc Number Style. Please don't lecture me on Musicbrainz style. It is more complex than just (disc 1). You have named discs as well. And things like: '(bonus disc: Live from Las Vegas'. What is the discnumber on a bonus disc? What if it is a bonus disc from a 4 CD set, would the software know that it is disc 5?

My point, however, is that if you believe that setting AlbumName and TrackName with Picard and using those to submit to Lastfm is somehow sacred and constant, you are misguided. The ONLY thing that is sacred and constant is the MBID. The rest are subject to change and collisions.

Oh, and DiscNumberStyle does change. Perhaps not often, but MB does change style guidelines all the time. Subscribe to mb-style.

Personally, I group things depending on the set. "1000 Great Yodels" would certainly be treated as one giant work. Pink Floyd's The Wall, however, I have always considered to be two parts, broken between side 2 and 3 of the LP version. So I don't use discnumbers on that.

Mark_H
2008-03-28, 09:15
Actually, I have edited a bunch of things according to Disc Number Style. Please don't lecture me on Musicbrainz style.

*sigh*


It is more complex than just (disc 1). You have named discs as well. And things like: '(bonus disc: Live from Las Vegas'. What is the discnumber on a bonus disc? What if it is a bonus disc from a 4 CD set, would the software know that it is disc 5?

Clearly there won't be 100% success. I simply don't understand the reluctance to update Squeezecenter and make it more usable... *everybody* benefits!


My point, however, is that if you believe that setting AlbumName and TrackName with Picard and using those to submit to Lastfm is somehow sacred and constant, you are misguided. The ONLY thing that is sacred and constant is the MBID. The rest are subject to change and collisions.

Who is lecturing now?



Oh, and DiscNumberStyle does change. Perhaps not often, but MB does change style guidelines all the time. Subscribe to mb-style.

And assuming the change is well made it would be rather trivial to update the Groups Disc code...


Personally, I group things depending on the set. "1000 Great Yodels" would certainly be treated as one giant work. Pink Floyd's The Wall, however, I have always considered to be two parts, broken between side 2 and 3 of the LP version. So I don't use discnumbers on that.

How wonderful for you.

Mark

snarlydwarf
2008-03-28, 09:55
Clearly there won't be 100% success. I simply don't understand the reluctance to update Squeezecenter and make it more usable... *everybody* benefits!

The problem is that if there is not 100% success, are you willing to tell people why what they have now does not work on SomeFutureVersion any more? This comes up all the time here: and I have dozens of cases where it would break my library to group things based on the title of the album.




Who is lecturing now?

I am pointing out a statement of fact. If you want to believe that albumname and trackname from MB are meaningful, then you are simply wrong: the best way to use MB info for, say, last.fm, is to use the MBID's for that. Then when someone fixes a typo at MB, last.fm is automagically updated, and you are still reporting tracks in a style consistent with others using MB. You are the one who claimed you needed to have MB Releasenames set to provide compatibility with some other software. That seems like very foolish software, since the Releasename is NOT unique, even when paired with the same artist. (Though MB encourages, especailly for CSG, inserting information into releasename to distinguish releases easily, it is not always there.)

You can attain what you want by using the proper plugin on Picard.

Changing SC will break people, myself included. I do not want Johnny Cash's "Love, God, Murder" combined into one album. I do not want Pink Floyd's Ummagumma combined into one album. I do not want CSNZ's Dia e Noite combined into one album... I do not want Robert Fripp's Exposure combined into two albums (it should be 3 distinct albums, even though two were released together in a 2-disc set.. the contents and liner notes make this very clear, it is two releases of the same album).

Your proposal is not 100%, and would fail on exactly 75 of my albums, so, no, I do not like your proposal.

Breaking 75 of my albums does not make SC more usable for me.

slimpy
2008-03-28, 10:05
Clearly there won't be 100% success. I simply don't understand the reluctance to update Squeezecenter and make it more usable... *everybody* benefits!
...
And assuming the change is well made it would be rather trivial to update the Groups Disc code...
From a software engineer's point of view your solution leads to a cumbersome and messy implementation that's will be difficult to maintain.
It isn't good practice to rely on substrings of user definable free text for such criteria. I think I already made that point in a previous post.
As it seems Michael has a similar opinion on this, read his comment in your enhancement request (http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=7652)


How wonderful for you.
No reason to get personal here... :-(

-s.

pichonCalavera
2008-03-28, 10:20
I used to follow Musicbrainz guidelines 100%, and hit this same problem, I had my multi-disc tagged with the (disc X), but Squeezecenter identified them as different albums, so I struggled some time, because I really wanted to treat them as the same album.

In the end I realized it didn\'t matter that much if (disc X) was shown, so I followed \"Squeezecenter\" guidelines, and now my Music Library looks cleaner, (And I still have the (disc X) shown in the filenames) even if now I\'m following a bit less the Musicbrainz guidelines.

In the end what matters is how YOU want to access your own Music Library.

Mark_H
2008-03-28, 10:39
From a software engineer's point of view your solution leads to a cumbersome and messy implementation that's will be difficult to maintain.


I haven't yet proposed a solution, just a suggestion that one would be nice.


No reason to get personal here... :-(

I wasn't, that's simply your interpretation of an exasperated poster's glib commentary.

Mark