Your Collection

[eyeresist]

My big regret is that my LP and 78 collection got scrambled three years ago when I moved. With about 15,000 disks, there's little hope of getting them back into order again.

Pay some kid to do it. I mean, if you've pretty much written off the collection at this point, what is there to lose?

[bigshot]

I have a lot of 78s. A kid would break them unfortunately. I barely trust my friends to handle them. You should have seen me worrying like an old hen when they were moving it all. I swear, I'm never allowed to move again. My friends all threw their backs out. But I didn't trust movers with my 78s.

[bigshot]

Its just I don't need 'Bonjour' handshakes with Apple servers, updates, etc...all I want is a wee music cataloging program, not a full blown media center.

I'm running a Mac mini media server that drives my home theater too, so all that stuff works for me. Are you PC or Mac?

[mahler10th]

I'm running a Mac mini media server that drives my home theater too, so all that stuff works for me. Are you PC or Mac?

Aha!  Thats probably why I find iTunes clumsy for my needs...I run a PC and laptop...perhaps if I got a Mac, using iTunes as my music / media base would be much better, it being Apple.  Hmmm....also, Macs are better for most of my computer preferences, DTP (newsletters), writing, music, this kind of thing...I must start lobbing some heavy hints about getting a Mac for Xmas...
Trouble is, I am Microsoft Certified and Systems certified....knowing literally nothing about Macs...   But the seed of a Mac filled Xmas has now been planted!   

[mc ukrneal]

Like most software, you kinda have to take the time to learn how it works. It's definitely the most powerful software of its kind. There really isn't much competition, because there isn't any way to compete with it.

It's true there isn't much competition, because they all pretty much do the same thing. I use itunes, media monkey, windows media, winamp, EAC, and a couple others. I would not say that itunes is more powerful than any of these. They all have pretty much the same features. In fact, one area that itunes is weaker (being Apple) is that it does not (or did not) support some extenstions like FLAC. Itunes is not the only one guilty of this.

[mahler10th]

It's true there isn't much competition, because they all pretty much do the same thing. I use itunes, media monkey, windows media, winamp, EAC, and a couple others. I would not say that itunes is more powerful than any of these. They all have pretty much the same features. In fact, one area that itunes is weaker (being Apple) is that it does not (or did not) support some extenstions like FLAC. Itunes is not the only one guilty of this.

Yes.  Good point.  Maybe I will kill that Mac seed after all.  Everything is proprietary with Macs, that much I know.  And yes, I guess iTunes have their .m4a files and all the rights of that to protect, so they don't entertain anything else like FLAC, which is a great lossless codec.  Hmm.  Maybe I will ask for an Android tablet for Xmas instead...

[Opus106]

Everything is proprietary with Macs, that much I know.  And yes, I guess iTunes have their .m4a files and all the rights of that to protect...

Apple opened up the ALAC source code last year.

[KeithW]

Apple opened up the ALAC source code last year.

Indeed they did, and a few record companies have started to offer ALAC downloads - Hyperion for example - and this removes the step (for those who wanted everything in iTunes) of converting FLAC to ALAC before import.

I think it's important to distinguish between music player software and mastic cataloging software (and the beast that iTunes has become, attempting to be both, as well as a 'home' for apps, movie and much more.

I use iTunes as my catalogue, although I am always looking for something better, for the reasons others have given.  I use Audirvana + as my (Mac-based) player.  One feature the latter offers is the ability to create proxy records in iTunes.  So, for example, if I have a FLAC file, Audirvana will allow me to import a proxy record into iTunes which looks just like any other record, but it points to a file housed outside the iTunes environment.

When I want to listen to anything I simply drag and drop the tracks/album from iTnes to Audrivana.  The same approach works whether I am playing music ripped into iTunes or proxy records for files held elsewhere.

At least I am able to have everything in one place, and this has avoided (too many) duplicate purchases.  The biggest problem I am facing is that at 130,000 tracks and growing, iTnes is too sluggish.

[DavidRoss]

Yes bigshot, it is excellent software for music I agree...I used it for 6 months a few years back...but for my own needs and preferences, it is, for me, what used to be called 'bloatware'.  Being Apple, and given their market dominance, you may be right about it being "the most powerful software of its kind".  Its just I don't need 'Bonjour' handshakes with Apple servers, updates, etc...all I want is a wee music cataloging program, not a full blown media center.   It was worth a try again anyway.  Thanks.   0:)

No worries, John. Unless Apple's changed it substantially in the past couple of years, iTunes sucks in every way unless you're a happy captive of their proprietary media files. For classical cataloging it was a horror. And

If all you want is a catalog, why not just create your own in Excel or SQL server? You're going to have to populate everything manually anyway, since online music dbs are usually created by blind chimpanzees banging away randomly on keyboards.

[Gurn Blanston]

Per a reader's request (and because I totally agreed) I split this topic where it started being a discussion of the merits of various codecs. That's a topic unto its own and it can be found here;

http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,20926.msg657391.html#msg657391

[Mirror Image]

Once upon a time, I had a small collection. Now, I have a large collection. The end.

[radi]

I always prefer to buy my classical music on a physical CD, but if there's a download site that offers the same CD considerably cheaper in a digital format (must be in a lossless format and have a downloadable booklet) then I buy digital. Buying in digital format is fun, but the feeling of opening a parcel with some new CD's is much better.  I'm sure you people know what I'm talking about.
I also rip all the CD's I buy into my HD as FLAC. I don't like the idea of archiving music in a lossy format - even in 320kbps and even though I propably could never hear any difference between 320kbps mp3 vs. lossless.
Actually, when I buy a CD, the first thing I do is rip it into my HD and I never actually listen from the CD directly. Still I like to have the physical CD (I think they look nice on the shelf and it somehow feels nice to open and read the booklet.) I guess at some point there's going to be a problem with shelf space... But for now there's no problem, my collection really isn't that big yet, I've only been collecting for a couple of years.
Here's how I catalog (and listen to) my collection:


So, I use Foobar2000. It's a bit of a pain to set up to your liking, but I like how it is now, I think it was worth the trouble. I wish I knew how to make it look better, I'm not that good with themes/graphics, but I think the current look is ok.
As you can see, I use seperate tags for the name of the work ("grouping") and the movements ("title"). The column browser is quite convenient, first I choose the composer, then the work (usually I write the catalogue/opus numbers last, but in Bach's cantatas I made an exception since there's so much of them and I'd never remember their names, and looking for a specific cantata would be pain), and if I have more than one recording of a work, the album column is for choosing that. If I want to listen through for example a song recital CD with various composers, it's no problem, I just choose all composers and pick the album from the album column.
Below the column browser, I have tags for the year of the recording and the composing. There's also replaygain info, although I don't use it nowadays. The "last played" thing is nice to have too.
On the bottom I tried to make a somewhat stylized display of what's playing right now. There's the composer, work, movement, artist tag, "involved people" tag (as in the picture alto, tenor etc.) and a nice copyright symbol and the label. The bottom one is "comment" tag, if there's some necessary information (as in this case "Revised by Bach in 1735") I write it in there.
The cover is of course nice to have there too. When I buy a physical CD, I always scan the cover and the booklet too (at least the pages that are in english). It's a bit of work with the colour/contrast corrections and dust removing and all, but it's become a habit and I actually like doing it.
Oh, and the playlists on the left are cd's that I'm not that familiar with yet. The list seems to be getting longer and longer... One of these days I'll start to actually LISTEN to the CD's I buy before buying more.
I have my whole collection in an internal HD, but I've also scheduled a weekly backup to an external HD (someone mentioned SyncToy, I use it too). I also have, just in case, another backup on a private backup server, I use a software called WinSCP to make backups in there. It works pretty much like SyncToy - it mirrors what changes I've made in the collection on my HD and reflects the changes on the server.
As for styles, I like anything from middle ages to 21st century. I don't always feel like listening to everything, it depends on my mood, but it's nice to have a variety of different styles at hand.

-radi

[Mirror Image]

I always prefer to buy my classical music on a physical CD, but if there's a download site that offers the same CD considerably cheaper in a digital format (must be in a lossless format and have a downloadable booklet) then I buy digital. Buying in digital format is fun, but the feeling of opening a parcel with some new CD's is much better.  I'm sure you people know what I'm talking about.

Actually, when I buy a CD, the first thing I do is rip it into my HD and I never actually listen from the CD directly. Still I like to have the physical CD (I think they look nice on the shelf and it somehow feels nice to open and read the booklet.) I guess at some point there's going to be a problem with shelf space... But for now there's no problem, my collection really isn't that big yet, I've only been collecting for a couple of years.

Yes, I know exactly what you're talking about, radi. I will always opt for the CD unless there's no other possible way to obtain the recording I'm wanting. It's not just opening the plastic, it's that new CD smell, that new printed ink smell of the inside booklet. Opera recordings are always things of wonder as if they include the full libretto, then you'll get this massive booklet. A lot of them are thick, it's like reading a novel. I think the last opera I bought was Mussorgsky's Khovanshchina with Abbado conducting and that booklet was so thick it could kill a roach just by dropping the booklet on it. Anyway, so yeah, I love owning the physical CDs. There's nothing like opening that CD and what do you get with a download? Nothing but a file telling you what that recording is. What people don't realize and something I think is lost in today's music buying public is that sense of sentimentality and appreciation for everything that goes into getting a recording put out. From the actual recording sessions, to the cover design, to the liner notes, etc., this really excites me, obviously not as much as the music itself, but it's certainly apart of the experience I think. Whether I'm holding an LP or a CD, there's nothing like this feeling in the world.

[radi]

Yes, I know exactly what you're talking about, radi. I will always opt for the CD unless there's no other possible way to obtain the recording I'm wanting. It's not just opening the plastic, it's that new CD smell, that new printed ink smell of the inside booklet. Opera recordings are always things of wonder as if they include the full libretto, then you'll get this massive booklet. A lot of them are thick, it's like reading a novel. I think the last opera I bought was Mussorgsky's Khovanshchina with Abbado conducting and that booklet was so thick it could kill a roach just by dropping the booklet on it. Anyway, so yeah, I love owning the physical CDs. There's nothing like opening that CD and what do you get with a download? Nothing but a file telling you what that recording is. What people don't realize and something I think is lost in today's music buying public is that sense of sentimentality and appreciation for everything that goes into getting a recording put out. From the actual recording sessions, to the cover design, to the liner notes, etc., this really excites me, obviously not as much as the music itself, but it's certainly apart of the experience I think. Whether I'm holding an LP or a CD, there's nothing like this feeling in the world.

I sometimes regret having bought so many albums digitally. To imagine how awesome the cd's would look on the shelf and the things you talked about, opening the case for the first time, the smell of a fresh booklet etc. But for me, unfortunately, money does matter. On eClassical pretty much all of the albums are about 50% cheaper (maybe more) compared to the cd's, and with their Daily Deals it's another 50% off, so it's just too good to resist... If money wasn't an issue, I'd still buy even the daily deals on cd.
I wish I was into operas! Somehow I just haven't discovered the opera-world yet. I have listened to some and watched a few on DVD (loaned from the library) but I find it somehow difficult to concentrate on the stories, especially with the translations and all, and when I try to concentrate on that, I can't get anything out of the music. But I never say never. So many times during my "classical listening-career" I havent liked something in a long time, 20th century music for example, but I've kept my mind open and ultimately learned to love it. Less than a year ago I'd never have thought I'd be listening to Bach's cantatas, or - not being a religious person - any sacred music for that matter. And now I'm crazy about church cantatas, not just Bach's.
Slipping a little out of topic here.. But I can imagine the feelings you were talking about, buying and opening opera boxes with the massive booklets. That must be great. Digital booklets would never be as good. To think about following the plot & lyrics from the monitor, it'd be awful. So, if (and when) I someday start buying operas, I'll definitely choose the physical products.

-radi

[bigshot]

All my beautiful CDs that used to fill shelves are ripped and boxed in the garage now!

The opera that did it for me was Zefferelli's La Taviata with Cortrubas and Domingo. See if they have that DVD at the library.

[Mirror Image]

All my beautiful CDs that used to fill shelves are ripped and boxed in the garage now!

The opera that did it for me was Zefferelli's La Taviata with Cortrubas and Domingo. See if they have that DVD at the library.

The opera that did it for me was Bartok's Bluebeard's Castle, then I quickly went backward into Wagner who is still, hands down, the finest opera composer of all-time. His operas are long, yes, and I certainly can't sit through the entire opera in one setting, but listening to an act a day is very gratifying for me. In fact, I'll probably do this now since I'm on vacation.

[DavidRoss]

Welcome to GMG, Radi!

I wish I was into operas!

I never really got into opera until I saw one for the first time, La Boheme. The difference between live opera and filmed opera is like the difference between making love and watching porn. I don't know your location but if there is a decent opera company in your vicinity you might try seeing the real thing in person.

I would suggest starting with operas that have retained both popular and critical acclaim among diverse audiences over a long period of time. Carmen, for instance, is wildly popular for good reason, not least of which is abundant great and memorable music. Story is not really important; it's just the framework supporting the music. (If you want a great story then turn to the right medium: read!)

Most opera plots are silly. Some are silly because they're melodramatic potboilers. (See Verdi, especially La Traviata or Rigoletto. Some are silly because they're pretentious. (See Wagner -- pretty much anything.) The best are silly because they're meant to be. (See Rossini's Barber of Seville.)

My own favorites, bar none, are Mozart's three late operas with librettos by da Ponte: The Marriage of Figaro, Don Giovanni, and Cosi fan tutte. The music is Mozart's best, the librettos were written by a real writer who was a master of his craft. If you prefer drama, start with Don Giovanni. If you prefer comedy, start with Figaro. And if you prefer glorious music with celestially beautiful multi-part singing ... well, they're all great, but Cosi has never been topped.

If your primary interest is the music, then I suggest you forget about watching DVDs and just listen to audio recordings of the works mentioned above.

Finally, the very last thing I would recommend to an opera newbie (unless you're still playing Dungeons & Dragons ) is Wagner's Ring.

[bigshot]

On a good system, opera on bluray is actually better than opera in the opera house... Better sound, better view of the performers, more comfortable. There are many fantastic filmed opera performances now, I rarely pull out my operas on CD and listen to them all the way through any more. It feels like watching a movie with youreyes shut.

[DavidRoss]

On a good system, ... Better sound, better view of the performers, more comfortable. There are many fantastic filmed opera performances now, I rarely pull out my operas on CD and listen to them all the way through any more. It feels like watching a movie with youreyes shut.

Oy vey! I'd rather have sex than watch porn and would rather ride a real motorcycle than pretend with Wii.  But there's room for all kinds in this world and on this forum.

Note, please, the difference between "opera on bluray is actually better than opera in the opera house" and "I prefer opera on video."

And movies are primarily a visual medium, despite incorporating elements of story and sound. "Watching" them with your eyes shut is like "eating" dinner with your mouth taped shut. The analogy would not be to listening to opera recordings, but rather to watching opera with your ears plugged up.

[bigshot]

Opera is a visual medium as well as a sonic one.

To see opera at the opera house, I have a limited choice of performers and works to choose from. I have to buy tickets, drive downtown, park, find my seats and stay put. Heaven forbid I might need to pee in the middle of Rhinegold! I get one view of the stage from at least a hundred feet away. Behind me, an old lady unwraps peppermints with the loudest wrappers she can find, while her husband snores. At the end of all this after 11pm, I get to fight the crowd to find my car and drive home exhausted.

On bluray, I can choose any one of hundreds of operas and ballets, with world class performers. I can choose to watch anytime I want, and take a break to eat or pee anytime I want without missing anything or climbing down a row of seats. The performance is in spectacular surround sound, on a ten foot hidef screen. The camera captures the action from the best angle possible. I can rewatch it as many times as I want. If that's porn, bring it on! Even the Met knows this is the future of opera.