Did You Ever Retag Your Digital Files?

[KevinP]

This is an overstatement. I acknowledge that from the start. But it seems tags are largely for people who listen on shuffle mode or want the computer to suggest what to listen to next. Neither is me.

I also seldom listen to the radio because I don't like not being in control of what I listen to. (And yes, I've become acquainted with some great music on occasions when I do.)

I may come across as a curmudgeon, but listening to music is a personal thing and an important part of my day.

[Florestan]

it seems tags are largely for people who listen on shuffle mode or want the computer to suggest what to listen to next. Neither is me.

That's my impression too.

Long file names are an annoyance to me only when I want to check the tempo or what particular movement / piece is being played; they are particularly annoying when I listen for the first time to an opera / ballet or an orchestral / piano suite with titled movements. I found a way to work around that, though: I first listen without checking anything and if a particular number / movement piqued my interest next thing I'd do after I finish listening to the whole thing is reading the booklet, if available, or checking the back cover of the recording. I could of course rename the files but it will take too long and I'm too lazy for that.

[Madiel]

Besides shuffle mode and computer suggestions, there are also such things as:

1. Trying to divide an album into separate compositions, or in some cases to reconstitute compositions that have been split (Schumann complete songs on Hyperion being an example I've recently been dealing with).

2. Creating playlists. Which again might involve things like reconstituting an original LP album from a modern reissue or reissues (which I've done with Ashkenazy's complete Chopin volumes, originally presented in a very different way from the later box that I own). Or might just be about setting up an interesting concert program.

Decent tags are useful for these purposes. Sure, I could sit there with the CD booklet to sort this stuff out, but it's definitely a lot simpler if the tags are in a reasonable state.

Or hell, you might just want to be able easily read and remind yourself whether a movement is an Allegro or an Allegretto. Or see that, to take as an example what I'm listening to right now, that the 2nd movement of this Mozart piano sonata is not just an Andante, it's Andante amoroso.

Tags are really just the digital form of the information you used to find in CD booklets and on LP sleeves. If you never bother reading such information, then fine. Some of us do read it. And it has nothing to do with having given away our listening choices to an algorithm, thanks.

[Daverz]

In the digital age, though, I cannot understand the need for this, as a computer can find Beethoven and/or Berlioz if you search for 'Lud' or 'Hect' or even 'van'. Word order in digital search is irrelevant, in other words, so I'm interested to know what you find functionally important about it enough to go through the pain of re-tagging things that way.

For browsing.  I like to browse albums by composer.

[Daverz]

So do I, but I still don't need to reverse-sense the names in order to be able to do so. But fair enough.

Browsing files doesn't actually require tags, though, surely? I mean, don't you browse folders and files via their physical names, not their tag data?

No, I never browse physical folders unless I'm doing maintenance on the music server itself. 

Splitting out every track by a particular composer into separate folders would quickly become a maintenance nightmare.
 

[amw]

Curious as to why you file things in what I call 'Librarian Order'. That is, the function of lastname, firstname ordering was important when everything was stored on old-style library index cards. You want Ludwig van Beethoven next to Hector Berlioz, you have to file by Bs, not H and L.

In the digital age, though, I cannot understand the need for this, as a computer can find Beethoven and/or Berlioz if you search for 'Lud' or 'Hect' or even 'van'. Word order in digital search is irrelevant, in other words, so I'm interested to know what you find functionally important about it enough to go through the pain of re-tagging things that way.

In addition to the possibility of browsing, searching in iTunes/Apple Music is completely useless most of the time when you have >200,000 tracks to go through. When you're entering a search query the app responds in real time by indexing and displaying everything containing "b", and then everything containing "be", and then everything containing "bee", etc., so that typing out a string such as "beethoven 109" into the search field takes anywhere from 20 to 30 seconds, as the app freezes while retrieving the results after entering each character.

[amw]

One way to help fix that, of course, would be to reduce the amount of data to index in the first place. That is, to stop working with "tracks" and instead play "whole compositions". I do that: concatenate the per-track rips that come off the CD into a whole-composition, single file.

With the right software, you can embed a cuesheet that still describes where each now-virtual track stops and starts within the one physical file, but the physical tracks no longer exist.

I don't believe there's any OSX software to do this, not without redoing my entire folder structure into "one folder per work" rather than "one folder per album", which again is >25,000 albums at this point. That would, again, be several months of work. So I'm fairly happy with how things are now.

I will have to redo everything anyway if I ever end up switching to a different operating system. Hopefully that won't be a prospect anytime soon.

[lordlance]

An advantage that NTFS has that Linux (and I guess by extension Mac OS) do not have is quick file indexing. I use Everything. Everything can be searched for instantaneously no matter how large the library. I tried using Manjaro Linux for a month and you either wait a few seconds while files are being indexed or you rely on the last time the database was indexed so it's not instantaneous.

Foobar2000 exists for Mac OS so that is something worth looking into.

[Daverz]

There is OSX software to do this, because I wrote some, called Semplice. Option 11 from its main menu creates "superflacs". (and Option 12 reverses the procedure, splitting a superflac back out to separate tracks).

It doesn't require the folder structure to be one folder per work, though. You'd simply end up with one file per album, containing within itself all the tracks of the original disk. On the other hand, it only works with FLACs, which is likely an issue for Apple users

But yes, the technical ability to do it is somewhat orthogonal to the practicality of doing it, I guess, given the size of your collection!

Interesting.  How are the individual track titles in the "superflac" recognized without a cue file?

[ghmath]

As I've got my whole CD collection ripped to FLAC with dBPoweramp getting the metadata details correct was important. Like others I use a folder system. For many disc where only one composer is on the CD it goes into one of that composers subfiles. For example Beethoven/Piano Sonatas/Disc Name or Number. For example I've got

Beethoven/Piano Sonatas/Annie Fischer/Beethoven complete Piano Sonatas Vol 1.

Now I can't see what's on this CD without amending the last tag but that doesn't matter to me. Also a simple search in Foobar will find me Annie's Op 28 if I want it.

This system also transfers across to my car audio and also my DAP.

Hi. After a very long time learning and working on it I've also got my music collection ripped, ordered and tagged. It has roughly 2500 albums, in an external USB 4TB HDD connected to a Sony VAIO laptop. From there to an iFi Zen DAC v.2 and a Musical Fidelity X-CAN V3 headphone amplifier.
To choose a player was not easy. Formerly I used AIMP, but wanted to switch to foobar. But foobar is a very powerful and sophisticated app, not easy to "domesticate". At last I've got it, with the help of EOLE skin.
Managing such a large collection was also not easy, and at the beginning I found many errors. Then I decided to split the collection in various sub-libraries, say LoRes Clasical, LoRes Non-classical, HiRes Classical, ISO Classical, ..., Demo, Binaural, and manage each sub-library with a dedicated portable foobar. It was very important to use the same structure for each album, and a uniform tagging scheme. All LoRes albums was coded as flac (a few mp3). I use Tag Scanner to edit tags.
I'll give more details if anyone is interested.

[DavidW]

When I ripped cds or bought digital downloads I would frequently find inconsistencies with artists and composer tags if the composer tag was even used.  It is important for me to correct that.  It is also important for both file names and tags to correctly identify the work and movement.  Especially like to have a movement number.  I would also organize the folder structure by composer->genre->work. 

Sometimes the file names would be too long for files to be copied over, and I would usually batch rename the files.

In other words just leaving tags, file names, and folders alone would make for a complete mess.  I have no idea why two people would vote "never" unless they have a very small collection or really don't care at all to browse or search their library.

[steve ridgway]

I have the folders structured mostly by composer then album but like to be able to play music by year of composition so have used that for the Genre tag (and "R" plus the year of album release to keep "Rock" music separate). So my player keeps the movements of a particular recording of a work together and in order I changed the titles to e.g. Requiem 001, Requiem 002 for recording 1, Requiem 101, Requiem 102 for album 2 and the Artist tag to the composer then I look at the cover image and Discogs if I want to know any more than that.

[Florestan]

In other words just leaving tags, file names, and folders alone would make for a complete mess.  I have no idea why two people would vote "never" unless they have a very small collection or really don't care at all to browse or search their library.

Well, if I want to listen to, say, a Mozart piano quartet, I connect an external HDD to my laptop and click the following sequence: Music > Classicism > Composers > Mozart > Chamber Music > Piano Quartets, and then select from an alphabetical list of combos whatever suits my fancy. Why I should waste a lot of time retagging and renaming the individual FLAC files belonging to, say, the Paul Lewis & Leopold Piano Trio folder, is beyond me.

Besides, when it comes to which music is stored in which media, I have the memory of an elephant.

[Scion7]

Yes, all the time. When I play tunes in an MP3 high-audio player with tag display, I want it to display the title, the composer-players, and movements or just the date of composition if it's a single-movement work without designation.  And I add the artwork that I want.

[ghmath]

I give foremost importance to the player. That is, the artist who plays. Since I began to listen classical music, as a teenager (I am 82 now), one of my favorite hobbies was to find "the best" (IMHO) interpretation of each of my preferred works. Therefore the display of my foobar player appears ordered by artists.
However in my HDD I have the albums ordered by composer. When there are several ones, first composer, second composer, ...
I edited the tags of every album in a consistent manner with TagScanner. Sometimes, being in foobar, I find an error, and generally I am able to correct the issue inside foobar, by means of right click + properties.

Is there a way to include an image in a message?

[Madiel]

Well, if I want to listen to, say, a Mozart piano quartet, I connect an external HDD to my laptop and click the following sequence: Music > Classicism > Composers > Mozart > Chamber Music > Piano Quartets, and then select from an alphabetical list of combos whatever suits my fancy. Why I should waste a lot of time retagging and renaming the individual FLAC files belonging to, say, the Paul Lewis & Leopold Piano Trio folder, is beyond me.

Besides, when it comes to which music is stored in which media, I have the memory of an elephant.

If the tags are done, 1 search term would get you through those 5 layers of folders.

I mean, you are basically doing the same thing. You're just creating the metadata in folder names.

[Madiel]

PS as for renaming individual files, any decent editor will let you rename a group. In iTunes when I'm fixing the artist or composer field, I'm fixing all the tracks in one go. Fixing each track separately would indeed be tedious.

[ghmath]

Well, if I want to listen to, say, a Mozart piano quartet, I connect an external HDD to my laptop and click the following sequence: Music > Classicism > Composers > Mozart > Chamber Music > Piano Quartets, and then select from an alphabetical list of combos whatever suits my fancy. Why I should waste a lot of time retagging and renaming the individual FLAC files belonging to, say, the Paul Lewis & Leopold Piano Trio folder, is beyond me.

Besides, when it comes to which music is stored in which media, I have the memory of an elephant.

After a long time struggling with the management of my quite large library of roughly 2500 albums, I found an arrangement that satisfies my expectations. To manage the library I use portable foobar with Eole skin.
I put the library in a HDD always connected to my laptop, with every album in a folder. I edited tags of every album in a consistent way with TagScanner. This implied a great amount of work, but the final results justified it. The Library settings of foobar refers to the folder in the HDD. The portable foobar is also included in this HDD, so that I can connect it to other PC and have my library at hand.
When I open foobar it displays the covers of the albums, with data on its contents. I can open an album from this display or search what I want to find. Say Gilels, and the screen shows all albums by Gilels.

A question: is there a way to include a picture in a post?

Florestan: I am not an expert in elephants, and don't understand your claim: good or bad memory?

Cheers!

[DavidW]

GHMath, check out this thread: https://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,302.0.html for the answer to your question and more.

[Florestan]

Florestan: I am not an expert in elephants, and don't understand your claim: good or bad memory?

Excellent memory.