Siduhe;299367 Wrote: > Finally, a bit of this debate that I can comment on! Have been reading > the many (many) threads on this subject with some interest. Various > Artist/Compilation behaviour is pretty important to me in one sense, > because approx 80% of my music are compilation albums (electronic > music). However, in another sense (and as a direct result of the type > of music I tend to listen to) it's not so relevant, because I don't > browse by artist very much at all. Electronic artists often use > different names for each release and often list more than one artist, > so I think I have about 9,000 tracks and over 11,000 individual > artists.
this is a salient fact, the issue would not be apparent to you, but as you said, that doesn't mean the issue doesn't exist. to put it another way, the VA logic was not designed and implemented to handle your situation [only]. thats the rub. Siduhe;299367 Wrote: > So, what is important to me is the ability to remove those artists from > my browse by artist list proper, and the current VA logic works well > for that for my personal situation. If the logic were to be changed I > would very much want the COMPILATION tag to work as it does now, by > overriding the VA logic and forcing an album to be listed under > "various artists" (which in my set up is renamed "Compilations"). right. all i would suggest is that the logic be optional, and off by default. you should have the option to turn it on, and you should also have the option to over-ride / manipulate both it, and the db in general, with comp tags. Siduhe;299367 Wrote: > At a more general level, I think this is a good debate to be having - > although I remain to be convinced that major changes are needed to the > current logic. What strikes me from the last few posts is that it is > reasonably clear that people have different ways of managing and > sorting their music. Mr Sinatra in particular thinks that his/her way > is closer to the default behaviour that the average user will expect > (and may well be right about that). thanks for saying that, but please allow me to clarify, (not specifically at you but in general). i think the first kind of library slim should have been designed to work with, is the most common kind. right? anyone disagree with that? mp3 using 2.3 tags WITHOUT ANY user defined tags is the most common kind of audio file out there. thats so obvious i shouldn't have to say it. at that point, you can then use popular and classical music, (as mp3 using 2.3tags) to see how the library works. once you have that down, THEN you go on to user defined tags, other formats, etc... i also believe slim should have multiple libraries of the same music just with different formats and tags, to see how their product handles all these various situations. not EVERY mutation mind you, but a good representative of different styles. the VA logic and the album sorting has never ever worked properly for me. i think its b/c slim got ahead of themselves, and didn't follow the above. its not a major sin and i'm not upset over it, i just think its truthful to point it out. i also think its important that slim does get this "sorted" out. ;) i am not alone as being one of the great unwashed masses, and any user like me who tries slim freely as a DL will ditch it most of the time b/c of its rather unexpected behavior. i would think that is also obvious. Siduhe;299367 Wrote: > Classical music is a completely different issue which doesn't even come > into play in some of the proposals, and has very different > requirements. Whilst I welcome the suggestion to clarify and fix > default behaviour, the thing that Slim does very well is keep the > option for users to customise their experience by adding > tagging/sorting options. agreed, it should remain as an option. Siduhe;299367 Wrote: > To that extent, I don't quite follow the "why should I have to add a > specific tag to get the behaviour I am asking for?" (this is very much > paraphrasing, and not aimed at anyone in particular). Surely there are > three questions here: that really isn't the question. the question is "why should i have to add a tag to undo the ridiculous things SC7 does?" i'm not trying to GET a behavior, i am trying to UNDO a behavior. in such a situation, if we are looking at this from a design standpoint, the onus is on slim to undo an errant behavior that is illogical and unreliable, esp as it does not work as its intended to. Siduhe;299367 Wrote: > *1) what is the right behaviour for SC to have as default behaviour?* > As I said above, I think the artist logic works quite well, but that > may well be because I have lots of albums with many different artists > on them, and only one or two albums with a main artist but some guest > artists (which I resolved by setting an explicit "Compilation=0" tag. > I can see the issues which others have raised with their particular > music collections and think it's a valid discussion whose libraries are > closer to the "average" - I suspect it's not me. agreed. again, if mp3 with 2.3 tags is the baseline, (it certainly is in the marketplace), then the logic doesn't work, and comp tags aren't used. the solution would be to have SC7 recognize user defined terms in their existing tags as signalling compilations. Siduhe;299367 Wrote: > *2) is is possible to achieve the sorting options the various posters on > this thread have requested by amending the tagging or sorting options?* > If so, can these operations be done simply and easily or do they require > very time intensive work? If not, is this an option that SC should > really be looking to support either as default or via an option for the > users who want it? let me be clear... i didn't want to get into a sorting discussion here, but of course it is related. but my intention was to say that: 1. we need a way to identify compilations, we all agree with that. but 2. the VA logic is not the way to go about it. sorting issues really are the other side of the dime if you will. my intention here is to just call into question VA logics usefulness, and why it can't at least be turned off. Siduhe;299367 Wrote: > *3) If the requested sort cannot be achieved, what changes would be > required to meet this concern and how easy are they to implement?* My > experience of floating around these boards for a while suggests that, > where VA logic is concerned, small changes can have massive, unexpected > impact on a whole section of users who don't post on these boards often > and who aren't vocal about their needs until something gets "broken" > from their perspective. There was a massive issue in the move from 6.4 > to 6.5 where something changed in the VA logic (possibly having to put > your VA artist tracks in a single folder) - and there were many many > posts complaining about a small change (to some) which turned into a > big issue for others. [Happy to be corrected on which version change > this was]. again, i am all for having functions be optional. now, it may be that the VA logic works for you, or others, b/c they simply don't have a situation that exposes its very clear and obvious flaws, but just b/c it happens to work for you all in that boat, does NOT mean thats how it was supposed to work, or intended to work. at the very least, with such a broken function, it should imo be off by default. Siduhe;299367 Wrote: > And I very much like having Compilations at the top of the list, because > it is such a distinct section of my music - again that is very probably > unique to me or people with libraries like me. thats really an altogether different issue, but if anyone is interested, it doesn't bother me as is, however if an option existed to just have it under V, i'd probably use it. -- MrSinatra www.LION-Radio.org Using: Squeezebox2 (primary) / SBR (secondary) / SBC - w/SC 7.0.1beta - Win XP Pro SP2 - 3.2ghz / 2gig ram - D-Link DIR-655 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MrSinatra's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2336 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=47297 _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
