"3" looks like some kind of disc number in a multi-disc set, or possibly volume number.
2009-02-27 05853, 2009
Munger
1 John Lee Hooker Boogie Man - 1 is turned sideways so that it appears right on the shelf, artist and title are different colour. 'The Blues Collection" does not appear on the spine
2009-02-27 05821, 2009
pbryan
Is there ever more than one disc that has the same number in that position?
2009-02-27 05823, 2009
navap
pbryan: Thats the third disc in the series, "The Blues Collection 3: Blues Berry"
2009-02-27 05828, 2009
pbryan
navap: Right.
2009-02-27 05853, 2009
pbryan
"3" is disc number in this case.
2009-02-27 05858, 2009
navap
I think the way they are currently titled, ie without the use of the word "Volume", is the correct way.
2009-02-27 05814, 2009
pbryan
navap: I'm not sure.
2009-02-27 05823, 2009
navap
3 is the disc number?
2009-02-27 05826, 2009
pbryan
Yeah.
2009-02-27 05830, 2009
pbryan
Looks like it to me.
2009-02-27 05837, 2009
navap
Its the catalog/volume number
2009-02-27 05842, 2009
pbryan
"3"?
2009-02-27 05845, 2009
navap
Yes
2009-02-27 05852, 2009
pbryan
There's more than one disc with "3"?
2009-02-27 05855, 2009
navap
At least, thats what I make of it.
2009-02-27 05800, 2009
navap
No
2009-02-27 05806, 2009
navap
The Blues Collection 3: Blues Berry
2009-02-27 05830, 2009
navap
It is the third disc in the series, its catalog number is "BLU NC 003"
2009-02-27 05833, 2009
pbryan
Is there a sample of the front cover?
2009-02-27 05841, 2009
navap
Represented by the "3" in the spine.
2009-02-27 05843, 2009
Munger
Hang on, I'll get the directory listing and pastebin it
I don't think there is anything wrong with how they are currently named, but hey, as I said that's just my $0.02. I really don't care either way as I don't have the series.
2009-02-27 05846, 2009
ruaok joined the channel
2009-02-27 05811, 2009
Munger
The fly in the ointment with that collection is "The Blues Collection : The Blues at Christmas" which has no volume number
2009-02-27 05841, 2009
navap
WHat is the catalog number?
2009-02-27 05847, 2009
Alan_New joined the channel
2009-02-27 05853, 2009
Munger
BLU NCC 093
2009-02-27 05823, 2009
Munger
It was released just after #34 however :-D
2009-02-27 05839, 2009
navap
Technically, *none* of theem have a volume number, the catalog number has been used.
2009-02-27 05801, 2009
navap
What is on the spine?
2009-02-27 05848, 2009
Munger
They all have the volume number on the sleeve. That's how you organise them on the shelf. They cycled through about 8 different sleeve colours so that the accompanying magazines look pretty on the shelf
2009-02-27 05808, 2009
Munger
1 John Lee Hooker Boogie Man etc...
2009-02-27 05829, 2009
navap
So this one doesn't have anything on the sleeve?
2009-02-27 05836, 2009
Munger
2 B.B.King The King of the Blues
2009-02-27 05832, 2009
Munger
"The Blues At Christmas The Very Best Of The Blues"
2009-02-27 05807, 2009
navap
Oh, so its not part of the series at all then?
2009-02-27 05809, 2009
Munger
Does not have "The Blues Collection" printed anywhere, but is very definately part of the same collection
2009-02-27 05819, 2009
navap
What makes it part of the same collection?
2009-02-27 05808, 2009
navap
It can be by the same label, it doesn't have to be a part of the same series thoudh.
It was a 'Bonus' CD sent out with the collection. Several tracks on there were deliberately left out of other CDs to make a nicve christmas compilation
2009-02-27 05826, 2009
Munger
Evn the sleeve colouring matches the sequence when placed at the end of the rack
2009-02-27 05833, 2009
navap
I think it should be titled as per what is on the cover. "The Blues at Christmas: The Very Best of the Blues"
2009-02-27 05814, 2009
navap
The catalog number would be "BLU NCC 93", and the date would be whatever the date is.
2009-02-27 05809, 2009
Alan_New has quit
2009-02-27 05841, 2009
Munger
I agree. My issue is with the others though. If we label them as they appear on the spine then they all begin with the volume number. If we label them as they appear on the front cover, then we lose the volume numbers. We are inserting the volume number into the middle of the title to give them some logical sequence. I just think inserting the word 'Volume' does no harm and clarifies that these are indeed part of a collection
2009-02-27 05855, 2009
czaanja has quit
2009-02-27 05812, 2009
Munger
The real issue is that we need a way to group collections (e.g. disk 5 of 20) and have Picard recognise that and allow the user to specify how they want to apply that to the file naming template
2009-02-27 05848, 2009
Munger
--- and also the album naming template when the tags are written, so that they appear the way they want in their music player
I guess I'm a little sensitive about this because I have quite a few collections like this that are tagged the way I like them, and I can't tie that up with MB without it messing with that convention. It represents a considerable investment of time on my part and I don't want to mess it up
2009-02-27 05823, 2009
czaanja joined the channel
2009-02-27 05839, 2009
navap
ruaok: Ya, I saw that :)
2009-02-27 05851, 2009
sonium joined the channel
2009-02-27 05805, 2009
ruaok
the music industry wishes they were half as cohesive.
2009-02-27 05850, 2009
navap
MBChatLogger: off
2009-02-27 05850, 2009
MBChatLogger
is not logging
2009-02-27 05854, 2009
MBChatLogger
is logging
2009-02-27 05838, 2009
ruaok
saw that. :)
2009-02-27 05823, 2009
navap
Munger: As for your dillemma, mb is built to be just a database of information, it isn't supposed to match anyones prefrences about that information. For example, I have a sountrack that has different artists for disc one and disc two. Totaly stupid when it comes to finding the albums in my music collection, but thats how they are stored in mb.
2009-02-27 05834, 2009
czaanja has quit
2009-02-27 05827, 2009
Munger
Right, but when we match against the MB database, we get the tags written according to the way the editors have named stuff. I realise that everyone has their own idea of how stuff should be named. At least if the 'disc 1 of 20' information is somehow stored on MB and that information is available to Picard, then naming issues could be sorted out locally by the user
2009-02-27 05808, 2009
Munger
I see no way of grouping collections, which is a shame
2009-02-27 05849, 2009
navap
The server is constantly updated, and something like that might be added in the future. Right now we do overload the title field by throwing everything in there because there is no where else to store that data. Classical stuff is a good example of that.
2009-02-27 05853, 2009
czaanja joined the channel
2009-02-27 05814, 2009
navap
By colection are you referring to a series like that Blues collection, of just a two disc album?
2009-02-27 05815, 2009
Munger
The "Now That's What I Call Music" collection is another example. Clearly a set, but later they started calling them just "Now 50" etc
2009-02-27 05818, 2009
navap
or*
2009-02-27 05808, 2009
Munger
No. Part of a 2 disk album is different. I was unclear there
Yes, but as pointed out in that document, what happens if some of the releases in the series are missing from MB?
2009-02-27 05835, 2009
navap
Ah, you're talking about files again. Thats very different, mb isn't built around tagging audio files. Being able to tag files with the info in mb is just a by product.
2009-02-27 05851, 2009
navap
That's why its a proposal ;)
2009-02-27 05803, 2009
Munger
Technically, every album is part of a series, albeit a series of 1
2009-02-27 05824, 2009
Munger
There is a level missing in the hierarchy
2009-02-27 05825, 2009
navap
Yes, thats why we have the "mb definitions" on the wiki.
2009-02-27 05854, 2009
nikki
I would probably link series all to the first album...
2009-02-27 05827, 2009
nikki
series are much more likely to be incomplete and there's no reason why specials can't exist which don't fit with the ordering
2009-02-27 05832, 2009
Munger
id3 tags cover disk 1 of 2, track 1 or 20 , but do not cover volume 3 of 4
2009-02-27 05844, 2009
navap
Yes, thats what is suggested, but what happens when volume 3 hasn't been entered into mb and you have volume 1, 2, 4, 5.
2009-02-27 05807, 2009
Munger
By defualt, all albums get created as volume 1 of 1
2009-02-27 05821, 2009
Munger
Then allow users to edit the 'Volume' set
2009-02-27 05836, 2009
Munger
By that, I mean the collection
2009-02-27 05840, 2009
navap
Are we talking file tagging formats, or mb here?
2009-02-27 05859, 2009
Munger
Both really... or
2009-02-27 05854, 2009
Munger
How the user tags is up to them. Allow them to specify a template to format their tags and filenames. That has has nothing to do with MB. MB simply should keep volumes/albums/tracks in the proper hierachy of things
2009-02-27 05811, 2009
Munger
What I propose is an insertion in the hierachy to cover Volumes as pasrt of a set, assigning a set ID to each album that can be tied to other albums in the set. Attacjing everything to the first album in the set is logically wrong
2009-02-27 05836, 2009
navap
I think eventually mb might be able to do that. Currently we do stuff a lot of info into the track and release titles because there isn't anywhere else to put that info. (yet)
2009-02-27 05801, 2009
nikki
Munger: it might be logically wrong, but that's the only way we currently have to link one entry to another
2009-02-27 05810, 2009
aCiD2 joined the channel
2009-02-27 05814, 2009
aCiD2
bo
2009-02-27 05816, 2009
aCiD2
boo*
2009-02-27 05821, 2009
Munger
I understand. I'm just expressing an opinion. No offence intended
2009-02-27 05833, 2009
navap
We don't attach everything to the first album in the set.
2009-02-27 05839, 2009
nikki
Munger: if we have those links, when we *do* have the structure needed, they can be automatically converted
2009-02-27 05800, 2009
navap
aCiD2: AH!
2009-02-27 05806, 2009
chefkoch_AW has quit
2009-02-27 05825, 2009
chefkoch joined the channel
2009-02-27 05830, 2009
Munger
I know, but I saw that in that proposal as a possibility and think it makes no sense.
