Folder Structure

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

A lot of people seem to appreciate browsing their collection through a folder structure. I used to think it was a little "old school", but I have come to realize that a digital collection is not easy to make sense of by browsing an album grid, even if you search it, sort it, etc.. The typical "album grid" just does not provide the quick "overview" that one can have with a folder structure. 

 

So I am curious to get some feedback on this - what works for you ?

[RunHomeSlow]

Well tagged library works well in every way you want to see it. Not well tagged library works well only in folder structure 😀

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

My "tagging" is thorough

I use a custom system, with a lot of information, which is great to search for things, but i was referring more to the overall organization of your albums. If you ask record collectors how they organize their shelves, you will get answers like:

- one shelf for this favorite artist

- one shelf for a miscalleneous sub-category

- one shelf for new stuff 

- one shelf for stuff i rarely listen to

... 

 

How do you get that flexible with tags? 

 

Or you can think about it like having a bookshelf in which you organize your books. You take one look at it and you know where to go.  And you can easily rearrange things if needed. That's what I miss... Maybe i'm just slowing down with age 🙁

 

[RunHomeSlow]

Hard drive have 26 letters. I go like you say that Group name... yes the beatles are in the T folder, my classical that i don’t listen much goes by the family name... Mozart in the M With name after. Exception is Zappa Frank goes in reverse cause i have a lot... all regular and boots too... last or first in my library 😀 I have also smart playlists by genre, by date released from ‘50, 51,52... to 2020, and by 16/44... 24/192 to dsd256

[stefano_mbp]

On 6/21/2020 at 12:25 AM, hopkins said:

Or you can think about it like having a bookshelf

Maybe MinimServer could be the right choice.

In the attached screenshot you can see how my library is organized.
I started with JRiver, then went with Audirvana. But I realized that the library browsing was too constrained by predetermined research paths. Then I tried MinimServer with its “intelligent browsing” .... you can start from any of the defined criteria/tags and all the others will be available to continue the search ... simply perfect!
Have a look here https://minimserver.com

You need to have:

your library on a nas

MinimServer installed on the same nas

an upnp network player on the same nas network (could be a raspberry with Volumio/moOde/GentooPlayer to start)
a control point on your smartphone/tablet, must be on the same network, WiFi connected (Bubbleupnp, Kazoo, Linn, Lumïn app)
then a usb attached dac connected to your system

 

 

 

[Dan Gravell]

I tend to only use folders and files when syncing files between devices. It's interesting you @hopkins mentioned "flexibility" - to me, tags will always be more flexible as they avoid the restrictions of the hierarchical structure most mainstream filesystems impose.

 

But there's obviously something in what you're saying, so I wondered what it was!?

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

Not sure myself what it is 😕 

This study expresses some of the differences in tagging vs filing: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.164.320&rep=rep1&type=pdf&utm_source=zapier.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zapier

 

 

[stefano_mbp]

The study refers to the management of documents, the management of music, as well as photographs, I think it is very different.
But it is above all classical music that benefits from tag management.
Classical music is decidedly complex, composers from different periods, compositions that can be differentiated between concerts, sonatas, symphonies, operas, ..., the same composition performed by different conductors, in different years, by different orchestras, the presence of different soloists or singers.
Not to mention the fact that unfortunately there is no standard for naming composers' works, this imposes the need to create one's own standard in order to easily identify the work.
It seems clear to me that in the face of so many variables it is impossible to organize music by folders effectively.
Of course, inserting tags in music tracks is an activity that takes a long time, but once this work is done, the search and browsing possibilities become enormously wider than in a hierarchical organization, by folders.
This obviously does not exclude a mixed organization, the folders can identify the composer and the name of the album, but this mainly serves to have a "physically" ordered archive, the tags instead allow searching in detail.
My "physical" (by folders) archive is so organized
- Composer
--- Album
The tags I use are
Composer, Album, Track, Work, Period (Classic, Romantic, ...), Style (concert, symphony, opera, ...), Artists, Soloists, Instruments, Conductor, Orchestra, Year of recording, Year of publication (mainly used for remastering publications)
To standardize the name of the Works I used the catalogs of the most important composers (BWV for JS Bach, Köchel for Mozart, Kinsky / Halm for Beethoven, Ryom for Vivaldi, etc ...).

 

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

I'm not arguing for or against anything. I do use tags. 

[bodiebill]

Reluctant to say how I do it because I was ridiculed years ago when I posted something similar on the JRiver forum, but here goes 🙂

 

For classical I have a strict way to name folders. Example:

 

\Classical\Modern\Berg, Alban (1885-1935)\(1908) Piano Sonate opus 1_Yeol Eum Son_2015

 

Based on the folder level and name, JRiver automatically tags the files:

.Genre = Classical

.Period = Modern

.Composer = Berg, Alban

.ComposerDates = 1885-1935

.Work = (1908) Piano Sonate opus 1 (Berg, Alban)

.Artist = Yeol Eum Son

.RecDate = 2015

.Album = (1908) Piano Sonate opus 1 (Berg, Alban) - Yeol Eum Son 2015

.WorkDate = 1908

 

The dot before the tag name (my own convention) indicates that it is a calculated field, for which editing is not needed (and not allowed).

The only fields/tags that I edit manually, usually later when needed, are ratings, comments, etc.

Some fields, such as .WorkDate, WorkRating or AlbumComment, are relational in the sense that when they are assigned to one file, they are automatically assigned to all files/performances that belong to the same work, or files that belong to the same album.

 

At one time I put a lot of work into this, as you can see from just one example of how a field -- in this case .Work -- is calculated, using regex (regular expressions) and JRiver's expression language:

=If(Isequal([.GenreHL],Classical),If(IsEmpty(Regex(FileFolder(),/#^(.+)\._(.+)#/,-1)[R2]),Regex(FileFolder(),/#(.+)_(.+)_(.*)#/,-1)[R1] /([.Composer]/),Regex([Filename (name)],/#(.+)\.(.+)#/,-1)[R1] /([.Composer]/)),)

 

For almost a decade I have used this system without problems, and without having to think about tags other than the few manual ones that I add later. Works like a breeze.

 

And similar for non-classical, but there it is all much simpler.

 

By the way, I use JRiver as database only, not as player.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

@bodiebill I have found there is no "best" way of organizing a music collection, and what you are doing looks like it is exactly tailored to your needs. It also has the elegance of simplicity. 

 

Its great to see how creative people can be with all these different tools at our disposal. 

 

I have been designing my own solution, working on it for the past two years, and  in that process experimenting and testing  different features and technologies. Its just a hobby... 

 

In my app, which is basically an album grid with some search, sorting, and filtering, I miss having a folder structure.

 

I would like to group albums together using some finer groupings than the basic music "genres", allowing for these groupings to change over time and be as flexible as possible. 

 

One idea I have is to create a freely defined "folder" tree, and drag and drop albums or artists in the different "folders" (with potentially the same album included in different trees/folders). I'd like to find an existing software to play around with this idea (with actual files) and then see if it the concept is relevant for a music collection. 

 

If I find a software demo that corresponds to what I have in mind I'll link to it here. 

 

 

[bodiebill]

22 minutes ago, hopkins said:

 have found there is no "best" way of organizing a music collection...

 

Agreed. It was done for my own use and refined over time. Not easy to just copy it to someone else's system. Also, a fair bit nerdy discipline (adherence to folder/file naming conventions) is required to maintain it. 🙂 Hence my reluctance posting it.

But who knows it could help someone else out there to setup something along these lines.

 

Quote

In my app, which is basically an album grid with some search, sorting, and filtering, I miss having a folder structure. But I am thinking as well of making things a little more flexible. 

 

One idea I have is to create a freely defined "folder" tree, and drag and drop albums or artists in the different "folders" (with potentially the same album included in different trees/folders). I'd like to find an existing software to play around with this idea (with actual files) and then see if it the concept is relevant for a music collection. 

 

Interesting. However I am not sure exactly what you want to achieve. What is 'freely defined'? Are the folders real or virtual (i.e. simulated by tags)? Why do you miss folders?

 

In spite of my own method, I do think that a fully tag based approach is equally viable.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

I would say virtual folders - though the actual folder structure could also be used as a starting point, in addition to other "folder trees", simulated by tags or not. I'm really not clear about all this ! Will post examples if I can find some.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

I don't know if anyone has read the article I linked above. It highlights some of the pros and cons of tagging and folders. The conclusion is interesting:

 

Better support for information organization may need to go well beyond folders and tags or their artful combination.  As revealed in participants’ sketches, people think of their information in ways that go well beyond the representational ability of either folders or tags. Participants appeared to organize information internally, for example, with respect to time and the steps of a workflow. These internal organizations evolve over time. How can our tools better support us so that corresponding external representations can stay in synch? What if, for example, people could use a digital “sketch pad” to create, expand, and refine the organization of an information collection over time? The ultimate model of information organization may be neither “place this” nor “label this”, but instead, “this is how I see things”.

 

I feel this applies to music and to the mental "models" that we construct, consciously or not, to map out and make sense of our collection.