Artificial intelligence-driven/automated tagging

[Dan Gravell]

There are different _types_ of metadata. My own name for them are:

 

- Identification tags - identifies a release in some way (not necessarily uniquely, that could be a subset), e.g. ISRC, MB ID, a URI, album title, year, cat #

- Structural tags - defines the ordering and structuring of a release, e.g. disc number, track number, grouping title

- Classification tags - more subjective, e.g. genre, mood etc

 

In terms of identifying inconsistent data, this is already done by several apps.

 

The thing with auto suggesting tag values for classification tags, like detecting genre, is that while you might get "a" value you still need bounds within which values are acceptable. For example, within genre you don't want to end up with 200 genres - it just makes a music library unusable. These constraints could, of course, be automated.

[Dan Gravell]

Thanks for this feedback @lamode!

 

The artists one is a common request. There are two ways of looking at it:

 

- Making sure incoming artist data splits into separate tags

- Analysing existing tags and split those

 

In general, this would be best implemented as a rule I think, because different players will have different demands - I've learnt how primitive some are, and support for multiple artist fields is not an option on some (my own car stereo only supports ID3v1 for example).

 

The artist name is an interesting one - the data is coming from https://www.discogs.com/Buddy-Bregman-And-His-Orchestra-Swinging-Kicks/master/450155 which lists the one from the cover as the canonical artist name for the release, but is also linked to https://www.discogs.com/artist/897724-The-Buddy-Bregman-Orchestra which is the canonical name for the artist - we use both as suggestions and that's why you have the two choices you showed in the screenshot. Maybe the latter should be a lower score, and so won't get the "recommended" tag. What do you think?

[Dan Gravell]

Yes, especially for classical releases!

Thanks for these items, they are nice and atomic so easy to add into our ticketing system.

[Dan Gravell]

The only issue with speed would be upload/download. The actual tagging difference should be negligible.

 

Quote

Personally, I like this overview by SoundCharts

 

Plenty of good points here, but this is a different use case to music consumption which is the main concern here. In general I'd advise erring toward recording as little metadata as you need.

[Dan Gravell]

19 hours ago, lotusaurus said:

But right now, bliss does look like a good option. For some reason I thought it wasn't a good fit when I first looked at it. Must take another look.

 

Let me know your thoughts @lotusaurus

[Dan Gravell]

On 9/7/2021 at 8:45 PM, katools said:

@Dan Gravell does bliss build up a local database of files it's ingested or is every run treated like a new beginning i.e. re-read all metadata, redo analysis, redo identification etc?

Yeah, it creates its own index of files and tags (to speed operation) and its own record of the assessments and fixes that have been made.