Is there a program that will organise all the MP3s on my hardrive?

What really is the advantages and disadvantages to itunes (I'm not an audiophile, so the m4a argument goes over my head).

Currently, I use winamp/musicmatch to play, and I organize everything using windows as is (PC/no mac).

Thanks.

This is what I find most annoying. Using iTunes halfway is probably the worst way to go -- it's a 'My way or the highway' kind of program.

I'm high on life.

You can turn off the auto-organizing if you want so I don't see what the problem is. Doglatin was specifically looking for something that would automatically organize his mp3s and iTunes would do the trick. Just tag the mp3s however you want in iTunes and it organizes them in folders by artist & album. You don't really ever need to deal with the files themselves anyway. Want to organize by year? Tag all of your files with the year (there's a field for this) and you can make smart playlists by decade, view all of your files in chronological order, etc. Tag your files with whatever strange genres and subgenres you can think of or put the name of the producer or record label in the comments field and you can sort things that way. Basically you can get automatically generated and updated playlists based on any sort of organizational critera you could possibly come up with.

True, and I may've inadvertantly hijacked this from doglatin...sorry. But there're some fears involved with it, and he might want to be aware of that. They're probably can be unsubstatiated, which is the point.

However, a well versed guy at work is a believer in itunes, but asked me how to undo some of the things it has done to his library. Maybe he's not as well versed as you and others who use it. I told him I simply wouldn't know as he is not the first to ask me about some concerns, therefore, I've steered clear.

You don't really ever need to deal with the files themselves anyway. Just tag the mp3s however you want in iTunes and it organizes them...

This sounds like "you don't really need to paint your car; just cut out a piece of metal the shape of your car, paint that, attach it to the side of your car, and presto, your car is now the color you want it."

Granted, if this piece of metal *drives* you around, then I guess it is worth it. It just may not take me where I want to go.

That said, there are lots of advantages to using descriptive fields instead of the files themselves to organize songs. On of the most obvious is that any particular song can have lots of different attributes and belong to many non-overlapping groups all at one time -- a group by year, a group by genre, a group by songs with the word "bicycle" in the title, a group of songs between 15 and 25 minutes long, etc. iTunes is very good at letting you tag and arrange songs in multiple ways like that. (and that applies whether you turn the file-management function on or off, since you're only sorting by descriptive data)

You can sort by the artist field, and all the songs without artists will be at the top (or bottom). Also, if you're having itunes auto-organize your files, when you do assign an artist, it will move it into the proper folder.

One more thing, and I'll stop my itunes apologist stuff: One of the knocks about having itunes keep your folders organized is getting particular files back out of your library. BUT, you can always just drag the song(s) out of the itunes window, and the file(s) will be copied to where ever you drag. It's handy.

(also, I was happy to read in another thread that lots of people are using other software besides itunes. As good as I think it is, it's good that there are other strong choices out there, too)

Yep, the problem of slotting something in one rigid category is something I always fretted about with my records & CDs. It seems a little silly and backwards to force this physical model onto digital files by keeping track of the location of your mp3s on a disc rather than creating virtual categories and sorting with metadata. I've only been getting into it recently but it's like a dream come true for a music geek. Papa, if you move files around and re-categorize them all of the time it seems like this would be a much better way to do it. Instead of keeping a file in a certain folder by genre one week and then deciding to move it into a category by era later, let it exist in both categories simultaneously.

the biggest problem with itunes is that if the file doesn't have a tag on it or the artist field is left blank it gets lost and good luck ever finding it again

Did you actually lose the file in iTunes or you just can't find it on the drive? Because if you can see it in iTunes, just right click and select "Show Song File." It will take you to where the file is located on your machine.

The reasons I move them around is being presumed in this. However, I totally I think I understand the other ultimate point this argument.

I think we're speaking in abstract aboout one another's libraries. If you saw my slsk shared files, there'd be some context to my defense.

The movement really is about my ridiculous interest in taxonomy/evolution, and an ever growing library that causes a need for newer sub-dvisions. I don't share albums for the most part. I chronical genres and periods, often breaking apart weird comps into individual tracks based on the release date of each song.

Also, people tend to que up whole folders of mine in slsk, and keeping them mid-size makes that error okay...otherwise, I ban numerous people everyday for queing up 500 files.

But I've done some research, been bullied into ituens, did more research, got bullied more, and finally enetered this debate, only to do more research...and it sounds like the complete anti-christ for what I'm doing.

I may be wrong, but very little on the pro side right now other than multiple ways of sorting things, which, does nothing for the ways I listen to music. Sorting can be done with windows search feature in a matter of seconds, so I can't imagine how letting something take over is a plus with this argument.

I'm in the slsk ILM room if anyone cares enough to look at my files to see my structure, and educate me on the plusses of itunes over doing it manually. But no effort is expected.

Hopefully, people won't come at me with disgust over my...

(19XX) Artist - Song Title

...way of catlogging. It's quicker than accesing tags when dealing with 17k songs.

I have probably double that amount in unsorted folders that I slowly catalog over time. I couldn't imagine a program grabbing those and adding them. It'd turn a well sized, organized home into a landfill.

There're plenty of nay-sayers found in real life and online regarding itunes who bring real concerns to the table. So far those points haven't been fully addressed.

Until then, I'll wait for a way that doesn't have glaring problems, or wait until someone can show me how to totally avoid these problems with ituens.

So far, I've only been shown worse, but told it was better because it's newer, and "everyone does it".

Zero problems with how I'm doing it so far, but I'm sure it can be improved.

-- fandango (fandango7...), May 26th, 2005.

This doesn't help...

I'm not anti...I've been warned.

I'm asking for clarification...but I get more negatives.

I've wound up juggling about 10 different (Mac) programs for various specialized tasks (much like I do for graphic design *sigh*):
- iTunes (ripping, playing, organizing tags)
- AppleScripts for iTunes (batch processing, automating)
- Finder AppleScripts (batch file re-naming)
- ID3X (batch tagging, re-naming)
- TriTag (alternative to ID3X)
- iCDc (uploading info to FreeDB)
- MP3 Trimmer (trimming, splitting up mixes)
- Amadeus (editing, vinyl ripping)
- EasyWMA (convert WMAs to MP3s)
- Toast (burning)
- CDFinder (cataloging)

Nope. No matter what you're reasons and methods of categorizing are, it seems like a simple fact that a database structure is a much more powerful way to work than just using filenames. This isn't even really about iTunes, as it would apply to any other program with similar features.

The movement really is about my ridiculous interest in taxonomy/evolution, and an ever growing library that causes a need for newer sub-dvisions.

That's the only reason why I'm pushing this is that this sounds like exactly what the additional tags in a program like iTunes are great for.

I don't share albums for the most part. I chronical genres and periods, often breaking apart weird comps into individual tracks based on the release date of each song.

This is where the smart playlists that automatically sort by genre, year, etc. come in handy. I should point out that the smart playlists aren't actually moving your files around or changing anything on your computer. They're simply pointers to the files which can still be organized however you want on the disc. But if you do want to say burn a disc of every track you have from 1955 or every track that you've tagged with the keywords "folk" and "metal" it takes all of 2 seconds.

Also, people tend to que up whole folders of mine in slsk, and keeping them mid-size makes that error okay...

Actually, this is a good argument for letting iTunes organize by artist then. Because if you don't normally have full albums, but your files are organized by album & artist, then each folder should only have a few tracks in them. Unless all of this categorizing you're talking about is done specifically for the downloaders. If that's the case then I've missed the whole point of what you're saying. Do you categorize your files for your own listening and burning? Or do you like to make these categories available for others to download (in which case ignore everything I've said).

Hopefully, people won't come at me with disgust over my...

(19XX) Artist - Song Title

...way of catlogging.

Now that's really annoying. If you really care about categorization you should at least have the decency to tag your files properly.

I have probably double that amount in unsorted folders that I slowly catalog over time. I couldn't imagine a program grabbing those and adding them.

So you just add them all to a playlist called "Unsorted" and clear out all of the genre tags. Then when you get around to categorizing them and adding your own tags they'll show up in the appropriate playlist. I do this all of the time.

But it's a shame the actual tagging element is underdeveloped and (imo) too basic, even taking into account apple's love of 'simplicity' here. I'd like to have had the option to uppercase all first characters, transfer ID3 v.1 tags to v.2 (& vice-versa, to be able to rename files from tags specifying how myself* (i.e. name tracks according to number - artist - title), and easily remove previous tag debris quickly & completely.

Basically I still need all the things that http://www.id3-tagit.de/english/index.htm does, because it quickly becomes _tedious_ handling (with some degree of consistency) lots of differently labelled mp3 files without these functions.

*this may be at odds with iTunes preferred method of "you do it our way, and would you like an iPod with that?"

xpost to the thread starter I see: "Organize Files - This function can sort your MP3 files into folders using the information form the ID3-tags" here - http://www.id3-tagit.de/ It's not something I've used (caveat etc), I was till now unaware of v.2 but maybe you might want to have a go at using this?

Yes! That would be great.

transfer ID3 v.1 tags to v.2 (& vice-versa, to be able to rename files from tags specifying how myself* (i.e. name tracks according to number - artist - title)

OK, I don't know what that means but it sounds good.

and easily remove previous tag debris quickly & completely.

I don't know if this is exactly what you're talking about but when I have a bunch of new tracks in iTunes, I generally select them all, hit command-I and then checkmark all of the fields I want to clear out (genre, comments, etc.). That seems to be an easy way to clear all of the crap out but maybe you're talking about something else.

Curt, this is actually the primary source of most of my fears.

Walter, you've given a couple pros to think about. I also really appreciate your recommendations on the other thread regarding comps. I don't appreciate you refering to my "indecency and perversion". No big deal though.

Eventually, I'll move beyond my perverse and archaic ways, but for now ;-)

Huh? I don't remember calling you either.

I don't think a day goes by when this doesn't happen to me! Best thing to do is type something like "Crameo", then go back and delete the R afterwards.

Seconded. If you prefer not to use iTunes, use this.

Huh? I don't remember calling you either.

WOOPS! You did not refer to me "being perverse"; that was another. But yeah, saying I "should at least have the decency to tag my files properly" does mean I'm, by your definition, being indencet.

Again, not to be petty, just poiting out what seems a bit pointed, when the truth is, I get anywhere from one to maybe 6 messages a day praising me for my archive's setup, and virtually none on it being done improper (oddly, I got two offers for money this week to "help me with my effort" -- wtf?!). "Decency" was a poor choice of words.

Major apologies for acusing you of the other, and for dragging this minor issue on waaaay to long. I'll buy you a drink or two if we meet ever.

Ha ha, oh yeah. I remember now. I was just poking a bit of fun there. You had me worried for a minute because "Indecency and Perversion" sounded downright dirty and I didn't think I had gone there.

It's also jolly good when stuff you've downloaded is read properly (tags etc).

But often you download stuff, and iTunes doesn't know what to do with it. Then, it is an AWFUL editor. I don't know if there's anything better. If not, they're all awful.

Another thing is that I've grouped files in folders by producer when the producer has multiple aliases (J@cques Lu C*nt for example, or M.I.K.E.'s 90 aliases), where I can then do folder-based smart playlists for as well. I realize this can also be done by abusing the "composer" or "comments" ID3v2 tag for producer info, but that's against the whole idea of correct tagging.

BTW you can slim down iTunes 4.8 for Windows to about the same memory usage as Winamp 5, by disabling all the stuff you might not need, such as filesharing option, iTMS, the Gear CD burning Service and the iPod Service (last 2 through in the Windows services list). That does not fix the high cpu usage during playback though.

that autocomplete is annoying too. thuogh i have the opposite problem, when i type cameo it tries to change it to Cameo, i dont want any uppercase rubbish

Slsk downloads everything into one "Incoming" folder, which then contains incomplete files and lots of incorrectly tagged ones.

That seems like the filesharing program's problem, not something the mp3 player should worry about. The program I use (Aquisition) puts the incomplete files into a folder called "incomplete" and then it adds the complete files to a new playlist in iTunes called "Aquisition." It's probably not as good as soulseek though from what I hear of soulseek.

This is REALLY practical, but can't be done within iTunes, which cannot a) filter files in specific folders b) filter files with specific text strings like "INCOMPLETE" in the filename c) monitor the Incoming folder and add files to the library as they are completed

Yeah, this is all stuff that happens externally to the mp3 player so I've never thought of it as a problem.

Another thing is that I've grouped files in folders by producer when the producer has multiple aliases (J@cques Lu C*nt for example, or M.I.K.E.'s 90 aliases), where I can then do folder-based smart playlists for as well. I realize this can also be done by abusing the "composer" or "comments" ID3v2 tag for producer info, but that's against the whole idea of correct tagging.

Why is it an abuse to add this stuff to the comments? Isn't that what they're for? I'd rather see the producer credits in the comments than some nonsense about who encoded the file.

Sorry for coming across like an insufferable mac evangelist on this thread but I just don't get what all of the itunes hate is about.

Most annoying things in iTunes I can think of, just to show I'm not totally blind to its faults:

- I have loads of playlists, both smart and manual. I wish I could oraganise them into folders rather than just having them in one long list down the side.

- You can't delete tracks from your computer entirely when looking at them in playlist view. Delete in a manual playlist just deletes it from that playlist, and delete in a smart playlist is completely disabled. When in a playlist, there should be a right-click option to delete a track from the Library itself.

I know this is absolute sagrilege for the pure taggers out there, but it might be useful to one or two people.
I tag all of those leetle individual songs that I download into an album called Misc (which tidies up my hard drive a lot), then set them all as being part of a compilation. Then I turn on the option to Group Compilations When Browsing. Tadah - instant cleaner Artist & Album lists.
I can still find the songs through search, or through a smart playlist, or just by navigating to them (it's only one extra click!)

Btw, one thing that iTunes has that is good is Edit -> Show Duplicate Songs. THANKS, iTUNES! Though I wish you could tag them as "not duplicate" or something...

oh and a beta plugin for ipods.

i still use itunes as now all my files are tagged better. but media monkey helped clesn my tags up.

"Proper English Title Capitalization" iTunes AppleScript came in useful for me but wasn't 100% effective, didn't always work, if for instance I was listening to an mp3 at the time I was trying to edit it's tag (winamp copes, other programs give warnings that changes will not be applied). Felt like it needed some kind of foolproof "really apply now" function.

I don't know if this is exactly what you're talking about but when I have a bunch of new tracks in iTunes, I generally select them all, hit command-I and then checkmark all of the fields I want to clear out (genre, comments, etc.). That seems to be an easy way to clear all of the crap out but maybe you're talking about something else. It's what I'm talking about, it just didn't (again) seem 100% effective, much less effective than say removing the entire tag, then re-typing it or transferring the info across from a corrected ID3v.1/2 tag.

With respect, I could hardly even look at MP3 Rage (the UI was just terrible), much less use it with any kind of confidence (I did try).

Anyway, this thread is interesting so far.

I don't think anyone here is coming off as an apologist or mac zealot. But what do apple need to do to convince the doubters? Better user-interaction research?

Fwiw, my personal feeling is that they don't care. I'll admit, that's the conclusion I've come to from my experience with the other parts of OS X. Like the mind-bogglingly awful "finder", which is the other 50% reason of why I can't bear to use a mac (I won't even begin going into that here... wrong forum entirely).

Maybe that could be classed as a 'grudge' but I'm personally not prepared to invest any more time in using a program that has (some) serious shortcomings which look highly unlikely to be 'fixed' whilst apple are still able to convince a great number of people that it's the 'way forward'.

I really need to try this Winamp 5 Media library thing!

Alba's criticisms re: iTunes are by far the most common ones I've seen in threads like this.

I have a lot of regard for Apple's developers! Almost everything else about OS X is perfect. But the bits that _aren't_ are so problematic to use on a daily basis, that I'm (bitterly) still much happier on a Windows machine despite it's shortcomings (I hardly need to detail those).

When I get a moment I will send my (edited, hopefully understandable) thoughts to the developer address. Even if I have given up on mac till the next time I try it, if there is a next time.

It seems better than the equivalent in my Windows 2K machine I have at work, anyway. And I'm still on 10.2 so don't even have the latest version. Maybe XP's is better than all of them - I don't know as I've hardly used it.