February 2007 - Posts
The goal is to configure the organization of music files. Here are 2 examples, from eMusic Download Manager and from iTunes:
I don't even think it is a contest in terms of clarity or control. There is no mystery with the eMusic dialogs. The 2nd eMusic dialog really made me happy with the ability to drag and drop the different attributes of the file to get the name just the way I wanted.
In fairness to iTunes, it is doing a lot more than just downloading music. In particular I think it is trying to let you define different behaviors for ripping versus adding to the library. However, even these organizational functions are obscured or not present.
My wife has an iPod, I have a Sansa, and we want to listen to each other's music. Our solution has been to use iTunes as our primary music library application. It makes transfers to the iPod easy (i.e. possible) and includes good enough ripping capabilities for adding new CDs to our MP3 collection.
The vast majority of our collection is MP3s just for the simple reason that they can be played on anything. We have a small portion of iTunes Store music which I cannot play on my player, but if given any sort of choice, I pick MP3.
This strategy has worked out OK. Typically I have just used the file transfer mode on the Sansa to transfer music directly through as files through explorer windows. The problem has always been finding the music on my hard drive to transfer it. After years of gathering MP3s, they are all under one parent directory, but within that directory, the organization is pretty inconsistent.
In general the files are organized by artist, then album folder. The files themselves are named with the track number and name. Seems pretty easy. In fact this is the default setup if you allow iTunes to manage your library, as I grudgingly have done.
However, this scheme breaks down in 3 ways. First, the ID3 tags on the MP3s themselves are not right or are slightly inconsistent. So I have a 4 disc Jimi Hendrix set that ended up with different naming conventions for the CD tittles. Or, Ben Harper albums that were marked as either Ben Harper or Ben Harper and the Innocent Criminals. This example is worse for me when I'm transferring files as now some Ben Harper CDs are in one sub folder, some are in a different one.
The second problem is very iTunes specific and is the evil that is known as the "Compilations" folder. Apparently when some of my CDs are identified by CDDB they are marked as part of compilations so they get shoved in there. However, I have yet to see much logic on which albums are considered compilations and which aren't. I'd much rather just do away with that folder altogether.
Finally, the third problem is with classical music. Again, this is mostly an ID3 tag issue. When I'm trying to find pop music on my hard drive, it is pretty easy to look for a folder named U2 and go from there. If I want to find all my Bach, then I have to try to remember the performer or the name of the album, etc. Again, there is a lack of consistency on how the files are tagged, so iTunes gets messy trying to organize them into folders.
So in the pursuit of being constructive, I'm working a few scripts to reorganize my MP3 library and help me sort out all these messy tagging issues. I'll share that code as I make progress on it. In addition to inspiring me to write a few script, these issues have given me some food for thought on my previous post about tagging and metadata. Are messy tags better than a messy file system? I'm not sure, but a messy file system, plus messy tags are definitely not ideal.
After reading a recent blog post on Lifehacker about using tagging and saved searches in Vista to simplify file management, I decided to try and think about what it would look like to take it one step further. What would an operating system look like that eliminated the office metaphor of filing folders for organization?
Imagining an operating system without file folders is getting easier since we are becoming accustomed to seeing searching and tagging everywhere from email to desktop search. One way to eliminate folders would be to just replace the folder selector in the Save dialog boxes with a tag selector. The Open file dialog would similarily have a tag selector instead of a folder one. So the user would no longer pick where a file goes, but rather how it should be found. Instead of adding metadata/tagging being an extra step it would be the only step.
Beyond making searching easier, adding tagging as a mandatory step would open new doors for developers of client applications. For example, iTunes type software could be rewritten to run off the tags that all files had; so instead of painstakingly laying out directory structures to accomodate a personal library, a friend's, a shared one, you would just navigate your libaries by going through your tags.
Project management software could be enhanced to use tagging to create virtual workspaces for project related documents instead of an elaborate public folder structure. Backup software would almost write itself, i.e. backup all of my Music, everything for Project A, pictures from My Vacation. Best of all, this type of activity would be fast; since everything would already be tagged and indexed at the OS level, new applications would not have to implement their own ways to search your hard drive.
Vista has taken baby steps in this direction by adding built-in desktop search and exposing the search APIs via .NET. However, as long as the underlying file folders are there, it is hard to imagine getting most people to start adding the extra step of tagging their files. Beyond that, the biggest barrier is that folders may be an example of a "just good enough" solution. Yes, they can be a pain, but it is a pain we are all used to. And familiar pains can be the hardest ones to let go.
Just a little something to get the blog rolling again...
Recently, I reluctantly ditched my old Rio Karma MP3 player in favor of a Sandisk Sansa. My Karma was a nice player, but crippled by absolutely terrible transfer software. I bought 3rd party transfer software, which did not hard-lock my machine, but was still not terribly elegant. Beyond the general mp3 player capabilities, I wanted a built-in FM tuner and was unwilling to pay the iPod markup, so after some research I went with the Sansa.
The player itself has worked out well so far. When I bought it, I knew I would want to try a music subscription service. A virtually unlimited selection for $15/month sounded like a fine deal on music to me. So I signed up for Microsoft's Urge and gave it a try.
My first impression was OK. Urge integrates into Windows Media Player 11, which seemed like a good thing at the time; no totally separate application for transferring music from the service. The amount of material available was huge and there were some interesting looking playlists.
Then reality set in. The site/application is slow. Not just slightly annoying slow, but dial up modem style slow. Navigating through pages and finding music became a chore that discouraged any real exploration.
Windows Media Player also kept thinking that I had dropped my internet connection. I was on a wired connection and IE, Firefox, etc. would be doing fine, but Urge would be refusing to load anything since it thought I was not connected. Still, I managed to load up my Sansa with a bunch of "Super"/big playlists of different genres and away I went.
Unfortunately, the playlists themselves were no treat. I would have preferred listening to a radio station's mix of songs then these ones. However, that is a relatively minor point of taste; I was more annoyed to discover that one of the playlists had not transferred completely to my player. Apparently I had tried to sync too many songs and Media Player had kindly not told me, instead just truncating the list.
Basically I had a music service that I didn't want to browse extensively because it was slow and flaky, and I did not think I could count on it to choose songs for me via a pre-generated play list. This is when I started thinking the DRM stuff: about not being to be able to play songs I downloaded because I did not sync up my player on time or deciding in a year that I wanted a different mp3 player and being stuck with making sure the new one was compatible with this service.
Also, some songs were not even included in my "All Music" subscription, but had to be purchased anyway for 99 cents. What happened if these songs happened to be part of a list I wanted to sync? Did I just automatically purchase them?
So I started looking for alternatives. eMusic had a nice trial offer, which I am currently taking advantage of. I get a bunch of free downloads, in regular old mp3 format and then after a month, I get switched into a $10 plan that gives me 30 downloads a month. Again in a format I can keep and use on any device.
eMusic focuses more on independent artists, classical and jazz music, so the selection is very different from Urge. As is the experience of using it. eMusic installs a small download assistant application to manage multiple downloads, but beyond that has a web based store front. The website is snappy and well laid out. The number of downloads I have remaining is displayed prominently across the top of each page.
As I select songs or albums, eMusic shows me its recommendations for similar music, as well as other user's recommendations. I just hook up the Sansa as an external drive, transfer over the music and I'm done. So far I've found a few great new classical albums, as well as some independent rock/alternative tracks. I'm actually growing my collection, instead of avoiding it.
Do I miss the idea of an utterly huge selection of mainstream music, like with Urge? In a sense I do, but I am more than happy with eMusic and its eclectic selection. Why? Because sometimes "less" can be more, when less just works and more is just a slow and confusing mess.