Individual Entry
id3 + Winamp 5
To this day, I hate id3 tags. They're just too inconsistent, and changing them (unlike renaming a file) is a hassle-and-a-half. Now I know what you're thinking: "if you download songs from different sources, then of course it will be inconsistent." Which is true, and expected, but that is illegal and we'd never admit to such things. No. The point is that entries in the CDDB are inconsistent, so when you are ripping your own CDs (and querying the CDDB) you still have to deal with that crap.
There are many things about id3 that annoy me, including: song info in ALL CAPS; song info completely lowercase; track numbers in the track title (there's a track # field for a reason); off-the-mark genres. This one's particularly annoying as many programs default to "Blues". If you can't think of the proper genre, or hate labels all together, leave it blank! Don't put in something completely random. No matter what your outlook, Skinny Puppy is NOT Blues; incomplete tags. I'd much rather have no id3 tags than just the artist name; and, finally, wrong information. I hate clicking on "song X.mp3" and having "Artist A - song Y" show instead.
I mention this because Winamp 5 is (officially) out and like any modern audio player it contains a media library. A media library that, like all that I've seen, organizes your media based on id3 tags. As is to be expected, it comes out as a complete mess. Finding songs in this id3 jungle is a chore.
So I wonder to myself: why bother? Why deal with the inconsistent hassles of and id3 database when I already have the best means of organizing my music: the filesystem. Is something like /MUSIC/BAND/ALBUM/XX-TrackName.mp3 too complicated? That alone gives me all the information I need without the necessity for an overly bloated database. Plus, it's easy to organize and search through.
To me, the only things that the Media Library adds are play counts and song ratings. Both of which aren't that useful. Both of which could be achieved with WinAmp plug-ins anyway.
Stupid id3 tags.
Now for the rest of Winamp 5: it's pretty good. The new look seems to perform better than that awful Winamp 3. There's some nice new features, including better video support, a built-in CD Ripper, and better integration between the components (like the visualizer and equalizer). Another great feature, for the Winamp 2 lovers and Winamp 3 haters, is the ability to switch between the old skin engine and the new skin engine -- so if you find the new skin engine to be too slow or if you miss your classic skins, you can just switch it over!
Additionally, the one thing I find useful about the media library is the Shoutcast.com integration for internet radio and, this is rather new to me, internet TV (though the TV part is a misnomer). There isn't a lot of this Internet TV available, but there are some choosings: a few webcams; a stream of someone's television (watch what they're watching); some live band performances; a lot of videos (primarily of the Radiohead, Bjork and Cunningham, Jonze variety); and, obviously, a bunch of porn. I was suprised by the fidelity of some of those streams. This must have been the first time I've ever encountered a 500kbps stream that didn't skip on me. Hell, even the 1Mbps stream worked fine!
It's not without its downsides, though. For some reason, Winamp 2.91 doesn't seem to work anymore. Inexplicable, really. Also, the fresh installation seemed to screw up my icons. I tried to fix it, but they weren't reverting back to what I wanted. Then after trying to fix the semi-working but unusable Winamp 2, the icons fixed themselves. ? Small issues, but they bugged me.
December 18, 2003. General.Comments (8)
I tried MusicBrainz, and I find it not much better. The interface is horrible, and a good portion of the albums I tried weren't even listed (granted, I listen to off-the-beaten-track stuff). But that kind of defeats the point, as I'd have to enter that data anyway... which doesn't help me any in being lazy.
If a piece of software doesn't allow me to be lazier with it than without, it's a failure.
December 19, 2003 12:54 AM. Posted by: nowak.I agree very much that a directory-based organization is much better (my system is identical to yours actually), but that depends on people caring / being obsessive-compulsive enough to organize the files on their machines. Ever look at the full pathnames of files available on people's machines in various P2P programs (AHEM not that we use such things of course)? A lotta times it's c:\My Documents\My Music\Fucking Maria Carey or Some Shit.MP3. There's no way we'll ever be able to administrate order on these people.
So instead we have the (also incredibly sub-optimal) ID3 tags to look at.
December 19, 2003 10:48 AM. Posted by: JP.Yes, true. But the point is, it's far easier to move a file to another directory and rename it then it is to change both id3v1 and id3v2 tags.
December 19, 2003 04:28 PM. Posted by: nowak.ummm.... have you guys heard of tag and rename...
December 20, 2003 08:15 PM. Posted by: wiseguy....Yeah. It's shareware, not that great, and ALSO uses CDDB.
December 20, 2003 09:06 PM. Posted by: nowak.The genre category is the worst. Musical genres are born and die all the time according to the whims of a loosely affiliated set of (often pretentious) music critics. What's more, if you look up any album or artist on allmusic.com, you'll find that even the most straightforward projects have two or three genres associated with them. How most songs could be categorized with a single genre name taken from a preset list of genre names is beyong me.
December 21, 2003 04:49 PM. Posted by: tate.
Yeah, CDDB is crappy because they accept any entry from a person who thinks his spelling should be the norm, and it's a major hassle to get them to correct something.
Have a look at Musicbrainz (www.musicbrainz.org) instead.
December 18, 2003 01:03 PM. Posted by: Johan Svensson.