>> Are you saying that in WinAmp you "pretend" to have compilation albums
>> by setting Album Artist to "Various Artists", because it doesn't
>> automatically detect compilations (where songs on an album are
>> performed by differing artists), and there's no way of declaring an
>> album as such?
>
>essentially yes, but i don't call it pretending.
>
So, it doesn't have any support for compilation albums, it just sticks them
under any artist name you care to put in the album artist field. So not only
does it abuse the BAND tag, pretending it's Album Artist, but it then abuses
that Album Artist, pretending that it's something that is not an artist!
>winamp itself via gracenote denotes the value "Various Artists" in
>TPE2, and since i can think, i know thats a comp, and i don't really
>care if winamp knows or not, b/c it doesn't need to know.
>
So your problem is that you want SC to downgrade itself into a "mainstream" app
like WinAmp. Even iTunes is better than that.
There are benefits for having proper Compilation indicators. i.e. you can
browse compilations. In SC, you can find them all in one place at the top of
the artists list, and you can define what the name of that place is ("Various
Artists", "Compilations", whatever you like). CustomBrowse is even better, in
that you can have a "Browse Compilations" that does exactly that.
However, if you don't have compilation information, and instead have artists
that represent compilation albums, you will not find them browsable in the same
place with the same name. There's no comparison: you either have
functionality, or you have none. Your idea of a mainstream app is one that has
no functionality.
SC doesn't need compilation tags, generally, because it can work it out. The
rules are not hard. Other apps should copy SC, not the other way round.
I still haven't experienced taggers entering album artist (or TPE2) data from
metadata sources in a consistent manor, especially compilation albums. Some
may enter an album artist of "Various", "Various Artist", "Various Artists",
"Compilation", "Soundtrack", blah blah blah... There's no standard; it's
hardly a solution.
Now, I still don't see your problem. You always have an album artist, even for
a normal album that has the same performer on every track, and even for
compilation albums where every track is by a different artist. That is
unnecessary for SC, but you do that so that less-able applications work
similarly. You will never have compilation albums as such in SC, and your
library should be presented the same way as WinAmp.
I'm not arguing about that; if that works for you, then so be it.
But in that case, why should you ever want to add compilation tags? If you are
happy with the lack of proper compilation indicators across all of your music
library applications, why add them for SC?
>this is hilarious, and exactly the kind of response i expect from a
>SC-centric persona on the SC forums.
>
Must admit, I can't see any funny side to it. WinAmp doesn't support
compilation tags. You don't care that is doesn't. But you come here and
expect SC to get rip of Compilation guessing logic, because it's not needed in
the way you use your library, and may cause you problems with your library.
Instead of going to WinAmp and asking if they could make their application
better, like more modern library systems.
>but thats hardly something to complain about.
>
Why not, you've complained because SC does!
>b/c you are purposely putting your head in the sand.
>
What makes you say that? I'm still here aren't I? And still trying to be
polite, despite your antics.
>SC needs to conform to THEM, not the other way around.
>
Rubbish. Not every app has to follow suit. New apps come along and become
market leaders. Generally that only happens if they have a killer new
feature/product that no-one else has. SqueezeCenter will not become bigger by
following in the footsteps of others. They put other apps to shame in many
areas. They have a market beating app.
In fact, SqueezeCenter is only here to support SqueezeBoxes, which is what they
sell to make money. It's the squeezebox itself that makes the money.
They already support many formats and standards that other products no not.
They cannot support Apple protected media, even if they wanted to, because
Apple won't let it happen. So they can't always follow suit and be compatible
with the big dogs. They need to find new things to entice people to move to
their way of doing things.
Phil
_______________________________________________
ripping mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/ripping
