Dealing with multi disc singles


#1

I’m having some issues with matching multi disc singles in Picard, for example:

These are UK style singles with a CD 1 and CD 2 with different content on each but Picard only sees it as one release. Which means you end up having to set the version in the right panel with “Other Versions > CD 1” drag the tracks in for the right release, save, then “Other Versions > CD 2” drag the tracks in for the 2nd release and save which leads to:

music/artist/album/01. track 1 from cd1.ext
music/artist/album/01. track 1 from cd2.ext
music/artist/album/02. track 2 from cd1.ext
music/artist/album/02. track 2 from cd2.ext

Which isn’t exactly great

Ideally I would like to have something more like a standard multi disc release:

music/artist/album/101. track 1 from cd1.ext
music/artist/album/102. track 2 from cd1.ext
music/artist/album/201. track 1 from cd2.ext
music/artist/album/202. track 2 from cd2.ext

I could settle for:

music/artist/album (cd1)/01. track 1 from cd1.ext
music/artist/album (cd1)/01. track 2 from cd1.ext
music/artist/album (cd2)/01. track 1 from cd2.ext
music/artist/album (cd2)/02. track 2 from cd2.ext

My main stumbling block is getting Picard to even see them as 2 distinct releases or being able to merge them together.

I could get Picard to do the heavy lifting with the tagging then sort them manually but that seems to defeat the point :wink:

Any Ideas?


#2

The problem as I see it is that these are identically named releases. Looking at the cover art at Discogs I see that they were released with stickers that said “Part 1 of 2” and “Part 2 of 2”. You could add those as disambiguation comments, and then use %_releasecomment% in your naming string. In my naming string I have:

$if(%_releasecomment%, \(%_releasecomment%\))

I had a similar problem with some Japanese singles where it’s fairly common to release slightly different versions. Note the last 2 singles in this list, the (Type-A) and (Type-B) are disambiguation comments;
image


#3

In MB those singles are listed as separate releases. Where they released and distributed separately or came they together in a package? In the latter case the releases should probably be merged into one multi-disc release.


#4

It seems that those releases are correctly separate entities. Here’s my thoughts.

Case 1:
music/artist/album/101. track 1 from cd1.ext
music/artist/album/102. track 2 from cd1.ext
music/artist/album/201. track 1 from cd2.ext
music/artist/album/202. track 2 from cd2.ext

This is hard to achieve and isn’t reasonable when considering that we’re handling two separate releases here. If you were able to make this happen with a naming script, it would apply to all releases which are in a same release group.

Case 2:
music/artist/album (part 1)/01. track 1.ext
music/artist/album (part 1)/02. track 2.ext
music/artist/album (part 2)/01. track 1.ext
music/artist/album (part 2)/02. track 2.ext

Using the disambiguation comment in the filename like in Billy_Yank’s reply. For this to work, you need to check that releases which are from a same RG are correctly disambiguated before tagging. Otherwise you’d end up back to OP’s situation.

Case 3:
music/artist/album (43000b2d)/01. track 1.ext
music/artist/album (43000b2d)/02. track 2.ext
music/artist/album (c74754de)/01. track 1.ext
music/artist/album (c74754de)/02. track 2.ext

Using a part of a release MBID to differentiate the releases. As long as you’re not adding the same release twice (or two releases in a same RG have partly same MBIDs which is unlikely), the directories will neatly stay apart without too much effort. This can be done with:

$truncate(%musicbrainz_albumid%,8)

I’d combine this with $upper(%_extension%) so you can add the same release in different formats if necessary.