Picard woes

[brotagonist]

I am new to picard. In the upper right corner, there is a search field. I have experimented with it, but have been unable to get any useful results.

What I would like is for it to open the sought-after album in the right panel so that I can just drag my files from the middle panel onto the appropriate name. This would make tagging hugely easier, since it is often impossible to divine the arcane names people have used for (classical) albums.

Is there a way to do this?

Also, I have noticed that picard appears to be renaming some of my files that are not loaded int the middle panel on its own!!! (horbor, shock, mega-BAD!!!). The names are pretty meaningless and they make it impossible to tell with track it is. I have had to go back to backup copies to restore order.

Why is this happening?

I suspect that there is some sort of bittorrent running in the background that scans all of the logged in users’ files for matches. The problem with this is that you end up with file names and tags that are not the authoritative ones in the MusicBrainz database (that I have just spent 3 painful weeks on, hugely expanding (classical)). I have been patient and, inthe end, I managed to get the ‘real’ file names and tags, but it sure is scary when your files are messed with and you can no longer tell what they really are and which order they are supposed to be in (not a good thing for symphonies where almost every track is called allegro or andante lol).

[outsidecontext]

You can always manually load releases into Picard, see Loading releases from musicbrainz.org into Picard

@brotagonist

Also, I have noticed that picard appears to be renaming some of my files that are not loaded int the middle panel on its own!!!

No, Picard is not renaming anything on its own. It will only save tags and move / rename files when you press the save button. You can disable any of these actions, so e.g. if you want to just save tags disable moving and renaming.

[InvisibleMan78]

@brotagonist

I suspect that there is some sort of bittorrent running in the background that scans all of the logged in users’ files for matches

There is no bittorrent running in the background.
Picard establish a direct connection to the MB Server, searching for additional data with your existing information (file names, tags).

You get the best matches, if you are looking for entire albums, not single tracks.

[MetaTunes]

Difficult to tell exactly what has been going wrong for you. Certainly turn off the file naming and moving options unless you have configured it as you want (and in any case always turn them off before re-saving as Picard will rename with (1) appended). Also, always review the bottom panel tags before saving.
To get the maximum out of MB for classical music, you can try my Classical Extras plugin available from the plugins area https://picard.musicbrainz.org/plugins/ but please read the readme before using it. That should enable you to get the tags as you want them.

[WovenTales]

@MetaTunes

in any case always turn them off before re-saving as Picard will rename with (1) appended

If you’re saving multiple files with a script that doesn’t sufficietly distinguish the tags, then yeah, it will append the number, and Picard may indeed have had trouble with all files in the past, but it does handle normal resaving properly now. I leave the option on the entire time, and I (somewhat obsessively) re-run my the entire tagged portion of my library every couple of weeks in case anything’s changed. Other than that, definitely good tips there!

[WovenTales]

So long as you had the files tagged with mostly-correct metadata before (and especially if you matched them to the correct MB releases), you should be able to recover the poorly-named files; the names may have been mangled, but the tags should be fine. The trick is that Picard allows very powerful and customizable automatic naming, but that also means that it does so in an all-or-nothing manner and can wind up being rather brain-dead about it if you don’t tailor things for your particular use. I’m not entirely sure what your library looks like to result in that sort of misnaming – especially if you still have the default script – but if you give us some idea of what you’re dealing with (either verbal description or by linking to some of the releases you did find) and more importantly how you want your library to be organized, there’s several people who can construct a script to replicate that. I’m not going to be able to do anything myself tomorrow around work, but we’re all friendly and helpful around here. Or if you want to test your hand at it yourself, I recommend these two pages and the “View script variables” plugin.

[MetaTunes]

@brotagonist

This needs to be documented, because it sure is a headache if you know what file you have, but it doesn’t have sufficient metadata to pull in the release.

I agree with you and have tried to do some additional guidelines here - http://music.highmossergate.co.uk/enhanced.php - see step 2 under the process tab. If you have a lot of albums it can be worthwhile running SongKong before using Picard as it may be better at finding them and will supply the MB id tags so that Picard will then run more smoothly (I use Picard with Classical Extras to enhance the tags even if I have used SongKong first). Otherwise for one album at a time, it may be necessary to find the release in MB first then use the tagger button, followed by dragging the cluster onto the tagged release.

[brotagonist]

Well, I finished adding my files, so I’m not going back to redo them lol If (hopefully not) I discover errors, I might need to re-rip a few and try some of these ideas in the future. Yes, I think the embedded tags were mostly fine, but they were very sketchy to begin with, because I ripped the files myself and didn’t use any online tagging (but it seems that the ripping program did enter some skeletal info, some of it completely false, that I wondered where it got this stuff: when I played the tracks and saw the curious names that appeared on my amplifier, I wondered where this stuff was coming from and knew I had no music named like that!). Anyway, I just named the files in a personal shorthand and put them into a folder per album, with track and disk numbers, so identification was 100%—for me, but not so easy for picard. It is completed now, thank Heaven!

I don’t really need a special script, since it would only be the occasional album, assuming errors (that I am able to detect) did occur. What I like is being able to fetch the required album into the right pane and then just dragging my files onto it, when picard hasn’t got enough metadata to make sense of it. That is just super to know!

I am somewhat averse to scripts. I know everyone is well-meaning and the scripts around here are meant to do the task, which is an honourable one, but loading extensions into my browser doesn’t appeal to me right now. As I dig deeper, having completed tagging of my collection, I might wet my feet.

[aerozol]

@brotagonist

I finished adding my files, so I’m not going back to redo them

Now that you’ve tagged your files, it’s a piece of to change them all if you ever want to change the tags or folder structure.
Just change your settings, drag them in (they will automatically re-match to the album you tagged them as already) and hit Save to apply the new settings.
Just by the way!

[brotagonist]

That’s what I was after: having the albums in MB so that I can just do that—change the settings and automatically rematch the album and apply the new settings.

What if I re-rip an album? Since I use k3b and it can access MB, will it just pull in the correct info (that others and I have painstakingly added)?

[aerozol]

It will only instantly match itself to a file in the database if it’s got MBID tags in the file, which wont be present on a newly ripped file.
However if you’ve already added all the info to MB it should only take a few seconds to match it to the right album with lookup or scan

[mmirG]

Brotagonist, if you’ve got 20 minutes free it would probably help MB if you took the time to write down how you now think things would need to be on Picard and Musicbrainz for you to have had an easier time of being a new user.
The experience is still fresh enough in your memory.
(This isn’t to say that things will be changed very soon - just that your reflections could help with new user orientation and directions that a easy Graphic User Interface might head in.)

Edit: And you are now experienced enough to add your questions to the “Picard new user questions” thread.

[outsidecontext]

@brotagonist

What if I re-rip an album? Since I use k3b and it can access MB, will it just pull in the correct info

I don’t know how k3b uses MusicBrainz. But if it is able to match the right CD by disc ID and also writes the MusicBrainz ID tags you should be able to just load the albums into Picard and get it matched instantly. I use Sound Juicer and it does that well.

@brotagonist

that others and I have painstakingly added

If in this painstakingly process you or somebody else has also submitted the disc ID, otherwise k3b won’t be able to match an inserted CD anyway. Usually when I add a new release I have as CD I start by submitting it’s disc ID, as this will automatically fill in correct track times and makes adding the release easier. I usually use Picard or Sound Juicer for this, but maybe k3b also has the option to submit the disc ID if it cannot find it on MB.

[Freso]

@aerozol

if it’s got MBID tags in the file, which wont be present on a newly ripped file.

There are a number of rippers with MB support, some of these (morituri/whipper at least) also include MBIDs in the resulting rip:
https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/MusicBrainz_Enabled_Applications#CD_rippers

[aerozol]

@brotagonist

I spent anywhere from 30-50 minutes per album typing and looking up covers and whatnot and entering it all. If I managed even 30 albums in one day, from breakfast to midnight with barely a break, even eating at the computer, etc.

You’re honestly shooting yourself in the foot by not using browser scripts. After a bit of practice it should only take a couple of minutes (more with classical or if you’re adding relationships as well) to import or add a release.
I’m not saying this to invalidate your experience, but because it pains me to imagine you spending so long on everything in future!!

I also definitely don’t think global site =/= everything should be English.
it should certainly display the artist name that matches your browser language settings however

Great feedback though, love your good attitude!

[MetaTunes]

Really great post. As a relatively new user myself, it sums up my own experience perfectly. Especially the frustration of trying to correct an edit (especially one which was automatically applied) and finding it will take 6 days before the correction goes through. Surely the system should know I was just editing my own edit? This, coupled with the rather arcane interface makes newbie editors “afraid to touch it in case they break something” which is unhelpful for them and for MB.
That said, I still think MB is great and there are many aspects about the interface that work really well.

[derobert]

Thank you for writing that up! You bring up a lot of good points that definitely are confusing/annoying.

@brotagonist

Firstly, the MB site ‘add a release’ screen(s) should actually honour the style guidelines. […]

That would be nice!

AFAIK, the best you can (reasonably) do is get the release artists and track artists correct; don’t worry about the recording artists. Once you have ARs entered, you can use the userscript to fix the recording artists (or, alternatively, post in the auto-editor request thread for one of the auto-editors to do it).

@brotagonist

The tracks should be automatically matched to recordings already in the database.

I think the only way that could be done automatically is via AcoustID, and we’d have to be much more confident of our AcoustID data. Other than that, the name, performers, label, etc. is all that’s in the database… And often much of that information is missing.

@brotagonist

All of the boxes to be ticked are very confusing. It is impossible to know what they are doing: carry the artists over to this other field somewhere? change the titles of the reorcdings to match this? Artists on track lines? Track numbers begin a line? I never tried that one out, for fear of making a mistake and having to wait 6 days to be able to correct it.

Not only are they confusing until you’ve figured out what they do, but at least IMO they have the wrong defaults. Though they all just change the edit you’re working on but haven’t submitted yet. Until you actually submit the edit, you can change anything without a 6-day delay. And you can safely play with them (by editing any album) and just throw away your edit—close the browser tab without hitting the final edit button.

BTW: Using that track list parser makes entering classical much easier. Especially if combined with the Firtefox extension “It’s All Text” and gvim. Well, at least it does for vim fans.

You can go to Log in - MusicBrainz and play around with it. Except for adding a new artist or label, everything is local-only until you hit “Enter Edit” on the final screen. So it’s safe to play with, and you can just close the tab to discard it.

@brotagonist

Another thing: the MB web site does not allow for easy lookup of an album. Entering the release title or artist or label is not enough.

Absolutely, especially when adding disc IDs. Almost everywhere else you can paste an MBID-containing link… but there you have to search. And wade through pages.

Elsewhere, you can use Search - MusicBrainz … and use the advanced syntax and that at least somewhat works. E.g., Search results - MusicBrainz ­— then normally you can copy the link & paste it into whatever wants you to find a release.

@aerozol

After a bit of practice it should only take a couple of minutes (more with classical or if you’re adding relationships as well) to import or add a release.

No way you can fully enter a release in a couple of minutes. It takes at least that long to check a release that someone else has already fully entered… Just the time waiting for the scanner is longer than that (and my 9000F MII is fast as far as affordable scanners go.) 1200 ppi scans to straighten, descreen, and downscale to 300 ppi are not quick (and anything less seems to decrease descreen quality).

I guess putting in a ~10-track non-classical album, without cover art, linked works, ARs, etc. is possible in a few minutes.

[aerozol]

@derobert

No way you can fully enter a release in a couple of minutes.

Scanning is a different story of course!
But importing a release from Bandcamp and adding the cover art can easily be done in <1 minute, if it doesn’t need (or have) further relationships or work attributes (so definitely not classical…). I would consider that a ‘full’ entry

[brotagonist]

And what’s an auto-editor? I read somewhere—here or on another thread—that auto-editors will jump in and complete your edits, or something.

@MetaTunes

Especially the frustration of trying to correct an edit (especially one which was automatically applied) and finding it will take 6 days before the correction goes through. Surely the system should know I was just editing my own edit? This, coupled with the rather arcane interface makes newbie editors “afraid to touch it in case they break something” which is unhelpful for them and for MB.

Well, I was so determined to get my albums in that I just jumped in and entered them lol After the first dozen or so aerozol appeared and helped me get a handle on some things I was having difficulty with, but that didn’t stop me: I just went back and made the necessary corrections to my previous edits.

I had looked at the guidelines, a little, but when I saw how much there was to read, I just scanned it and jumped in. Better to have the albums in the database than not to have them in, I thought. This is a community project and someone will come along and ‘adjust’ my work, if necessary. And so @reosarevok appeared with lots of tips and help He corrected some of my stylistic errors and asked me to change many on my own. I learned as I went along.

Maybe someone will disagree, but I don’t think you can really “break something” if you stick to the album title, artist, label, catalogue and barcode numbers, etc. It is really pretty self-explanatory and if someone sees what you’ve done and isn’t happy about it, they’ll appear on one of your edits one day and tell you what you need to do to correct to get it right.

[MetaTunes]

@brotagonist

And what’s an auto-editor?

Someone who can apply any edit automatically without any voting period. MB equivalent of Superman (of whatever gender).

@MetaTunes

makes newbie editors “afraid to touch it in case they break something”

Of course I should have said "could make SOME newbie editors…"