MinimServer Forum

Full Version: Different groups with same group tag
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I have a 2-CD set containing different sets of tracks that I would like to tag with the same group tag. In my case, I have Mozart's Coronation Mass and Beethoven's Missa solemnis. They contain similar movements, spread out over different tracks, so I labeled these with group tags.

Now MinimServer complains (in the log file) that the group spans over non-consecutive tracks. That is true, of course, but my expectation was that the grouping was taking, for example, the composer tag into account.

Of course, I'd like MinimServer to read my mind, but given that that's not very realistic, what would be the best way to tag things correctly?

Thanks!
Koen
(04-08-2014 19:21)kavermeer Wrote: [ -> ]I have a 2-CD set containing different sets of tracks that I would like to tag with the same group tag. In my case, I have Mozart's Coronation Mass and Beethoven's Missa solemnis. They contain similar movements, spread out over different tracks, so I labeled these with group tags.

Now MinimServer complains (in the log file) that the group spans over non-consecutive tracks. That is true, of course, but my expectation was that the grouping was taking, for example, the composer tag into account.

Of course, I'd like MinimServer to read my mind, but given that that's not very realistic, what would be the best way to tag things correctly?

Thanks!
Koen

Grouping is a containment relationship and the tracks of a group will be presented and played consecutively by a control point. This is the reason for the restriction.

If I understand your scenario correctly, you would need to use different group names for the similar groups in the same album.

See my comments on GROUPMATCH in this post for a more elegant proposed solution (not yet implemented).
The groupmatch tag would work, but it's still additional work. What about some property that would define which tags are taken into account for the group matching? As mentioned, I'd use the composer tag, but it could also include composition, albumartist, year or whatever helps to distinguish the groups. But maybe I can already get the same result by combining various tags into groupmatch - I'm a fairly new user, so I still need to figure these things out...
(04-08-2014 20:10)kavermeer Wrote: [ -> ]The groupmatch tag would work, but it's still additional work. What about some property that would define which tags are taken into account for the group matching? As mentioned, I'd use the composer tag, but it could also include composition, albumartist, year or whatever helps to distinguish the groups. But maybe I can already get the same result by combining various tags into groupmatch - I'm a fairly new user, so I still need to figure these things out...

I think it would be difficult to come up with a single property setting that caters for all possibilities in a large library. For example, the Composer tag wouldn't work if you have multiple ambiguous groups by the same composer in the same album. Also, there might be cases where you would want to combine tracks by different composers into the same group.
I see. If all those cases should be handled, some manually added tag seems the only way. Would you consider just adding some hidden suffix to the group tag? It's a hack, of course, but it may be pretty straightforward to implement and to use.
(12-06-1970 22:05)kavermeer[url=http://minimserver.com/ug-library.html#Albums%20and%20folders' Wrote: [ -> ]this section[/url]09']
I see. If all those cases should be handled, some manually added tag seems the only way. Would you consider just adding some hidden suffix to the group tag? It's a hack, of course, but it may be pretty straightforward to implement and to use.

A hidden suffix is the other option (match filter) that I mentioned in the other thread. See this section for details of how match filters are currently used on folder names (not tags). The GROUPMATCH approach feels a bit cleaner to me.
Reference URL's