Via JMH - Greg Sandow, writing in OpinionJournal, has a bone to pick with iTunes. He's a classical music fan, see, and he's discovered an ugly little secret about iTunes and the iPod. Namely, the tagging/organizing system-- which is designed to work with modern music in the Artist/Album/Track paradigm-- just isn't at all suited to classical music.
These players--and the digital music files that go on them--are optimized for pop, and, to be fair, optimized quite nicely. You rip songs off a pop CD, and (if your software looks them up on the Internet) they automatically get labeled by artist, genre, song and album. Put 10,000 songs on your iPod, and, with a touch of a finger, you can look at all your hip-hop, or all your Springsteen, grouped either by album or as an alphabetical list of songs.
Try that with classical music. Typically a classical piece has several movements, separate musical sections that show up on recordings as separate tracks. What you want, when you put classical music on your digital player, is to see the tracks grouped together under the name of the composition, and then all the compositions listed under the name of their composer.
But these digital gadgets don't think that way, and when you put classical music on them, the complications--trust me--can get truly frightening. The iPod, at least, has a separate "composer" category, which helps a little, though there's still no way to search composer tracks by composition, and if you buy a competing digital player you don't get any listing for composers at all. By some stroke of luck, I bought an iRiver player, which, I discovered, lets me treat it like a computer hard drive, organizing music by files and folders. That means I can give Beethoven a folder of his own, with subfolders for each of his works--though I have to type all the information in myself. Aargh.
In other words, iTunes/iPod is still the best entry in the market-- but that's not saying much, for the case of classical. I know just what he means. My iPod is plagued with track listings like the following:
Konzert für Klarine... Konzert für Klarine... Konzert für Klarine... Konzert für Oboe u... Konzert für Oboe u... Konzert für Oboe u...
Each of those is a different movement in a different Mozart concerto. Which one? Who the hell knows? The iPod plays them sequentially, but that's small comfort when you're in the middle of a 7-minute adagio and all the display says is Konzert für Klarinette u. Orchester A-dur..., scrolling slowly by until you finally get to KU622, Adagio, which is itself hardly any help unless you know the piece like the back of your hand. (Or you could name the tracks individually like on the back of the CD case: 2. Adagio; but then the association with the name of the concerto is lost.)
It's not only the composer-centric nature of classical music (rather than modern music's artist-centric nature) that screws things up; it's the way tracks are grouped. They didn't have "albums" back in the 19th century, obviously. They had "works", and we've made a mess of things already through decades of cramming two or three works at a stroke onto single LP albums or CDs. So Track 14 is really the fourth movement of the third work on the disc...
In order to bring sanity to the madness (assuming the classical-music-listening demographic is one that Apple sees profit in building products for), it'll be necessary to rework the whole organization scheme that iTunes and the iPod use. The good news is that that won't necessarily be an insurmountable obstacle. Apple has made major revisions to the info tag formats in the past, often quite substantial and disruptive ones (album art, for instance); it'd be a matter of adding an extra field or two to hold "Work Title" (e.g. Konzert für Klarinette u. Orchester A-dur) and maybe a movement number, and then it'd involve simply telling the software to handle organizing songs differently that have these fields set. If the "Classical" genre is selected, organize first by Composer; and then, instead of the "Album" field, show the "Work Title" field in the browser. Albums and artists (performing groups) can then become secondary meta-data, not used for organizing the tracks once they're in the database.
It wouldn't be that difficult to add to either iTunes or the iPod's software. In fact, I'd be surprised if someone at Apple hadn't already pondered this problem and planned a solution, to be rolled out at some indeterminate future time.
What I really want, though, is tag fields that store lyrics... keyed to timestamps... and displayed dynamically as the song plays. Now that would be cool.
|