[mdawson]

Instead of trying to act as if my response to your original post was a personal attack, which it was not, how about you try making a valid counterpoint instead of trying to drag this down into a shouting match.
First, if you were aware of the other method of switching libraries in iTunes, then you simply needed to state as much as you did not indicate that you were aware in your original post. Beyond that, I stated in my response to you, in several other posts in this thread and in numerous posts in other threads about iTunes (half-hearted) library management that I do agree that Apple probably should implement a more elegant solution to switching libraries dynamically from within iTunes. On the other hand, I can understand why Apple may not find such a feature to be of much importance, which leads to the second point of argument.
Early versions of iTunes left much to be desired in terms of grouping content. While playlists were present, they could only be built manually and very organized users with large libraries could quickly find themselves locked into an exercise in tedium attempting to manage a large quantity of playlists. At that time, it would be understandable that some one using iTunes may have wished to work with multiple smaller libraries.
iTunes 3 added the ability to use the more dynamic smart playlist reducing the need to create all playlists by hand. With smart playlists iTunes users could now create a core set of playlists from which smart playlists were built that automatically updated as content is added to any of the core playlists. iTunes 5 put the icing on the cake by adding playlist folders allowing the most organized of iTunes users to further group large numbers of playlists and smart playlists in much the same way one can structure related files in the Finder. Thus, by iTunes 5, the need to maintain several external libraries for organizational purposes ceased to exist, period.
From a computer science and database management standpoint, there is no reason to split content into separate databases when the software has the tools to provide the database user, or more properly, administrator, a wide berth of flexibility in tagging (indexing), categorizing, grouping and otherwise organizing the data from within the software. It would be a different matter if the all of the database records were loaded into memory each time the database is opened, but modern databases do not work that way; index tables are loaded into memory and records are only loaded while being directly accessed. So unless, you can provide a justified solid example to the contrary, which you have not, then you have only furthered my point and apparently, Apple’s position.
So your rant about me claiming to be an authority, which I did not, or your false assessment about me using reverse logic is not only misguided and uncalled for. Instead of providing a valid justification to your position you instead dedicated nearly half your response to engaging in ad hominem. What you or I find reasonable is not the point here. The point is that you expect Apple to add functionality that already exists given what you and anyone else purporting the “need” for multiple libraries is actually attempting to accomplish.
Now if Apple were to decide to splinter off iTunes into an integrated suite with separate apps for audio, video and iPhone content, then the matter of separate libraries (slightly) changes. Yet even in this instance, given the organizational tools provided, only one library would be needed per content application.
> While we're on the subject of iTunes libraries, not only should it (here I go) be easier to create and use separate libraries, it should be possible to selectively combine them as well.
It is possible to do just that by using something has been present in iTunes from almost the beginning: playlists. You group your content as you see fit by creating playlists of your content from within your library. Once you create a core set of playlists you can group and combine them to your heart’s content using smart playlists and folders. So again, you have not provided a valid need to maintain separate libraries.
> Yes, drag and drop works, but with large libraries it is exceedingly tedious and time consuming.
Or you can consolidate your library into a single entity and use playlists as stated above.
> Just because not everyone needs to create and combine libraries doesn't mean it's not important.
No, but it is rightfully viewed by Apple as a one-time operation. If you are using iTunes as your media manager then, with little exception, consolidating a library should only be necessary the first time you use iTunes. Once that is done, any new content can either be ripped directly into iTunes or purchased through the iTunes Store. If you acquire content from other sources, you can import the content into using File > Add to Library… as well as employing drag and drop. (If you opt to wait until you have a excessive quantity of content then that is really on you for waiting until things got out of hand instead of importing as you acquired.) I do this all the time when I process recordings in Peak and create files to add to my iTunes collection. iTunes is no less capable of importing compatible external data than any other software with importing features.
> The same can be said for most existing features of iTunes - not everybody uses them.
Wrong. There is a dramatic difference between advanced features that are rarely employed by the average user and redundant or useless features. You want Apple to implement library management externally when the functionality you require is properly handled internally. Everything you have stated that you desire to do can and should be done with playlists.
> Tangentially, library corruption is probably the most common iTunes problem I see. Backups are one solution to the problem, but most people don't bother, which is why Time Machine is such a great idea. A better solution, though, would be a more stable iTunes that didn't mangle libraries in the first place.
Yes, it would be nice if iTunes created automatic backups of the library files (e.g., iTunes Library and iTunes Music Library.xml) in a separate location as those files may be corrupted. Demanding that Apple makes iTunes library structure more complex only exasperates the potential for corruption by adding another level of complexity. In a roundabout way, you actually covered the real problem and that is that “most people don't bother.”
bq. Most people do not bother to insure that their content is consistently and properly tagged. Most people do not bother to learn or inquire about iTunes functionality—although as I stated earlier, Apple could do much better job with iTunes help by adding an electronic manual and tutorial to the Help menu. Most people do not bother to fully utilize iTunes’ playlist folder features, if at all, and if they do, it quickly falls apart when they do not bother to insure that their content is consistently and properly tagged.
As I have stated numerous times in the past, iTunes is as functional as the user is organized.

[whitedog]

{quote}First, if you were aware of the other method of switching libraries in iTunes, then you simply needed to state as much as you did not indicate that you were aware in your original post.{quote}

Oh? Just as "beyond that, I stated in my response to you, in several other posts in this thread and in numerous posts in other threads about iTunes (half-hearted) library management that I do agree that Apple probably should implement a more elegant solution to switching libraries dynamically from within iTunes." That is not, in fact, what you said in your response to my first post. What you may have said elsewhere is irrelevant to the current exchange. What you did say is "...what Apple has implemented is no more elegant that going into the preferences and changing the location of your permanent library, but Apple is apparently of the mindset that library switching is something that is rarely done." Nothing there about "a more elegant solution."

As for ad hominem remarks, your comment that "far too many people seem to desire to resort to separate libraries instead of learning how to properly catalog and group their content using the software. I have yet to see a legitimate reason for intentionally resorting to separate libraries" is nothing if not a blanket put-down of people who do not share your mastery of iTunes.

{quote}So your rant about me claiming to be an authority, which I did not....{quote}

Well "I have yet to see a legitimate reason for intentionally resorting to separate libraries" implies you consider yourself well qualified to judge of other people's reasons, which looks like a presumption of authority to me.

{quote}...your false assessment about me using reverse logic....{quote}

I was not referring to you at that point, but to the folks you dismiss for not using iTunes properly. Perhaps if you weren't looking so hard for insults you might have noticed that. "People's reasons for using more than one library are their reasons....They may not be reasonable to you, but... 'reasonable' is very much in the eye of the beholder... different people reason differently...." and so on.

You may very well be correct that proper use of the currently available iTunes library structure should eliminate the need for separate libraries, but in my opinion the issue is not as cut and dried as you assert. Mac users are accustomed to having choices in how they do things; they tend to resent "my way or the highway" constraints - something that Apple has been far too prone to of late.

Since you asked for an example of the need for multiple libraries, I'll give you one from my own experience (which I consider to be indicative but not conclusive): I am currently working on a friend's iTunes library which resides on an external hard drive that has been removed from his computer and connected to mine. The library has become totally mangled - the music is there but the library catalog has lost track of it, putting exclamation marks next to every track I try to play. To do this work, I cannot simply point iTunes to the external hard drive, which contains an iTunes Music folder with his music and related library files - I have had to remove the iTunes library from my home folder and import the iTunes library.xml and related files (not the music) from his home folder into my iTunes Music folder so that iTunes can "see" his library. It's all very confusing, but I've finally got it working. What seems to be the case is that the "controlling" library files are not those, or not those alone, on the external drive but include those in his ~/Music folder. This makes keeping track of the relevant files far more complicated than it should be, in my opinion. And, in the meantime, I cannot use my own iTunes library for fear of mucking things up again. Now there may be a logic to this that escapes me, but straightforward it is not. In the meantime, I am having to find the music in his library that corresponds to his playlists and drag it back into iTunes to "fix" his library. Since he has 80 GB and more of music this is an arduous and time consuming process. A more "elegant" and coherent library management structure in iTunes would make such projects a lot easier. As it is I've had to use a great deal of trial and error to figure out what iTunes can and cannot do. This has not been fun. Hence my strong feelings on the subject. And my conclusion that there are good reasons for multiple iTunes libraries that fall outside your consideration and experience. I don't presume to know them all, but I do think it's reasonable to assume they are not all due to users' ignorance and neglect.

[Rumour_man]

I'd like it so that when a track says it is 7 minutes long, I get to hear the whole track - not 30 seconds before it abruptly skips onto a new track! It doesn't happen often, but it does happen with random tracks where the duration is not as advertised. I don't know whether it is a throwback from primitive encoding / gapless playback calculations, but it yanks my chain that successive updates don't fix it. Instead I have to replace that song with a new rip... or even delete the album and rip the whole thing again! - It would be good if the track duration indicator actually was linked to the length of the file in iTunes and not the CD track duration. I should not have to check every rip, I should be able to trust iTunes by now....

The album art work not importing is another major hassle - if I drag a folder into iTunes, why does the music import, but not the artwork?

[sheilanolan]

I'd agree with rumour_man about track length although I have a slightly different problem. I have at least one track in my current library that is apparently 789 minutes. It plays fine but it really screws up the total time on my library. With my previous library, this amounted to me having 30 days extra time listed for my library. Everyone was impressed with the amount of music I seemed to own even though it wasn't the correct amount. I guess this is just a minor niggle as it doesn't seem to affect the actual playing of the music.

[mdawson]

So when I do imply something you do not get it, but when I simply state something that is a matter of fact you attempt to read more into to it than is actually there and put words into my mouth.

Quote

Nothing there about "a more elegant solution."

I may not have explicitly stated that Apple should implement a more elegant solution, but as I was not disagreeing with you and did indicate that either option was particularly elegant, the underlying premise of room for improvement is implied.

Quote

As for ad hominem remarks, your comment that "far too many people seem to desire to resort to separate libraries instead of learning how to properly catalog and group their content using the software.

Stating that people should learn how to use iTunes?, or any other software?s, feature set to achieve whatever ends they desire is not ad hominem. Recognizing that most people do not learn how to use software properly and factually stating it is not a put down. If you find factual statements about human nature distasteful, so be it, but do not attempt to question my character because I realize that the underlying problem is often one of ignorance about what any given software package can do and have stated as much. Ignorance, or lack of knowledge, is a far cry from stupidity.

I have also repeatedly stated throughout this thread and in responses to you that Apple is partly to blame in regard to the average iTunes? user?s ignorance of its capabilities. A definite need exists for providing thorough documentation that details how to take full advantage of iTunes features. For now, those that want to get the most out of iTunes have to either play with the software ad infinitum, seek out more knowledgeable iTunes users for guidance, or purchase a book. Most people are not going to spend too much time exploring any software?s feature set, let alone software like iTunes where the most commonly used features are similar to those in other media mangers and thus pretty straightforward. Those that frequent or occasionally utilize forums constitute a very small percentage of any given software?s population, let alone the entire population of computer users, so asking for help from others is exercised by few. The final option costs money.

On the other hand, statements from you such as:
bq. I see, reading several posts on the subject makes you an authority? (quote from my prior post) ...is nothing if not a blanket put-down of people who do not share your mastery of iTunes. Well "I have yet to see a legitimate reason for intentionally resorting to separate libraries" implies you consider yourself well qualified to judge of other people's reasons, which looks like a presumption of authority to me.
are character assessments, off-topic and ad hominem by definition. If I wanted to come across as holier-than-thou where novice iTunes users are concerned then I would have outright stated that iTunes is extremely simple to use and anyone that cannot figure it out for themselves is a complete idiot. I neither stated nor believe any such thing, as once you go beyond its surface cataloging and playback capabilities, iTunes can either be somewhat obtuse in some areas or just lacking in information on how to perform some tasks.

What I have stated is that part problem with iTunes is a combination of human nature on the user?s part and poor documentation on Apple?s part. In fact, the last statement quoted from you is the epitome of ad hominem posting, as you have completely twisted the meaning of what was written. The statement from me that you quoted implies nothing beyond what it directly states, and that is that (given iTunes organizational features) I have yet to see anyone present a valid reason for having their content split into multiple libraries or for that matter reverse the rules of proper database management. Simply desiring that a feature be present is not a valid reason for the developer to incorporate it unless it actually adds value to the product. To date, I have yet to come across a single post where the poster has desired to perform something with multiple libraries that cannot be accomplished with the playlist/folder functionality that has been present since iTunes 5. So until someone provides such evidence, I stand by that conclusion.

Quote

You may very well be correct that proper use of the currently available iTunes library structure should eliminate the need for separate libraries, but in my opinion the issue is not as cut and dried as you assert. Mac users are accustomed to having choices in how they do things; they tend to resent "my way or the highway" constraints - something that Apple has been far too prone to of late.

Whether or not you know it, using iTunes is effectively database management and it is just that cut and dry. iTunes is a fairly simple free application designed to be used by users that are not well-versed in database management. Large enterprise databases are generally not separated into multiple data libraries either. In fact, creating consolidated libraries of data collected from numerous sources through data merging is pretty much a must have skill for a professional database administrator. If the goal of professional database administrators is to maintain a single large-scale database containing millions of records with packages that cost tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, what possible reason does Apple have to implement the contrary in a free application designed to be administered by far less skilled users? Obviously, so much effort is put into maintaining databases as a single collection of data because to do otherwise is an inherently bad idea.

Now while I will agree that Mac users are used to having multiple ways perform tasks, Apple is not obliged to intentionally provide the user with a means to do something poorly. So what you want or what you erroneously believe that I think I am an authority on is non sequitur. The matter of multiple library management has been dealt with by people that are authorities on database management and they have concluded that maintaining a single thoroughly indexed data library is the best method of database management. Where separation does occur is in the much smaller database tables that contain the various indices (tags or pointers) that allow the administrator to quickly categorize, group and search that singular body of data as needed. People far better versed in database management have spent decades developing proper database management protocols and obviously Apple sees fit to follow them in an application that is designed to be user-friendly and therefore hides the more complex mechanics from the user as possible. Sometimes there is no option but to deal with separate databases in enterprise, but ultimately, multiple data sets are merged when they are worked on, so considerable effort is put into maintaining the database as a single entity and expanding or adding tables to suit diverse needs.

Simply put, anyone that wishes to haphazardly manage a database, can build their own media database, and manage or bungle it by ignoring the protocols of proper database administration to their heart?s content. Apple has developed a product for use by the masses and as a responsible developer does and should follow the protocols of proper database management built over time by people in the business of administering databases for a living.

Quote

Since you asked for an example of the need for multiple libraries, I'll give you one from my own experience?

Now that you have finally given an instance of why you believe that Apple should provide the means to maintain multiple libraries, we can finally address this matter by example. Having read the situation that you have posted, I have to state that you do realize that what you are trying to do is beyond the scope of iTunes or just about any media player application. While you do have the best of intentions to help your friend, iTunes is not designed for allowing you to repair other people?s libraries, so in reality you have not provided a case for multiple library maintenance so much as you have shown that you are frustrated with the fact that you have to jump through hoops in order to accomplish something for which iTunes was never intended.

For example, I can painstakingly use the advanced features in Microsoft Word to create a laid out document, but at the end of the day, MS Word is not a pre-press page layout application; that is what InDesign or XPress are designed to do. Word?s feature set is fine for creating fancy personal documents or documents that will circulate within a small group, but it is not the tool to employ for generating soft proofs for a service bureau.

Closer to home, I would love it if iTunes included features that allowed me to catalog my physical media collection as well as manage and listen to the music. The thing is iTunes is at its core a content player, not a media-cataloging application. As physical media seems to be becoming an endangered species, the addition of such functionality becomes progressively less likely. So, instead of having one application that does both, I have to accept that iTunes will perhaps only ever be useful for the organization and playback of the actual music, and I have to use another database application to catalog my large library of CDs and records.

Now where your friend?s situation is concerned, your previous point about iTunes creating backups of the library files is definitely a good idea. Barring Time Machine, which Mac users that have not migrated to Leopard would not have, automatic backups of the iTunes Library should be a feature of the software especially when you consider the time that can go into organizing a library. As to you not being able to access your library in the interim for fear of mucking things up, I would have to ask why you are not trying to repair your friend?s library using your friend?s computer? Secondly, if it cannot be done from on their computer, did you consider using a secondary user account on your Mac?

As your friend?s iTunes Library file is corrupted, then the just about only way to attempt to recover it is pretty much by putting the iTunes Music Library.xml file into to iTunes folder, removing the default iTunes Library file and pray that iTunes can use the XML file to rebuild the library. So again, while your heart is in the right place, what you are attempting is not nor was it ever intended to be a function of the software; that is of course unless the library under repair is yours. Secondly, what you described is not a case of a single user maintaining separate libraries in order to categorize their content, as the alternate library is not a subset of your collection, but instead another user?s library. (Despite the altruistic reason, you can imagine the response of the content providers if they were to catch wind of this let alone if Apple made it easy for you to do what you are trying to accomplish.)

Anyway, if there is a legitimate reason as to why you cannot repair your friend?s library on their computer, which means that they apparently have issues far more serious than a corrupted library file to worry about, then your best option is to attempt these repairs by opening iTunes from another user account where there is no pre-existing library to endanger. I can understand your strong feeling on the matter given this particular situation, but it is a special circumstance well outside the scope of the software. The situation you described is also neither a case of a single collection spanning multiple libraries nor is it a compelling reason for Apple to add functionality to iTunes that allows a user to do so.

[kendallpb]

I've wanted hierarchical playlists for a long time; I didn't know Apple finally added folders! I don't use lots of playlists, so I'm not sure if (having my music already organized) I'll use them, but I'm glad I read the whole thread and discovered this.

If I say something's an audiobook or podcaset, it should show up in those magic-playsts-that-aren't-playlists. They should work like smart playlists--not just based on "this came from iTunes Store". Don't make me make a playlist to see them all in one place; then I lose the special features of the magic playlists!

Sort fields came so late for me that I haven't used them yet. I've gotten too used to the default sorting ("First Last" instead of "Last, First"). I'd like to use them, but it's a lot of work with a large library. Apple should make an option to fill out the fields automagically; surely there's a database of this type of information...

...but actually, they should just have used separate fields for first name, middle name, last name, and group name. (sigh) Then we wouldn't have so many redundant fields; with proper fielding, and proper sorting control, the data would be cleaner and the sorting more logical.

Speaking of which, iTunes needs proper multi-category sorting. Don't just make us pick one primary sort column and just guess what you're doing; we should be able to select which columns to use for sorting, the order to use the sort columns, and the order for each column (ascending/descending).

Show everything in the main view (perhaps renaming it from "Music"...) so I can see ALL my media in one place, like I USED to be able to! (Grumble...I hate when an app loses features suddenly like this.)

[doglesby]

Still kind of ugly. It goes for the iPod/iPhone interface too. When I select the Classical genre, I get a screen with the title "Classical" and a list of artists. First of all, the title should be "Classical Artists" or something clearer. Secondly, I would like an option to look for Classical Composers rather (or in addition to) All Albums.

[mdawson]

Unfortunately, most digital music managers and media database packages are designed to handle the general case and that is (Western) popular music (e.g., Rock, Pop, R&B, Hip Hop, Alternative, etc.). Classical albums seem to almost always be handled as if they are an afterthought?the wife of one of my former professors faces a similar issue with classifying her extensive collection of classic Hindi music in iTunes, as Hindi music is categorized in a very different manner than Western popular music. The reason little attention is given to the needs of classical music may be the fact that avid classical music collectors constitute a very small percentage of music collectors in general and classical titles constitute a trivial portion of general music collections if any are present at all.

iTunes does at least provide the ability for the user to distinguish between the composer (e.g., Beethoven, Chopin, Mozart, et al.) and artist/performer (e.g., Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, et al.). As to the field titles, I personally think that specifically titling the artist field based on the genre is excessive. By the same token one could state that when they select listings under Rock, R&B, etc., the appropriate heading should be Rock Artist, R&B Artist, etc. While Classical music does often require some differences in how they are indexed, it is still just another genre.

[sheilanolan]

I've got a huge classical collection in my itunes library and I break the genres down e.g. orchestral, ballet, opera, chamber etc and then have sub groups based on country of composer which makes it easier to navigate.

[mdawson]

I do the same with genres in general in iTunes as the default set is very basic. I classify songs by genre and style using the following format:
bq. Genre|:Style1| |,Style2| |,Style3|
For instance:

Quote

Rock
bq. Rock Rock: College Rock Rock: New Wave, Synth Pop Rock: Psychedelic, Acid Rock Rock: Album Rock, Pop Rock

>

Quote

R&B
bq. R&B R&B: Urban R&B: New Jack Swing R&B: Neo-Soul, Quiet Storm R&B: Hip Hop, Urban

>

Quote

Hip Hop
bq. Hip Hop: Rap Hip Hop: Electro Hip Hop: Rap, Old School Rap Hip Hop: Rap, Underground Rap

As I have often stated, iTunes is as powerful as its user is organized. :)

ADDENDUM

Actually, I recall reading somewhere that the purpose of the Grouping field is for exactly what you are doing: creating classical music groupings such as orchestral, ballet, opera, etc.

[doglesby]

mdawson said:

By the same token one could state that when they select listings under Rock, R&B, etc., the appropriate heading should be Rock Artist, R&B Artist, etc. While Classical music does often require some differences in how they are indexed, it is still just another genre.

Certainly, my point wasn't that Classical artists should be treated differently, but that the title gave no indication of what is listed.

[mdawson]

I must be missing something. If you specifically ?select the Classical genre? how do you not know what is implied by the ?Artist? field. Unless you left your classical listings with the default ID3 tags, which I do not doubt may be poorly indexed for many if not most classical pieces, you should know how you used the artist field in reference to the classical songs?

[doglesby]

The screen doesn't say "Artist," it says "Classical" (or whatever genre you selected), it should say Artists.

You're too preoccupied with how I populate the fields, I have a rigorous system that I am happy with.

[hristofor]

Easier sharing of play list/counts among seperate computers.

Playlists with memory, so if you have shuffled a Playlist A with 75 songs and before hearing them all you go to Playlist B, when you return to Playlist A, iT asks if you want to resume the shuffled playlist where you left off or start fresh.