Flac - Jan 2013 - A proposal to extend (create) a codified set of revisited and additional FLAC tags

Hello...

For the last three years, several of us have been developing a 
FLAC-based digital music library for use at our radio station here in 
northern California. This was started first as an experimentwith the 
goal of understanding what it takes to make a useful library on a 
central network file server. In the process, we developed an improved 
and far more useful schema for tagging the resulting FLAC files. For 
reasons you surely understand, creating alossy libraryor any library 
based on a proprietary format was deemed absurd. FLAC was our starting 
point and still seems to be the logical choice for the next generation 
of music distribution file formats....including high-resolution files 
for those that care even more about audioquality.

One of theprimary underlying assumptions comprising the foundation of 
this project was that future music distributions will inevitably be 
file-based and free of the encumbrance of optical discs in any format. 
Discs don't make sense, but compatible, searchable libraries do. Users 
need to search their libraries for more important reasons than just to 
locate an artist or song by name. The current (formalized) set of 
VorbisComments is inadequate for this purpose. [For example, who is the 
vocalist on that track, or whois playing the violin on this track?] In 
this scenario, FLAC is the obvious choice for a server-based music 
libraryin both consumer and professional applications. We would like to 
see artists and labels make their offerings available in both
"standard"
and high-resolution formats in the form of "lossless" FLAC files, 
already tagged correctly and accurately.

Having said this, the minimal set of VorbisComments listed as part of 
the FLAC specification is justifiably inadequate for the purpose. A new 
set of recommendations for FLAC tags (in the VorbisComments format) is 
more than just desirable---it's essential for the future adaptation of 
FLAC for music distribution. A revised codified standard for 
VorbisComments or their equivalent is required.

Since our project began three years ago, we have developed and are still 
working on the best means for tagging our files. We think we're just 
about there. We're in the process of finalizing our recommendations (in 
the form of a proposal) for an updatedand consistent, codified standard 
for FLAC tags. Rather than just create havoc by going off on our own, we 
would like to seek input and acceptance of this revision by the xiph.org 
community.

What is the best way to go about this?

Dennis Brunnenmeyer
Full Fidelity Music
KVMR-FM Radio
Nevada City, CA



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac/attachments/20130131/e0485506/attachment.htm

On 31-01-13 07:17, Dennis Brunnenmeyer wrote:
> What is the best way to go about this?
Not on a user mailinglist for sure. All Xiph-related mailinglists can be 
found here: http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo

I think trying the vorbis-dev or flac-dev mailinglist would be better, 
because this list is not read by many. Because VorbisComments are part 
of the Vorbis spec, I think the vorbis-dev mailinglist would be best.
> Users need to search their libraries for more important reasons than 
> just to locate an artist or song by name. The current (formalized) set 
> of VorbisComments is inadequate for this purpose. [For example, who is 
> the vocalist on that track, or whois playing the violin on this track?]
I am curious how you tried to fix this, I guess not by defining fields 
like 'ViolinPlayer' or something. For classical music, important 
musicians (like a conductor, soloist etc.) are usually mentioned via the 
album-field, see for example: 
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/History:Classical_Style_Guide That's an 
option as well, instead of defining new fields. We have the 
performer-field as well, I would think of something like: violin: 
SomeGuy viola: someoneelse.

Good luck


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac/attachments/20130305/e86c9e0a/attachment.htm