Album Year vs. Track Year

[Seb Ruiz]

2009/3/27 Stuart Neill <stuart.neill at googlemail.com>:
>
> Thus far, I have refrained from any Amarok 2 knocking to allow it to settle in
> and give the developers a chance to show a reasonably complete product. Today
> however I read something in a GSOC thread that leads me to believe that Amarok
> 2 may never replace Amarok 1 in my affections.
>
> "The year tag is stored in the album table and not in the track table"
>
> One of the joys of Amarok was that I could select on the year, shuffle (both the
> tracks and myself :-) ) and party like it was ... um 1939, 1949 ...2009. This
> will not now be possible.
>
> For almost all single-artist compilation albums and for many multi-artist
> compilation albums, the album release date is of minor importance when
> compared with the original release date. Personally, I find it a little
> disconcerting to see Fred Astaire, Edith Piaff, Elvis Presley etc. only
> appearing alongside dates long after they joined "the choir invisible".
>
> I would like the schema to be changed. However, as neither the developers nor
> users seem to have identified this issue as a problem, I wonder how many other
> users habitually tag dates at track level.

This is simply a plain falsehood. Both the album and tracks table
contain a reference to a row in the Year table. This is because an
album is released in a year (U2: Best of 1990-2000 etc), but a track
may have been released in 1994. There is no need to modify the schema.

Perhaps we are misusing the information somewhere, but nobody has said
anything because nobody so far has either noticed, cared or bothered
to tell us. Consider yourself the first.

If you would like to have the issue resolved then you will need to be
more specific about your use case and where Amarok 2 uses the album
year instead of the track year.


-- 
Seb Ruiz

http://www.sebruiz.net/
http://amarok.kde.org/