Improved mass tagging - I'd pay!


I saw the following buried in a post that seemed like a change in the OP's original topic, and I really like the idea, so I took the liberty of creating its own thread. The capability in dBpoweramp metioned seems to be the Perfectmeta ability


+1 for this. There 's a definite need to do a basic mass sanity check against a library. Things like spotting blank or odd characters in various tags and coming up with sensible suggestions that you could just pick and choose from.


I definitely quote this request.

As our collections become huge, the need for a tool with the ability to massively correct tags becomes of utmost importance.

Again, I red about puddletag but I refuse the idea to switch to another os only for those purposes.

Please, think about it.


My experience is contrary.
There is practically no improvement in productivity or quality when using more from the same ever and ever more.
As long as there is nowhere any database out in the world, which have the golden master copy of all data avalilable for a song track, there will be no enhancement of productivity never ever.

Well, that is the problem of all collectors - self-organization and discipline.
There is no software out in the world, which could replace these skills.

Having an automatism for downloading many ambigous data for one song does not include to have a decision machine too.
All data which may be of value to come in into your personal database have to be reviewed by yourself, controlled and checked for validity and usefulness.

Well, someone can define rules for the datamining process, but in face of what questions are sometimes asked here in the forum, I see yet another problem will arise soon, which overwhelms the standard Mp3tag user.

Never divide the Mp3tag community by a two class software!!!

Maybe one wish some more visual guiding in the user interface and some semi-automatically features resp. assistents, but nearly all productive features exist there in Mp3tag today.
Somewhere not so obvious, sometimes not so perfectly developed, sometimes not so good looking. You only have to explore and learn how to use the Mp3tag toolbox as is.

Yes, there is a need for better support and integration for invoking of external applications, which can run against one or many tracks at once, run hidden, run waiting, with adjustable priority, with console output view and so on.
Maybe someone wish communication via DDE, OLE, named pipes or shared memory, in case other application would communicate this way, maybe folder watching would be nice, maybe a COM interface would be the golden way to open Mp3tag even for advanced users.



I agree with you. And, quite honestly, these problems can only arise when you get files from third parties and do not have access to the original material. If you tagged the files at the moment of compilation or recording then you certainly have no doubts about all the relevant facts and what data has to be entered.
And unless you have undergone the tedious process of reviewing and even listening to your files these tracks are simply not there.
So even more sympathy with your point of view: MP3tag has so many flexible features that as soon as you get an idea how to improve your collection you will find a function, action or script that does just that.


If you accept the notion that the tag sources capable of being polled by mp3tag have some utility then I don't see how you can reject the notion that being able to batch poll a series of albums referencing one or more of the tag sources rather than one-at-a-time is a good thing. Concerns around which metadata is correct/ should prevail etc. are no different to decisions the collector has to make for an individual album when using mp3tag today. Batch processing just takes it a step further and enables the process to be somewhat automated. In the case of puddletag, the approach we've taken is to enable configuration of tagging profiles whereby a user is able to define which tag sources to poll, which field(s) to take from which source(s) and the precedence of one tag source over another. Additionally, one is able to specify matching criteria for an album to be considered a match. Importantly, after masstagging has done its thing, NOTHING IS WRITTEN to the underlying files. The results are presented to the user, with suggested changes clearly highlighted. The user is then able to accept/ reject suggested changes to any track(s) and/or field(s), as well as edit/amend changes or add additional metadata manually. Changes are only written on the user's instruction to do so. So, in summary then, the user remains in total control and remains very much in the driver's seat re having to make conscious decisions as to what metadata to accept/ reject, with the added advantage that retrieval of the metadata from the tag sources is rule-based and automated. Would mp3tag benefit from inclusion of this kind of masstagging? Absolutely!


(Ahem) When I ripped all my original CDs, I trusted EAC to obtain the tags from freedb. But as I found out later those tags were often not accurate, and indeed the whole ripping (& tagging) process was much more involved and important for a usable music library than I had ever imagined. Plus I did not have the knowledge (or time even) to double check the tags after every rip.

So dismissing this request for a significant ease of use enhancement by way of equating the need for mass tagging with not having the original content, I find to be rather a specious argument.


Hi all. My first time here and a new MP3TAG user.

I have to agree with both sides of this argument about the online databases. From firsthand experience I can say that there is a LOT of garbage in the freedb. The Gracenote/CDDB is somewhat better. I have limited experience with others. The biggest problems I've found are that some folks seem to be confused about the meaning of the fields, most particularly in the classical genre. I'd estimate that fully 1/3 the contributors of the entries in the freedb make the mistake of thinking that "Mozart" or "Bach, JS" is an "artist", for example. It makes for a painful ripping/tagging process.

I DO think the availability of multiple databases along with easy drag/drop of the information would be wonderful.

I have 58,000 MP3/FLAC files. About half of them have usable tags. I'd KILL for a well-designed tagging application. I'd happily PAY for it. Actually, I did once - for MP3_TagStudio, which I have finally decided to abandon because of its far-too-structured approach to doing everything. It's "powerful" alright, but far too clumsy in use.

Now, concerning the databases, I have to say that MS is coming pretty close in WMP12. Unfortunately, their database is essentially useless for classical titles. But, I really really like many of the features they've built into the UI. The ability to sort on any field, select multiple tracks, and make a single entry that propagates across all tracks is very nice. Unfortunately, WMP has serious bugs when it comes to making the actual updates to the files, so it is ultimately of little use.

If I were to toss out a couple of suggestions for mass tagging I'd request:

  1. Multiple databases with a) autopopulation of the fields, and b) EASY drag/drop selection across multiple tracks simultaneously.

  2. Free-form selection and drag/drop into one field across multple tracks. (e.g. Suppose you want to populate "composer" in 100 files. I'd like to highlight the word(s) that may appear in, say, a filename, and then drop them into the 'composer" field in any one of the selected tracks, and then have it propagate into all of them.

The problem with ALL of these tagging applications (I've tried all the popular ones) is that THERE'S TOO MUCH TYPING. Often the information is already there, and all that's necessary is to move or copy it to the right place.


I think you'll find that puddletag addresses many of your concerns.


Interesting! Unfortunately, I don't happen to have any Linux boxes readily available on which to run it. One thing that instantly jumped out was its ability to change window layout. When you have long pathnames, filenames, and tags, horizontal screen real estate is at a premium (even when you have 1920 pixels to use) and moving the text-input area to the top or bottom would be very helpful.

The other thing I liked the sound of was its spreadsheet-like behavior. I was thinking the same thing when I made the post above. If MP3TAG could, say, work a little more like Excel in moving or copying a range of "cells", it would be vastly more useful.

Anyway, I'm sufficiently intrigued that maybe I'll pop a spare disk into one of the laptops and load up Ubuntu just to try Puddletag. Thanks for the suggestion!


As the source of the quote in the first post of this thread, I must agree with those who are offended with the suggestion that those that want this capability are dealing with stolen songs. This capability is needed for those with the original CDs who want the followiing in an efficient manner across many albums:

  • benefit from improvements to online tag databases since the original rip, without re-ripping
  • change a decision on what to tag from what you did when you originally ripped, without re-ripping
  • correct tag errors you missed when you ripped

I looked at puddletag briefly. I like what it claims for helping in these areas. The specific databases currently referenced (Musicbrainz, freedb, Amazon album art) are not of much use to me. I encourage the inclusion of additional ones, and hope you can find it attractive to include several of the pay databases for a fee at some point.

I'm also curious on how album identification would work efficiently across many albums. I found it necessary to tweak certain album names to ensure uniqueness ("Greatest Hits" is the most common culprit), and I deleted all "featuring" comments in track titles, so I don't know how successful a tag-based matching approach will work. I can see the attraction in using something that looks at the number and length of tracks to match albums, but I could not tell if that was used or not. The Accuraterip album identification approach, whatever it uses, seems the most robust I've encountered, but I'm no expert in this area.

In short, I respect the opinion of those who are not interested in such a capability, as long as they don't insult the motives of those that do want such a capability.


... and vice versa.



If you accepted the baseline argument against one would have to wonder why it is that mp3tag supports any tag sources at all. Clearly for the same reasons you/ I would like to use them.

It also references There's a plugin API for anyone wanting to add support for additional tag sources, including any that would require the plugin developer to charge a fee.

The masstagger is album based. It'll use the methods required by the tag sources you specify. Where applicable it will use existing artist/ album names to seed lookups. If they're absent it'll look to folder name to derive artist & album. If you use freedb as a source on an untagged album, the freedb toc lookup will be referenced to find a matching album.