MediaMonkey forum

Would be great to have an option for MMW (and MMA if possible) similar to one in the programme 'MusicBee' for having a separate 'Display artist' field. For example the display artist field would be 'Mark Ronson (Featuring Bruno Mars)' whilst the artist field would be 'Mark Ronson; Bruno Mars'.

I've requested similar in the past. I forget what program I suggested similar implementation to however. My "work-around" was to do this: "Artist 1; ft.; Artist 2" as then I get the multi-artist functionality, while still maintaining main/featured artist(s) designation. The only "drawback" is the errant "ft." artist. Haha.

Nice idea Mizery_Made. Glad to know I'm not the only one who would like this feature (without having songs by the ubiquitous artist "ft." haha)

On the plus side, having a 'ft.' artist gives you a quick way of selecting all tracks with a guest artist. That's a very good workaround.

True, I hadn't thought of that. Not sure it would be an option I would select very often though.

JOEUK wrote:Would be great to have an option for MMW (and MMA if possible) similar to one in the programme 'MusicBee' for having a separate 'Display artist' field. For example the display artist field would be 'Mark Ronson (Featuring Bruno Mars)' whilst the artist field would be 'Mark Ronson; Bruno Mars'.

If I understand correctly, you're saying:
Album Artist = Mark Ronson, Artist = Mark Ronson; Bruno Mars or just Bruno Mars, Display Artist = Mark Ronson (Featuring Bruno Mars) ?

Mizery_Made wrote:My "work-around" was to do this: "Artist 1; ft.; Artist 2" as then I get the multi-artist functionality, while still maintaining main/featured artist(s) designation. The only "drawback" is the errant "ft." artist.

Is the problem you are referring to that, it would create a huge "eye sore" chunk of "ft.(s)" in the tree?
The only thing I've ever thought of doing for terms that would create atypical flow is to put a "Z" in front of them (Z ft. xxx) so they would all be together at the end and not
cause a split in the alphabet higher up.

Someone please let me know if I'm way off. Sounds like something I've been interested in myself for a long time.

In my example of "Artist 1; ft.; Artist 2", it would create three artists in the tree. One for "Artist 1", another for "Artist 2", and then you would have an 'artist' for "ft.". Not too intrusive, and not like you're going to have something like "ft. Artist 1", "ft. Artist 2", etc. in the tree. It just wouldn't be formatted as "Artist 1 (featuring Artist 2)" in the artist field. It started as a workaround to achieve something like the original request (of a display artist), but honestly it doesn't really bother me much anymore.

Mizery_Made wrote:In my example of "Artist 1; ft.; Artist 2", it would create three artists in the tree. One for "Artist 1", another for "Artist 2", and then you would have an 'artist' for "ft.". Not too intrusive, and not like you're going to have something like "ft. Artist 1", "ft. Artist 2", etc. in the tree. It just wouldn't be formatted as "Artist 1 (featuring Artist 2)" in the artist field. It started as a workaround to achieve something like the original request (of a display artist), but honestly it doesn't really bother me much anymore.

So, you just add/split (;) all the names naturally, without any pre-name identifier?
Forgive me if I'm still confused. Could you write out names as they would appear in the tree, like:

xxxx

xxxx

xxxx

I would also like to have an additional field to devide Interprets and choosing it as Tree Node.
Feat., Duett and so on mess up the tree.
I know that it is possible to devide the Interprets by ";".
But then you're loosing the orignial Information and I don't like to store it in the Title field.

Next Thing is if you use ";" at the Interpret field, you are not able to search for it.
And if you want to upload these Songs e.g. to Google Play you have the "wrong" Interpret.