Classical compositions and movements for streamed content not identified correctly

I notice this a lot, Qobuz seems to identify classical parts/movements ok in its own app, but Roon sometimes doesn’t and that means you can’t play just the composition or click a link to it (see below). I can’t seem to find any way to tell Roon which tracks belong to which compositions and in what order?

1 Like

There unfortunately isn’t, and this is one point I have made before and, if I remember correctly, there even is a ‘feature request’. The management of classical compositions and their parts in Roon is quite a big mess. Many of the parts or movements you show in your screenshot will appear in Roon’s composition browser as compositions in their own right. Releases in which works are wrongly identified in this way will not show up in the work’s ‘All Recordings’ list.

This really is not an exceptional error either, as I see a good many albums from streaming services, both Tidal and Qobuz, in which the work parts are not correctly grouped. Amongst some other things, this is one of the main shortcomings which make me feel that Room has lost its mojo…

3 Likes

If you use a tag editor, create the following custom tags:

  • WORK
  • PART

For each work, add, for example, Symphony No. 4 in E-Flat Major, WAB 104 “Romantic” (1878/80 Version), and then for each part, I. Bewegt, nicht zu schnell, II. Adante quasi allegretto etc.

Unfortunately, Roon doesn’t always update these tags, so I usually remove the release, do a library clean up, and then import again.

We are talking about streaming service’s provided albums… How can we use a tag editor on these?

I thought not… :expressionless:

I’ve been looking at the dedicated classical streaming services recently, and I must admit they are a bit of a rum bunch… not one of them offers the facility to open an album of say Complete Sibelius Symphonies and choose a symphony and play it… they just have play buttons next to the track or the whole album?!

It seems the only way to really get the most out of the extra subscription to Roon is to buy CD’s or files and add your own metadata to cure this - Roon can do it and much more, it just falls short on the metadata quality and handling pretty much consistently for ‘streaming’ classical music lovers.

2 Likes

I fully agree. And while Roon may not be able to control the ‘quality’ of third-party provided metadata, it sure could do much more to allow for adequate ‘handling’ of insufficient or erroneous metadata.

For a company which prides itself for its metadata-enhanced browsing, discovery and listening experience, this should be an easy decision to make…

3 Likes

Yes it seems to me, and not just with classical actually, that Roon is still very much focussed on the file collector - ARC is a case in point. All that work for all that time for such a big launch and what does it mean to me, zero actually. Why? Because I’m streamer. I already have all my library in Qobuz, Qobuz comes with me everywhere on my phone - I don’t need a third party app to stream Qobuz music, or save it offline for mobile listening.

Friends and family have often wondered why I pay extra for Roon on top of my streaming subs, but where else can you get that metadata that does mostly work, such a rich interface, where else can you find such a library to store your collection of streamed music? The streaming services don’t offer anything more sophisticated than ‘favourites’, which invariably you can’t search or filter like you can in Roon?

But I must say, Roon came to streaming reluctantly didn’t they, then they moaned about Qobuz lack of integration for years, saying it would never be implemented as it wouldn’t allow deep access - then all of a sudden the deal was done? I feel they have to offer streaming, but their real love is file management - understandable given the background of the company.

I did wonder, when Presto Music launched their classical and jazz offering, well, if Presto can do it, why can’t Roon? If Roon was the streaming service, all built-in to the subscription if you wanted it, then they could do it cheaper and could be in charge of improving the metadata perhaps?

Anyway… enough moaning from me as it never does make any difference does it! They will do what they think attracts the most new customers, not what needs repairing and upgrading within the existing software. I’m off to make a coffee and listen to some music… through Roon! :rofl:

3 Likes

Again, I agree on this point you make. There are some silly inconsistencies and shortcomings in Roon’s software, known for years, which don’t receive any love by the company at all… Just think of the infamous library/non-library mess… so many issues come out of this architectural shortcoming, but there never seems to be time and commitment to sort this out.

Just this morning I came across yet another recommendation by Roon of an album which has long since been replaced by Qobuz with another version. The library version is gone, not even tracked and announced to the user by Roon, but the application still keeps on recommending the now non-existent release. Just silly…

1 Like

Oh yes! I have playlists full of ‘unavailable’ recordings that are on Qobuz, but got moved for some reason and Roon has lost them! Of course that’s a Qobuz issue, they shouldn’t allocate new ID tags when what is essentially the same album get reintroduced to the catalogue and the old one goes away. But we have asked Roon to try and deal with this for years to no avail.

There are so many ways to identify that missing album on Qobuz and offer it up for replacing the missing Roon version, crikey even the existing ‘version’ tab could be modified to do this.

I am also a jazz fan, mostly 50’s and 60’s and trying to find, among a list of knock off copies, the actual album from the actual record company is a huge job. When all it needs is a display field in the ‘versions’ tab listing for ‘label’ and the jobs done!

But no answer to the requests, no response for months… they just leave the poor moderators and support guys to fend off the constant requests… hmm, am I persuading myself to ditch Roon I wonder?

Well if I get myself some DSP hardware for the room EQ I need that would be probably be the final reason I keep telling myself not to go!

1 Like

Disappointed users being told elsewhere on the forum, and quite rudely so, to shut up or vote with their wallet, has never been moderated, as far as I am aware…

But, mentioning this here on this thread in a bitter-humorous way, is deemed unacceptable and rapidly moderated away. Ok, well, I expected nothing different and take the consequences…

2 Likes

Ah the thing is, I get instant email updates… can’t moderate them away! :joy: (funny coincidence though I just got moderated out of a Facebook chat when it was trying to come to the aid of a friend who was being trolled/bullied… the troll was not… hmm, must be a theme of mine, others having power over your free speech AND not only that but not making their software how you want them to! :sunglasses::joy:

1 Like

There are quite a few things I like a lot abut Roon, the software. That I am on my fourth year of subscription is not an effect of mental inertia, but a conscious decision made out of appreciation.

That said, there are not so many things I might appreciate about Roon, the company. And I am definitely not mad about missing new features. I am keen on seeing the software product making good on its promises and raised expectations. All those issues that have been raised elsewhere on this forum around the library/non-library problem are simply vexing. Too many times I find myself clicking around to make sure if a given album is or is not in my library. To not being able to implicitly trust Roon on all screens to recognize an album which is already in ones library, is not good at all.

For a classical listener, Roon is not good enough. And I simply cannot accept the cheap excuse that the problems arise because of ‘missing metadata’… Well, we all know that the metadata situation is dear and complex. Provide then the tools to groom our collections and make good on the promises about metadata-driven user experience. I want to be able to group compositional parts into the works they correspond. When looking at the Compositions browser window, I want to see compositions and not parts or movements wrongly identified as such. I want to be able to heart a given performance of a work, without meaning to heart all other performances, too. Roon doesn’t really distinguish between a work and a particular performance of that work, and this is not good enough.

And while I can (sometimes) empathize with Roon’s stance on not disclosing roadmaps, I feel that I can’t really justify betting on a product which doesn’t advance as platform for classical listeners, nor offer any glimpse on a better future ahead. Roon may still be abreast of all others, even in terms of its rather mediocre support for particular classical perks, but I am not so sure anymore that this warrants keeping up the subscription with rather religious faith in the paradise that lies ahead…

Errors, bugs and shortcomings are documented, sometimes acknowledged, and then disappear from anyone’s mind like they were thrown into a black hole. I find this unacceptable, even uncourteous towards the users who mind…

That’s enough of a rant for one day, but I have felt a growing disappointment for some time now. And all that without even mentioning the way the forum is being moderated. So, today I cancelled my subscription.

3 Likes

This has been trotted out so many times and really doesn’t work (never has for me, anyway).

A proper tix and in-app editor to join tracks in a single composition is needed.

2 Likes

I used this method successfully yesterday, and it worked fine. However, there is a gotcha: Roon doesn’t always recognize these tags if the release is already in your library. My solution is to tag correctly before adding to Roon, or delete the release, perform a library clean-up, and then reimport.

1 Like

I do understand the frustration about features like the composition list not working the way you expect them to work. It is nevertheless very sad to hear someone would call a subscription because of that.

I have been experiencing similar issues with classical compositions and parts thereof being wrongly identified so making the composition list as well as the recording list per composition when using Qobuz basically impossible to use. I could understand that this is actually a problem caused by poor metadata provided by Qobuz (and to lesser extend Tidal as well).

Would it be helpful if there would be a feature to manually edit it? Probably yes. Would I use such? Definitely not. I am not willing to put time and effort into sorting things which I anyways do not own. A streaming service such as Tidal and Qobuz is a wonderful thing to have but the fact that albums could be added to a personal collection like on roon´s album list is nothing short of an illusion. These albums could be gone at any time, replaced by different versions, disappearing due to copyright issues whatsoever.

Reaching a similar level of frustration I came to a different conclusion: I decided to cut down my collection to a number of albums that could be overviewed, what I would really value and what I would be willing to put time and effort into. Albums I could not live without I am willing to pay for the download. That means not connecting my roon account to Qobuz and Tidal most of the time. I do activate Qobuz from time to time if I do research, try to get inspired or listen to albums I do not own. But it is not my preferred source when I sit down and really enjoy music.

Overall, I think Roon does a good job at populating classical albums with relevant information (recording dates, contributors beyond the performers and composers) but there are too many hiccups that are a major annoyance, especially, when information is completely incorrectly displayed. I made a post recently about Harnoncourt’s recording of St. Matthew’s Passion where the metadata from there source was completely off. A recent recording by Lukas Genuisas of Rachmaninoff’s under-recorded 1st Piano Sonata is properly displayed on Qobuz, but is displayed as Sonata No. 2 in Roon ( :exploding_head:).

I really like Roon as a software, but it really could be improved, and it doesn’t seem like these changes require a major overhaul of the software (I’m not a programmer, of course), but just a bit more attention to detail.

1 Like

That’s you, and I respect your attitude. I feel different. I think that the world of recorded music moves towards a model of on-demand streamed distribution. I appreciate Roon for its promise of an enhanced metadata-driven user interface, which regrettably is poorly implemented, at least for classical music with its very own complexities and poor metadata offering. I would gladly use a tool by Roon to group composition parts into the correct composition and identify them as such. And that’s of course not the only shortcoming for classical music…

This is where you lose me… In my mind it simply doesn’t square if a company makes so much fuss about the great metadata-driven interface, but then hides its shortcomings behind the bad metadata provided by third parties. I may accept that this is so, but then expect Roon to offer the tools that allow users to get some consistent data on classical works, their parts, recorded releases and versions.

Not only because of that. I think I made that clear. If it’s only about listening to streamed music without the consistent benefit of the metadata-driven enhanced interface, I can easily rely on the streaming service’s interface or some other free platform. I 99% of the time stream from Qobuz, and when I would most likely listen to my own file collection, namely when my Internet is down, Roon as of recently is no good, either.

I stream to one endpoint only as of now, don’t use DSP functions nor ARC for out-of-home listening. So, for me Roon is somewhat of a luxury, albeit a very welcome and appreciated luxury. Still, I am living in a low-income country, and perceive my income out of labor here on the local market. Both Qobuz and Tidal offer differential pricing models for different markets; Roon won’t. So, taken all together, no need to keep on supporting a product which doesn’t even make me feel really satisfied…

1 Like

Thanks for the tip - I’ll try it next time I have an issue.

I still think it’s a lousy fudge and a massive oversight for software that’s otherwise as mature and lovely to use as Roon is.

2 Likes

I do absolutely understand your position and if I would be focussing on Qobuz as my main source of music I would probably come to a similar conclusion.

We can easily agree on the conclusion that roon´s user interface and feature set are promising more than it could deliver in the eye of a classical music lover. I still have hope that eventually that might improve as all the logic of classical music has only been implemented as from roon 1.8 or so.

That’s the point: the best interface relying on metadata is destined to fail if it is fed with bad metadata. When listening to popular music or Jazz or classical stuff being properly tagged via MusicBrainz we simply do not notice the effort and the potential flaws of this metadata-reliance because it works so well. The moment metadata comes from Qobuz (or Tidal) and it is not properly implemented, the whole thing is failing. There is no AI and no human eye being ready to correct any mistake.

You have a point concluding that roon in this case is promising more than it could deliver and is lacking a tool to let the user correct such flaws by himself/herself. My take would be rather that Qobuz and Tidal are not capable of handling their enormous amount of data and recordings so I would better not take it as a perfect product.

2 Likes

I agree that Qobuz/Tidal are not perfect products by far. Then again, they provide the actual music files and release ID and some general metadata. I have been led to believe that Roon obtains a good deal of the metadata that make the interface and user interaction something special from third parties, anyway. I can also agree on that not even the labels themselves offer acceptable, correct and consistent metadata for their classical releases. But then, if I can’t rely on the labels providing the stuff a great digital user experience is made of, nor on Roon’s third-party suppliers, nor on Roon offering a set of tools so their users may groom their streamed album collections, then where do we stand with regard to the great expected and marketed user experience?

What if Roon doesn’t even consistently keep track about which releases of which albums have been added to the library? How often am I offered to add a streaming-service album to the library, only to realize moments later that it is already added… How often Roon offers me recommendations based on albums that should be in my library, but have been deleted by the streaming service, as shown some posts up? Roon could keep track of these version deletions and offer relevant alternative versions for the user to decide upon, but it won’t.

We have gone somewhat off-topic here, and I expect that these messages be shortly moved away. But anyway, for a long time Roon’s interaction with users about product characteristics, shortcomings, desirable improvements etc. has quite dried up. So it’s impossible to know what those guys think about this; and for me, simply, a luxury product which fails too much on my expectations, is not worth it.

Edit: One last point. If there were at least a reliable mechanism to submit problems with metadata, so that Roon can in turn submit problems with their metadata providers… On the forum there is a ‘Metadata’ category, and sometimes problems posted there are taken up by Roon staff. On September 14, I posted a problem with a Baroque composer, whose name is being conflated with two homonymously named artists. There has been no answer whatsoever by Roon support or whoever is doing the work on metadata. Doesn’t work for me, not good enough…

1 Like