Please stop "global-liking" :-/

Upvoted. This is a continuing annoyance. It is one of several ways in which Roon’s failure to understand Performance as a first-class entity causes searching, navigation and organization to be convoluted and obtuse.

The problem goes a bit beyond what the OP describes. If you want to navigate to a favorite performance from the Compositions screen, ending on the page for the Composition itself, you have to favorite both the composition and the track(s) associated with the performance. Which is even more of a pain when the performance is contained in a single track …


This! (10 chars)

1 Like

Is there a feature request open for this? I have always thought this is the way it should have worked from the beginning. In the Compositions browser, you should be able to open/close a collapsible list of all the library performances of a composition, nested under that composition. In 1.7 and below, clicking on a composition would at least take you to a page with all of your library performances. In 1.8, it takes you to a generic composition detail page full of discovery-oriented information not relevant to navigating your library - in fact the performances in your library are literally the lowest priority on that page, requiring you to scroll past a lot of irrelevant clutter and then click on the library icon to see the performances in your library - despite the fact that you just came from the Compositions browser, which by definition only operates on your library. It’s nonsensical.

This is the other big issue with Roon, as of 1.8: it mashes up the navigation experience with the discovery experience. Although those experiences can use some of the same tools, they are fundamentally different. Discovery is an unstructured, open-ended experience, integrating multiple different types of information to arrive at an new endpoint. Navigating a library is a structured, goal oriented experience requiring progressive disclosure of just the necessary information at each step. 1.8 consistently compromises the navigation experience in favor of discovery - unnecessarily so, in my opinion.


I really don’t know. And I fully agree with your assessment. Making ‘performance’ a first-class entity as you put it should be a priority.

And there should be the possibility to group an album’s tracks and parts into a composition, where this is not done automatically when saving an album into the library. Otherwise, the composition browser will be cluttered with movements and parts as if they were top-level compositions. All too often I experience this even with newer albums from streaming services, where some tracks and parts are correctly grouped into compositions, and others not. I would love to be able to manually group these tracks and parts into their respective compositions.

1 Like

just one of many instances:



Yes, this is exactly what I am talking about. And with albums from streaming services there is no way known to me to manually group these tracks into a composition, and all those movements show in the Composition Browser as if they were compositions in their own right.

There is at least one 5 year old feature request so I wouldn’t hold my breath:

I’ve voted on this other thread, too. Here we were talking about the ‘performance’ concept, but not even the ‘composition’ concept is implemented in a consistent fashion. I know that with local tracks, correct tagging can help. But this is no option with albums from streaming services. Roon may say that they work with the metadata they are supplied with, but then why offer the possibility to edit titles, performers, recording and release dates and much more, but neglect to allow for meaningful grouping and editing of tracks into compositions… Doesn’t make sense to me and seems to rest value from the touted ‘enhanced metadata’ promise.

I’ve just listened to this one… 16 tracks of ‘Pictures at an Exhibition’ without being grouped into an otherwise well-known and popular composition… and then, the Scriabin sonata suddenly is correctly identified. Why?

1 Like

I hear your frustration but I cannot even remember anymore the first time I and others have raised the issue that the editing features for streamed content are not the same as for local content. It must have been more or less at the same time that Qobuz was integrated. Personally I don’t believe any of these long-standing feature requests will ever be implemented as if they had fit roon’s vision that would have happened a long time a go.

1 Like

You’re probably right, but it’s not as if there weren’t any options to edit metadata of streamed albums. Really the only option I miss is the option of track grouping and editing of compositions…

For the life of me I cannot think how the possibility to correctly group otherwise ungrouped or unrecognized tracks into a composition would in any way be at odds with Roon’s vision for the product, whatever that vision may be. I rather want to believe that there are technical reasons which at the moment make it difficult or impossible to implement this. I have not been around from the very start of Roon, so I don’t know if the concept of ‘composition’ has been around from the first releases or has been stacked on top of the conceptual data model at a later time. I don’t know how the mechanism to correctly identify tracks as belonging to one well-defined composition is implemented, and if there at the moment is a way to add to Roon’s features allowing manually edition of this identification in the case of streamed albums. But it sure seems as a necessary feature to have, if you listen mainly to classical music…


There is obviously something being lost in translation. I meant that the possibility of work/part grouping and other editing functionality available for local content is not available for streamed content. I have edited my post to make that a little clearer.

Personally I have transitioned from a predominantly local library model to a predominantly streamed library model but roon isn’t really keeping up with changing listening habits. I would have thought that a younger generation of subscribers tend not to maintain large local libraries anymore. Consistent work/part formatting of my local library was actually my motivation for subscribing to roon in the first place. Now that roon cannot do that reliably with streamed content makes me question roon’s value add virtually everyday especially when radio and discovery performance remains weak.

1 Like

We are agreed on all of that. I’ve noticed that recently a new ‘Product Manager’ has stepped on board, and this may be a worthwhile topic of product inadequacy to bring to his attention.

Maybe. You never know. I won’t hold my breath just to be on the safe side :smile:. But product development tends to go in cycles. At some point if there is a market then a competitor will arise to fill these gaps. I am very curious to see what apple does with primephonic as I find I have less and less need of integration of a local library.

1 Like

I see and understand. Your lips are blue already…

Me too. Roon very helpfully lists other recordings of compositions, and this seems to be a core part of its philosophy of giving you more information and deeper insight. If a track is missing the “composition” property (probably because of some reason in the licensed metadata), it can only be in accordance with the vision to allow me to manually add this track to a composition. Just like I can add a missing performer to a track.