Where should my music actually be stored?

Question

Where should my music actually be stored?

This Apple fanboy is so **ing sick of iTunes 9 I'm seriously considering just giving up on it and using something else. It's one **** thing after another...

So, after spending six months 'updating' and 'reorganizing' my library following the update to 9.0.2 (which is still horrifically slow), there are exclamation marks all over the place.

Having a look with finder, I notice that this is because songs from the same album, apparently at random, are now split between two folders...

HD-CEU2>Music>iTunes>iTunes Music>Music>Band Name

...and...

HD-CEU2>Music>iTunes>iTunes Music>Band Name

...marvellous.

How can I fix this? Where should they be? Can I just drag the '...iTunes Music>Music' folder into the '...iTunes Music' folder? Do I have to spend another day sorting each exclamation mark individually?

I swear Microsoft would have been hard pushed to ruin something that worked well so much...

Gah!

G4 eMac (1.25 GHz, 1GB RAM), Mac OS X (10.5.8), 120 GB iPod Classic, 1 GB iPod Shuffle

Posted on Nov 4, 2009 7:12 AM

Reply

Answer 1

Best reply

turingtest2

Level 10

272,905 points

Nov 4, 2009 8:57 AM in response to UraGraymalkin

iTunes 9 offers a slightly more structured folder layout which separates out Music into a separate subfolder as has been the case with Movies, Podcasts, TV Shows etc. in the past. The layout of folders looks something like this:

As I recall upgrading to *iTunes Media Folder Organisation* should have been a separate operation to the main iTunes 9 library update, but either way I don't let iTunes manage my files & folders so it wasn't an issue for me. It would seem that iTunes probably fell over while moving files into the new structure. If all the tracks that have been moved can be found while those that have not can't (or vice-versa) then all you need to do is merge one folder into the other. A problem arises however if moving the physical files and updating the locations was happening independently but in parallel processes.

With one of your albums that is split between the two locations is it clear which tracks iTunes have the exclamation marks & which don't? Try testing one album to see if merging the tracks into the folder which iTunes can access makes it able to find the other tracks. If this works then you should be able to repeat for the whole library.

tt2

PS. The media folder is called *iTunes Media* in a fresh install, but will still be called *iTunes Music* following an upgrade. I've found that with a working library I can rename *iTunes Music* to *iTunes Media* or vice-versa and iTunes updates itself accordingly. However I don't suggest you try this until the main issues with accessing your library have been corrected.

Message was edited by: turingtest2

Reply

Answer 2

Nov 4, 2009 9:22 AM in response to turingtest2

turingtest2 wrote:
It would seem that iTunes probably fell over while moving files into the new structure. If all the tracks that have been moved can be found while those that have not can't (or vice-versa) then all you need to do is merge one folder into the other. A problem arises however if moving the physical files and updating the locations was happening independently but in parallel processes.

With one of your albums that is split between the two locations is it clear which tracks iTunes have the exclamation marks & which don't? Try testing one album to see if merging the tracks into the folder which iTunes can access makes it able to find the other tracks. If this works then you should be able to repeat for the whole library.

Hi, and thanks for the reply (I'm a bit calmer now)!

I've been investigating, and I think you're right - it looks like some stuff was randomly left behind when the files migrated to the new set-up.

iTunes is able to track the files in the '...iTunes Music>Music' folder, and '!'s the ones left in '...iTunes Music', so I manually moved the missing tracks from a pair of albums into the new location and quit and restarted the program.

Unfortunately, iTunes still couldn't find them, and marked them as '!' - meaning I needed to locate each of the tracks in turn.

At least I know which folders to merge with which - if only OS X allowed you to merge folders by dragging them... Although I'd still have to tell iTunes the songs are where it thinks they are, if you see what I mean. Still, there's only 155 artist folders 'left behind' - just how many tracks can they contain...?

Gulp!

Reply

Answer 3

turingtest2

Level 10

272,905 points

Nov 4, 2009 11:07 AM in response to UraGraymalkin

You can't merge one set of subfolders into another? Surely it can't be true. If you're not bothered about the iTunes specific metadata, rating, date added, last played etc. then you could just drag the orphaned content into the Automatically Add to iTunes folder and let iTunes take care of putting it where it belongs but you'd still need to remove the referenecs to the dead tracks. Doesn't Doug's Scripts have something that would help?

tt2

Reply

Answer 4

Nov 4, 2009 11:55 AM in response to turingtest2

turingtest2 wrote:
You can't merge one set of subfolders into another? Surely it can't be true.

Doesn't OS X just replace same-named folders, rather than merging the contents?

If you're not bothered about the iTunes specific metadata, rating, date added, last played etc. then you could just drag the orphaned content into the Automatically Add to iTunes folder and let iTunes take care of putting it where it belongs but you'd still need to remove the referenecs to the dead tracks.

Ah, I didn't realise that folder worked like that - interesting. The ratings, et cetera, don't concern me at all - but will doing that keep the Artist, Album Artist, Title, Genre and Year (changing all those again would probably take longer than the copying!)?

*ETA -* I've just tried it out, and it does keep all the 'important' information. The missing tracks are now back in iTunes, in one fell swoop of a mouse, and the 'File>Show Duplicates' list means I should be done deleting the 'dead' tracks in a fraction of the time I thought it would take.

Many, many, thanks for the help.

Doesn't Doug's Scripts have something that would help?

I shall investigate forthwith.

Cheers again!

Message was edited by: UraGraymalkin

Reply

Answer 5

turingtest2

Level 10

272,905 points

Nov 4, 2009 12:49 PM in response to UraGraymalkin

Doesn't OS X just replace same-named folders, rather than merging the contents?

Oh, that would be potentially nasty.

Doug's Super Remove Dead Tracks should save you searching for the dead links.

tt2

Reply

Answer 6

Nov 4, 2009 2:55 PM in response to turingtest2

Used the script you recommended, many thanks. Certainly a lot quicker and easier than doing it by hand!

The number deleted was about 500 less than the number automatically added, if you see what I mean, so I went into the duplicates view to have a look manually.

I now seem to have a LOT of duplicate tracks that both play when accessed, but '!' if either one is deleted. Reimporting the files means both tracks, including the '!' one, play again. Checking the finder shows only one file per song.

In effect there are two entries for the one file, both affecting it. So I have no idea, until I delete a duplicate, if it is a duplicate or not. I'm now not even sure if the script will have removed any of these tracks by accident - and there are too many albums in my library for me to know every track on every album off-by-heart when checking.

I really don't know what to do - delete every affected album and reimport it? Delete my entire library, keeping the files, and reimport the lot? Reinstall iTunes? Would that keep the changes to track information I've made (particularly audio plays - I've got hundreds, and have changed the track names to the first line of dialogue uttered in that track. That'd be weeks of work to redo, particularly given how almost-unusably slow iTunes 9 is...).

It's been a good few days since I had the vaguest clue what was going on in my library, and seems like every time I fix something something else goes wrong...

Cheers again for all the help, though!

Reply

Answer 7

turingtest2

Level 10

272,905 points

Nov 4, 2009 3:36 PM in response to UraGraymalkin

Doug has other tools including Dupin which is a full on, but paid for, De-Duping tool. I think there may also be a freebie which can identify multiple entries to the same file - try this one - Corral All Dupes v2.0.1. In this instance you need to remove one of the entries *without deleting the underlying file*. This leaves the other entry still able to access the file.

Good hunting...

tt2

PS I'm not suggesting you shouldn't support Doug's efforts by buying his tools or donating to the cause. I just hate recommending paid tools if there's a suitable free alternative.

Message was edited by: turingtest2

Reply

Answer 8

Nov 4, 2009 3:28 PM in response to turingtest2

turingtest2 wrote:
In this instance you need to remove one of the entries without deleting the underlying file. This leaves the other entry still able to access the file.

Yeah, I just don't seem to be able to do that. Deleting either 'breaks' the other one. *[ETA - Apparently not if I choose 'keep file' - this may be the key, fingers crossed!]* Well, I'm sure I'll sort it out eventually. It's just a shame, iTunes used to be a pleasure to use - since the 'upgrade' to 9 I've done nothing but curse it. So it goes.

Cheers again!

Message was edited by: UraGraymalkin

Reply

Answer 9

turingtest2

Level 10

272,905 points

Nov 4, 2009 3:39 PM in response to UraGraymalkin

I've emphasised the "keep the undelying file" bit since you posted. I think it might be possible, if you turn off warnings and tell iTunes not to ask you again, to get to the point where iTunes deletes without confirmation. I was going to suggest that you might need to reset all warnings but it seems you are OK now.

tt2

Reply

Answer 10

Nov 4, 2009 4:19 PM in response to turingtest2

turingtest2 wrote:
I've emphasised the "keep the undelying file" bit since you posted...

Yeah, that bit was all my own fault. +Mea culpa+.

Cheers again, you've been staggeringly patient and helpful.

Reply