iTunes Match explicit/clean music switch

From what Michael is saying, it's not something easily accessible, and I can understand why. Guys, I do appreciate you doing the heavy lifting on this. I'm just not set up to do anything in the way of testing.

What I'm thinking is that if we can get just a little more solid info in the form of a test, I'd be willing to put up a request for information, if you will, posting, to try and draw in relevant info. from people who have had the problem. I'd want to start it out by saying we believe that some of the problems stem from Apple's use of an embedded tag that isn't present in CD rips, but that isn't likely to be the answer to all instances of mis-matches. I don't think we'd need to go as far as fo formally tabulate what we get, probalby would be enough if we could get people thinking about this from a little different perspective. My guess is some answers would present themselves pretty readily. Thoughts?

I think it's a good plan, but as you mentioned we'd need someone with known issues to really help out. At the very least, more details from those affected would be a big help - i.e. their iTunes version, OS version, example of a file affected and where it's affected i.e. iOS device and iOS version. The more people who do this, the more likelihood that a pattern may emerge.

MetaX is a no-go for music files. I was able to successfully add the "explicit" tag to some music files but the application changed the Media Kind to "music video" and I couldn't change it back to "music." Still looking for a way to successfully edit this hidden tag.

BTW, youse guys are all one big bad influence. I really should be working on the lesson plans for my TEFL classes that start next week, 'cause I sure ain't gonna get any work done this weekend.

Thanks for continuining the sleuthing, Michael. Blame us, but I get the impression we're all curious fellows who tend to get intrigued by this sort of thing. I, for one am now also intrigued by the "lesson plans" reference. Yep, googled TEFL. Very interesting. I think I'm starting to understand the references to trips to Bali and such. My father was a Professor of Journalism, while I ended one A short of a straight A english minor - not that you'd be able to tell it in this century.

Both of you should work in Operations - you think like us. 🙂

Both of you should work in Operations - you think like us.

Well if you mean we seem to apply deductive reasoning to problems instead of just flailing about, I'll agree we think like youse and take it as a compliment But Operations? I have no idea what that even means in context. Keep in mind I walked away from a very high profile, high pressure job about 20 years ago. I've done little besides work on my house, my photography, my vinyl collection ever since.

In other words, based on the huge gap in my resume' I'm about as unemployable as you can get!

Operations = the support level. For example, the L1 reps you talk to from Apple, up to their L2's are Operations. L3's might be Ops, or possible Engineering / Build and Design (sometimes a mixture of both). Requires some deductive reasoning to troubleshoot issues and create solutions.

I actually do this for a living at a financial instutional who shall remain nameless. So yes, take it as a compliment. 🙂

Deductive reasoning seems to be in short supply these days, but perhaps it's just in my little world where that's the case. But be happy if you have a position where the people coming to you really want a solution . . .

The site is a mess because I got bored with it. Ignore the pitch to provide photography services as well - it's just that old. Go to the bio page.

And no laughing at my rudimentary html coding. I actually took apart some stuff others did and figured out the basics. Might have been wise to have done a little study, but oh well.

http://www.mindspring.com/~jnphoto/

Wel... I did used to work in software development and testing until early last year. I guess it still shows, huh? 😁

I'm trying to find a way to set this bleepity-bleeping "explicit" tag using AppleScript. My googling skills are, apparently, terrible.

Michael, if I got it right, you were successful in changing the enbedded tag, but it changed the file type. You can't simply manually change that in the finder, or is it more than just the extension that's changed?

Yeah, I was able to change the tag, but the application I used changed the Media Kind. The file type stayed the same. You can see the Media Kind by doing a "get info" on a music file in iTunes. It will say "aac audio file" for an import from a CD, for example.

Found this thread: http://www.neoseeker.com/forums/2537/t1395307-finally-found-way-to-add-explicit- tag/ About 3/4 of the way done, a post by "ZL" with a tools link.

Tried the EXE from the rar file (I checked it first, just to be safe - it's clean). Looks like the tag in question is "rtng" where 4 = Explicit and 2 = Clean. confrirmed with a test file that I imported into iTunes. Used "mediainfo" (yes, I love this tool) to verify the extra tag that was added.

Did this all manual, like this: AtomicParsley.exe filename.m4a --advisory Explicit

Going to test this with my QOTSA song next. Interesting app and will keep it in my tools list!

Let us know if you get it to work. It didn't work for me.

Doesn't seem to help 😟 at least in the reverse where I'm trying to take an explicit track and force it to match to to clean file:

I made that tag myself. Matched it, deleted the local file then played back the iCloud file, but the file is still the F-bomb version.

Remember this, for those of you with kids! Just because it says "Clean" doesn't mean it is, with this particular Windows command line tool it's actually very easy to alter this setting to whatever you want.

Well this is teamwork and I'm kinda likin' it. This isn't necessarily an easy nut to crack. After all, that tag is embedded for a reason. If one of you meets with success, some thought should also be put as to how best to use the info, given as I mentioned, it is embedded for a reason.

I'm thinking of the kid who put up the question on Yahoo l . . .