DJ JLT-ARS
Of course, I understand how to "sort" songs in a list, but am curious to know if there is a way to sort by 2 fields.... say sort by artist, than then by BPM. I tried a few modifier keys, but if this is built in, couldn't figure it out. Might be nice to be able to hold the Shift Key (or some other key) and then sequentially click on the fields you'd like it sort on... 1st, 2nd, etc. With really big lists this would be a handy feature to have. I do see the "sort" field in the Options, but it appears to be just a listing of the columns and not a way to add sequential sorting..... just an idea......
Posté Fri 01 Mar 24 @ 3:17 pm
IIDEEJAYII
Its just a matter of clicking the secondary sort column first, then, click the second (primary sort) column.
hope that makes sense.
so a custom button script, to sort mainly by Artist and then by BPM would be:
or what could be useful, is sort by BPM and then by Key:
hope that makes sense.
so a custom button script, to sort mainly by Artist and then by BPM would be:
browser_sort "+bpm" & browser_sort "+artist"
or what could be useful, is sort by BPM and then by Key:
browser_sort "+key" & browser_sort "+bpm"
Posté Fri 01 Mar 24 @ 3:34 pm
DJ JLT-ARS
Alright!
Nothing short of AMAZING!
Thanks for the help. Will probably integrate your script examples as well.
Nothing short of AMAZING!
Thanks for the help. Will probably integrate your script examples as well.
Posté Fri 01 Mar 24 @ 4:35 pm
DJ JLT-ARS
So this is a 2-part question.
1 Here is my script:
I’m expecting this list to be sorted by BPM, and then sub-sorted by Title. So all of the 124 BPM songs are together, and inside that group, the songs are sorted alphabetically by Title. But what I’ve discovered is that the BPM’s are sorted down to the x.00 range, so songs that are at 124.01, sort after songs that are at 124.00. Guessing I could go in and change the fractions of beats, but also just assume at some point, everything will get analyzed again, and I’ll have to go in find and manually delete the fractions again.
Doubt there is a way to fix this script wise, but asking anyway. My preference would be to ignore any fractions of beats when sorting. But math is math, so kinda’, sorta’ understand why it works this way. No doubt it if didn’t, someone would complain that that fractions don’t work when sorting.
2. My 2nd question involves this script:
So with the above BPM fractions issue noted, I’m expecting the list to be sorted by ascending BPM’s, and then for each BPM #, sorted with higher rated songs first. But it doesn’t matter if I use a “+”, or a “-”, or nothing with the Ratings field, the ratings always sort with the lowest ratings first.
Is this just the way it's designed? or am I doing something obviously wrong?
1 Here is my script:
browser_sort "+title" & browser_sort "+bpm"
I’m expecting this list to be sorted by BPM, and then sub-sorted by Title. So all of the 124 BPM songs are together, and inside that group, the songs are sorted alphabetically by Title. But what I’ve discovered is that the BPM’s are sorted down to the x.00 range, so songs that are at 124.01, sort after songs that are at 124.00. Guessing I could go in and change the fractions of beats, but also just assume at some point, everything will get analyzed again, and I’ll have to go in find and manually delete the fractions again.
Doubt there is a way to fix this script wise, but asking anyway. My preference would be to ignore any fractions of beats when sorting. But math is math, so kinda’, sorta’ understand why it works this way. No doubt it if didn’t, someone would complain that that fractions don’t work when sorting.
2. My 2nd question involves this script:
browser_sort “-Rating" & browser_sort "+bpm"
So with the above BPM fractions issue noted, I’m expecting the list to be sorted by ascending BPM’s, and then for each BPM #, sorted with higher rated songs first. But it doesn’t matter if I use a “+”, or a “-”, or nothing with the Ratings field, the ratings always sort with the lowest ratings first.
Is this just the way it's designed? or am I doing something obviously wrong?
Posté 3 days ago @ 1:13 am
DJ JLT-ARS
DJ JLT-ARS wrote :
So this is a 2-part question.
1 Here is my script:
I’m expecting this list to be sorted by BPM, and then sub-sorted by Title. So all of the 124 BPM songs are together, and inside that group, the songs are sorted alphabetically by Title. But what I’ve discovered is that the BPM’s are sorted down to the x.0 range, so songs that are at 124.1, sort after songs that are at 124.00. Guessing I could go in and change the fractions of beats, but also just assume at some point, everything will get analyzed again, and I’ll have to go in find and manually delete the fractions again.
Doubt there is a way to fix this script wise, but asking anyway. My preference would be to ignore any fractions of beats when sorting. But math is math, so kinda’, sorta’ understand why it works this way. No doubt it if didn’t, someone would complain that that fractions don’t work when sorting.
2. My 2nd question involves this script:
So with the above BPM fractions issue noted, I’m expecting the list to be sorted by ascending BPM’s, and then for each BPM #, sorted with higher rated songs first. But it doesn’t matter if I use a “+”, or a “-”, or nothing with the Ratings field, the ratings always sort with the lowest ratings first.
Is this just the way it's designed? or am I doing something obviously wrong?
1 Here is my script:
browser_sort "+title" & browser_sort "+bpm"
I’m expecting this list to be sorted by BPM, and then sub-sorted by Title. So all of the 124 BPM songs are together, and inside that group, the songs are sorted alphabetically by Title. But what I’ve discovered is that the BPM’s are sorted down to the x.0 range, so songs that are at 124.1, sort after songs that are at 124.00. Guessing I could go in and change the fractions of beats, but also just assume at some point, everything will get analyzed again, and I’ll have to go in find and manually delete the fractions again.
Doubt there is a way to fix this script wise, but asking anyway. My preference would be to ignore any fractions of beats when sorting. But math is math, so kinda’, sorta’ understand why it works this way. No doubt it if didn’t, someone would complain that that fractions don’t work when sorting.
2. My 2nd question involves this script:
browser_sort “-Rating" & browser_sort "+bpm"
So with the above BPM fractions issue noted, I’m expecting the list to be sorted by ascending BPM’s, and then for each BPM #, sorted with higher rated songs first. But it doesn’t matter if I use a “+”, or a “-”, or nothing with the Ratings field, the ratings always sort with the lowest ratings first.
Is this just the way it's designed? or am I doing something obviously wrong?
Posté 3 days ago @ 4:18 am
freppa
As we speak about songlists and browser..
I would like to see a column for sorting songs in order, like 1,2,3 etc. that only apears in the list browser and is invisible in the original browser.
When a song can be seen in a lot of lists there is no way we can "tag" it with a number in original file.
I would like to see a column for sorting songs in order, like 1,2,3 etc. that only apears in the list browser and is invisible in the original browser.
When a song can be seen in a lot of lists there is no way we can "tag" it with a number in original file.
Posté 3 days ago @ 9:26 am