# iTunes mandatory???



## 47ronin (Dec 5, 2003)

I did a bit of googling. pretty much all the links led to WIntel solutions.

So... let me get this straight:

There are a number of utilities out there if you want to copy music from your (any model) iPod back to your (or any other) Mac.

But to put songs on to the iPod in the first place, you MUST use iTunes. No other choice, third party or otherwise.

Is this correct?

I am talking about music ripped to my HD from my own CD collection. Nothing to do with iTMS or DRM.


Thanks

PS Nothing against iTunes or iTMS, so please no questions, arguments, or lectures. I just want to know my options. That's all.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

YamiPod - http://www.yamipod.com/main/modules/home/

I also heard Audion worked a while back.. but I'm not sure if it will work now because it's no longer in development. (Meaning newer iPods might not be supported.)


----------



## Heart (Jan 16, 2001)

iTunes is the easiest.

And free!


----------



## 47ronin (Dec 5, 2003)

Heart said:


> iTunes is the easiest.
> 
> And free!


I believe I specifically requested that people not get into the merits (or lack thereof) of iTunes. OK then...

The issue is neither cost nor ease of use. The issue is whether we as Mac users have CHOICES in our computing environment to do things OUR way. 

I don't want effing iTunes deciding what folder my music is going to go into. (Where DO you put John Denver and Placido Domingo singing a duet?) I have been digitizing my collection of over 700 CDs. I have no use for a program that churns away for 4 minutes and then throws up a window with thousands of titles. And I have NO use for a program that by default puts Bing Crosby and Billy Eckstine into a playlist called "90's music". (Eckstine's last hit was released in 1957. Crosby's last album dates back to 1977.)

• • • • 

Thanks to Vexel for the tip on YamiPod. I will check it out.


----------



## xorpion (Jul 26, 2002)

47ronin said:


> I believe I specifically requested that people not get into the merits (or lack thereof) of iTunes. OK then...


id prefer choice over force anytime, but i just dont get it with this issue. i could understand if itunes was crap, but it really is the easiest and best app out there. i dont get why people feel they need to find something else.

good luck finding another app though.


----------



## interact (Mar 11, 2004)

47ronin said:


> I don't want effing iTunes deciding what folder my music is going to go into. (Where DO you put John Denver and Placido Domingo singing a duet?) I have been digitizing my collection of over 700 CDs. I have no use for a program that churns away for 4 minutes and then throws up a window with thousands of titles. And I have NO use for a program that by default puts Bing Crosby and Billy Eckstine into a playlist called "90's music". (Eckstine's last hit was released in 1957. Crosby's last album dates back to 1977.)


I'm guessing that the 90's playlist problem was caused by incorrect information on the songs' ID3 tags. Part of digitizing a collection is ensuring these tags are correct and even automatic services like CDDB make mistakes (spelling, year, etc.) iTunes was not making some sort of bizarre musical value judgement on that playlist - it was reading information on the music files. Even with another program, this may continue to be an issue (they would all basically read the same misinformation.)



> I don't want effing iTunes deciding what folder my music is going to go into. (Where DO you put John Denver and Placido Domingo singing a duet?)


You've actually flagged a problem which is solved by the switch from managing files and folders to managing your music with almost any jukebox program (including iTunes.) Instead of handling the files directly, a software solution will help you find songs faster and remove several other dilemmas that are inherent to a files and folders approach. 

Keep in mind (in many programs,) you can still drag a copy of the music file out of the jukebox library and put it in your desktop. That would allow you to easily drag and drop that file into another type of MP3 player.

I'm kinda stumped though ... How do you listen to the 700 cds on your computer now?


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

I have digitised 6000 songs, so it must compare with your 700 CDs and find iTunes a pretty good programme if you can live with the slightly quirky organisation of files and folders.

You can obviously uncheck the 'let iTunes organise' in the preferences.

You can also use Quicktime as your music reader (eg, go to an album folder select all, then play, although I'm not sure it will play all songs in the right order; I know WMP does that).

You can also disable smart playlists.

Last but not least Spotlight is a boon when looking for music to play in Quicktime and not using iTunes (but then again, why would you?).


----------



## ThirtyOne (Jan 18, 2003)

I used to get bothered by the way iTunes files songs as well. However, once I started playing around with Smart Playlists, I never looked back. I found that rather than worrying about folders and where anything ends up in my library, with some properly configured Smart Playlists (and cleaned up id3 tags, if you have the time to go through each song) things kind of take care of themselves.

I know you're looking for alternatives and don;t want to hear about iTunes merits, but Apple specifically created the iPod/iTunes/iTunes Music Store combo to be a closed proprietary set up that excludes alternatives. They don't want you to use 3rd party apps. That being said, even though they don't want you to have a choice, they've at least done a very good job with what they've offered.


----------



## dibenga (Oct 30, 2001)

some people have to complain about something...


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

I'm not posting this to Argue, but.. just a little tip for those of you that might not know. If you import to iTunes, and ID3's are all screwy, you can select all the songs at once, right/control click and get info. Adjust the tags for all the songs at the same time. Beats the hell outta fussing with every individual song. 

It also isn't iTunes that names songs incorrectly, it's an online service called the CDDB.. anyone can upload the information, and usually it doesn't get checked. Therefore, it's bound to happen. Someone just tagged the music wrong, not iTunes.


----------



## modsuperstar (Nov 23, 2004)

Use this program for fixing your ID3 tags. It's a program that idenifies a song by listening to it, then cross references it from it's database. It's not always right, but it helps alot when you have a big mess of ID3 tags to be sorted out.

http://musicbrainz.org/


----------



## macsackbut (Dec 15, 2004)

Vexel said:


> It also isn't iTunes that names songs incorrectly, it's an online service called the CDDB.. anyone can upload the information, and usually it doesn't get checked. Therefore, it's bound to happen. Someone just tagged the music wrong, not iTunes.


EXACTLY. If you're looking for someone to blame for screwy tags, then blame the people who upload them into the CDDB (which AFAIK is in no way affiliated with Apple) in the first place (i.e., you and me). I don't think I've ever imported a CD into iTunes without modifying the tags in some way--often because I have my own way of doing things, but also because they are often just plain wrong. 

As for your search for a way to load songs onto your iPod without using iTunes, well, good luck. If you ask me, it's a little like buying a CD player then searching for a way to play something other than CDs on it.

MacS


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

I bought an iPod Photo 60 GB so I could store all the audiobooks I intend to buy on it. I ripped several CD audiobooks and was perturbed that the iPod kept importing them into music and not audiobooks and sorted them by the length of the segment, not the chapter number etc - made it hard to listen to a book.

Then I did some googling and some investigation and a bit of data input in iTunes and now my books are all organized as they should be and in future when I rip a book from CD, I can correct the track names immediately and I won't have any problems.

The fault is with the older CDs, not with iTunes (at least in my case), but iTunes makes it easy for us to rename a track and also easy for us to create our own playlists and drag songs into as many playlists as we want and order them in a playlist any way we want.

Now if Apple could just figure out how to make iPhoto as useful...........

margaret


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

47ronin said:


> I believe I specifically requested that people not get into the merits (or lack thereof) of iTunes.


True, but putting three question marks on your question is a bit like waving a red flag.

Anyway, it's kinda beating-a-dead-horse now, but I'll join the crowd pointing out that iTunes has an excellent metadata-based organization system with a very high degree of customizability and user control. I doubt you will find a superior third-party solution, and organizing things manually at the file-system level is definitely the hard and slow way.

BTW, I'm curious about the four minutes of churning you've experienced. I have fairly slow systems (G4 800 and G3 900) and 6000+ tracks, and I don't see that, though iTunes can be a bit sluggish for me. Does it happen every time you launch the program? When you rip a disc? ...?


----------



## Tulse (May 26, 2005)

Whatever the merits or not of iTunes, it is not exactly Apple's fault that there are no third-party options to manage one's iPod on the Mac -- as far as I know, there are no technical barriers to doing so. It is indeed the case that it is more difficult to create music management software for the iPod, since it doesn't store its music in a plain file tree, like a regular hard drive, but instead has more of a database approach. But that database approach is a key component in giving the iPod its ease-of-use, so I think that it's a decent trade-off.


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

For those on a PC who realize the greatness of Winamp:

http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,67593,00.html


----------



## 47ronin (Dec 5, 2003)

jicon said:


> For those on a PC who realize the greatness of Winamp:
> 
> http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,67593,00.html


THANK YOU for that!!!

For the record, I have just started my 19th year as a Mac owner. However unlike some Apple apologists and Jobs worshippers, I use a Mac because it is generally a better platform, not because it's the answer to the meaning of life.

There ARE better ways of doing things. AFAIK iTunes needs a lot of work, and so does iPod (I'm not buying one until it has a user-replaceable battery). If the iTunes, iPod, iTMS trinity works for you, fine. Please don't try to foist your religion on me. (I also do not like cabbage!!! There... three exclamation marks. Let's get those messages rolling about the nutritional benefits of the old leaf.)

Meanwhile I'll continue to organize my music manually in the finder. If I ever need to cross-reference everything to the nth degree I'll create something in FileMaker. 

I am not a dj wannabe. A huge chunk of my collection is classical and jazz. So I feel like some Buxtehude, or some Anita O'Day. If I want to listen to a "shuffle" I turn to radio. 

Thanks for all the opinions expressed. Luckily I have this nice grain of salt...

As always, YMMV.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Tulse said:


> Whatever the merits or not of iTunes, it is not exactly Apple's fault that there are no third-party options to manage one's iPod on the Mac -- as far as I know, there are no technical barriers to doing so.


Actually, Apple is trying to control the vertical market here. 
http://www.panic.com/extras/audionstory/
"For Audion to be a worthy replacement for iTunes, we also need to add support for streaming to the Airport Express. But streams to the Airport Express are encrypted using a cryptographic key that we don't have access to — only Apple does. While we could, obviously, start a low-level "hacking" effort to fix this, the key would likely only change, leaving us in the difficult position of being literally unable to support Airport Express within Audion.

Even more important is the massive issue of M4P files — the very AAC audio files you purchase from the iTunes Music Store. M4P files are encrypted using a proprietary Apple system, so we simply can't open the files and decode them like we do with MP3 files. And while Quicktime does give third party apps limited M4P playback support (QuickTime does the decoding and playback itself), there's no public method that allows apps like Audion to get access to the raw audio stream. Unfortunately, Audion needs the raw audio stream — the entire playback engine is built around it, and things like effects plug-ins can't work without having a raw audio to work with. Again, we could try to hack around it, and remove the protection from M4P files, but we'd be playing a constant game of cat and mouse. Thus, if you buy a song from the iTunes Music Store, you can't play it in Audion — not now, and probably not in the future."


As for the merits of iTunes, it is a piss poor program for people who like music for the various reasons outlined here and many others.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

47ronin said:


> Meanwhile I'll continue to organize my music manually in the finder. If I ever need to cross-reference everything to the nth degree I'll create something in FileMaker.


There used to exist a great tool for that, Spinfree Audiofile - still waiting for a worthy replacement.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

47ronin said:


> For the record, I have just started my 19th year as a Mac owner. However unlike some Apple apologists and Jobs worshippers, I use a Mac because it is generally a better platform, not because it's the answer to the meaning of life.


Congratulations! You've managed to insult your fellow Mac users, who use the platform for exactly the same reason as you, in the midst of a rant which boils down to stubborn refusal to adopt (and, in your case, troubleshoot) a useful feature of that very platform.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

iMatt said:


> Congratulations! You've managed to insult your fellow Mac users, who use the platform for exactly the same reason as you, in the midst of a rant which boils down to stubborn refusal to adopt (and, in your case, troubleshoot) a useful feature of that very platform.


iMatt, you make it sound as if Mac users are sheep. 
"adopt"? Why are Apple apoligist so afraid to debate pros/cons of the Mac OS and software. How else can OS X and it's software improve? 
I'm amused by the fact that we can bash MS with impunity but say something negative about Apple and....

Maybe Apple users are more like sheep and closer to MS than they care to admit, how many threads on this forum Apple show me your dekstop, computer room etc? How many post about what is basically is "let's go shop at the Apple store and spend our many"? Crass commercialism masquerading as a Cult....

iTunes is a flawed application.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Yawn. Let's just start calling each other names and derail the thread outright. Get it over with.

Ba-a-a-a-a.


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> iMatt, you make it sound as if Mac users are sheep.
> "adopt"? Why are Apple apoligist so afraid to debate pros/cons of the Mac OS and software. How else can OS X and it's software improve?
> I'm amused by the fact that we can bash MS with impunity but say something negative about Apple and....
> 
> ...


I have to agree with most of what Artistseries said, though I like iTunes, and wouldn't do without it.

I like the Mac platform overall, but the way Apple has closed off so many of their applications to other developers is a bit maddening. Iterations of apps also should not be required time after time as 10.1 thru 10.4 breaks the code, and the finder/dock has its flaws. Why people around here don't voice larger complaints about this really makes me wonder.

Overall, I've actually had significantly bigger issues with my Mac as opposed to my XP machine, but I think eyecandy and quietness of the machine keep drawing me to the Mac. I always yearn for the Mac to become a little friendlier to developers however.


----------



## MacME (Mar 15, 2005)

47ronin said:


> THANK YOU for that!!!
> 
> For the record, I have just started my 19th year as a Mac owner. However unlike some Apple apologists and Jobs worshippers, I use a Mac because it is generally a better platform, not because it's the answer to the meaning of life.
> 
> ...


i have to sympathzie with *47ronin*, all he asked for was an alternative to iTunes. he also kindly asked not to discuss why he should use iTunes since he decide that he didn't wish to use it, and yet ppl STILL insisted on shoving their opinions that he should down his throat. *shesh*



iMatt said:


> Congratulations! You've managed to insult your fellow Mac users, who use the platform for exactly the same reason as you, in the midst of a rant which boils down to stubborn refusal to adopt (and, in your case, troubleshoot) a useful feature of that very platform.


Apple may have some great products, but Apple isn't the end all/be all to everything. i take NO offense to *47ronin* comments.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> iMatt, you make it sound as if Mac users are sheep.
> "adopt"? Why are Apple apoligist so afraid to debate pros/cons of the Mac OS and software. How else can OS X and it's software improve?


I have nothing against debating the pros and cons, but calling people mindless Jobs-worshipping sheep for the terrible crime of correcting mistaken notions about a piece of software has nothing to do with a debate of the pros and cons.

Are you so sure I'm an Apple apologist? I happen to think iTunes is very good for what it is. That's it. Doesn't mean I think Apple or Steve Jobs are perfect or that iTunes is so wonderful it's obvious God must be the lead programmer. 



> I'm amused by the fact that we can bash MS with impunity but say something negative about Apple and....


The criticism in this case amounts to:

1. iTunes miscategorizes my music! (Actually, it doesn't. CDDB and its contributors do. iTunes does, however, provide a reasonably good interface for fixing such glitches.)

2. iTunes takes forever to open. (Then there's a problem, how about troubleshooting it?)

3. iTunes presents my music in one long list of tracks. (Then why not click the Browse button and see it presented by genre [optionally], artist, and album?)

4. iTunes insists on organizing my music. I don't want that. (Then turn off that feature; and some also claimed there are good reasons to let it do that.)

Instead of a debate or a calm discussion, the response has been the virtual equivalent of fingers in ears and loud chanting of "LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU."

Yes, he asked for alternatives and not a discussion of pros and cons. But since there are few alternatives (and we can and should criticize Apple for that fact), it was virtually inevitable that some discussion of iTunes would happen. When it did, was it really reasonable to get immediately into baseless name-calling?

BTW, you won't often (if ever) find me sniping at MS (except perhaps my love-hate relationship with Office, but even then I recognize virtues) or heaping mindless praise on Apple. 




> iTunes is a flawed application.


I'm sure it is. But why is it that when a perceived flaw is shown to be nothing more than <i>perceived</i>, the person doing the showing is nothing but a mindless sheep? Why is it a sign of Apple-worship if one suggests troubleshooting a problem instead of running for the hills? Why not stick to the real flaws and quit the useless name-calling? 

I do sincerely apologize for throwing in my two cents in the first place, since it was obviously far less welcome than I could have possibly imagined.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 1, 2005)

*Choice...*



47ronin said:


> The issue is neither cost nor ease of use. The issue is whether we as Mac users have CHOICES in our computing environment to do things OUR way.


The simple answer is no. The Mac platform is less about choice to do things our way, and more about a universal, easy to use for as many users as possible way.

There are other MP3 players on the market that work with Mac, with their own software. When it comes to Apple and the iPod you are committed to the iTunes software.

You can still organize your music outside the iTunes folder. Just ensure the option to keep your library consolidated is not selected.


----------



## macsackbut (Dec 15, 2004)

47ronin said:


> AFAIK iTunes needs a lot of work, and so does iPod (I'm not buying one until it has a user-replaceable battery).


"So... let me get this straight:" 

You DON'T even own an iPod (and apparently don't plan on buying one soon)? So your original question was what... flamebait? Sorry. I don't get it. If you just want to organize your music on your HD, there are other options. 

http://rhythmbox.sourceforge.net/


----------



## ThirtyOne (Jan 18, 2003)

47ronin: if all you want is an application to manage your music on your Mac, there are countless of those available. If you really want choice, download the X11 windowing system from Apple and go nuts with all the different open source choices offered in the linux world, which you can configure and tinker to your heart's desire. But you specifically asked about getting music into an iPod, in which case, [email protected] hit the nail right on the head: you are stuck with iTunes.

As an aside, I use a Mac not because I want choice, but because I want simplicity. However, I do like choice. And for that, I use Debian Linux on a pentium 4 notebook (and I use WindowsXP at work.) There are many things that Apple sucks at, but the only reason I use my Mac 80% of the time, rather than my linux machine, is because no one else makes the everyday stuff as easy to do as Apple, flaws and all.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I have a question re: How iTunes organizes music on your hard drive.

Does it really matter how the files are organized as long as you have easy access to the songs you want to play when you want to play them?


----------



## gmark2000 (Jun 4, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Maybe Apple users are more like sheep and closer to MS than they care to admit, how many threads on this forum Apple show me your dekstop, computer room etc? How many post about what is basically is "let's go shop at the Apple store and spend our many"? Crass commercialism masquerading as a Cult...


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

PosterBoy said:


> I have a question re: How iTunes organizes music on your hard drive.
> 
> Does it really matter how the files are organized as long as you have easy access to the songs you want to play when you want to play them?


I don't think it makes any fundamental difference in most cases, PosterBoy, but people obviously have reasons for going one way or the other.

In my case, I made the decision to abandon the file-system level based on a simple question: does my music program allow me to organize things as I please, making the Finder interface redundant? 

I've been answering YES since the days of SoundJam, and the answer has nothing to do with whose logo is on the software or what kinds of music I listen to. It has everything to do with support for ID3 tags. Are they well-supported? Yes? Then why organize things twice? I can't think of one good reason in my own situation. 

However, those who do have reasons (the most compelling one I know is a collection split among different volumes, with no one volume having enough free space for everything) always have the option of doing it manually.


----------

