Managed vs Unmanaged Libraries

In the olden days, our music libraries were primarily unmanaged. It was essentially the only option. If you wanted to listen to a song, you had "Eagle Eye Cherry - Save Tonight.mp3" or "01 - save tonight - eagle eye cherry - [desireless].wav" or something along those lines. You interacted with the file within the file explorer, such as Windows Explorer, and kept track largely by file name. Some people used meta data in one form or another, such as MP3 ID3 tags, but just as many of us ignored or actively removed those tags to force it to organize by carefully renamed filenames. Even more people just took the files as is, creating messes like "~ALLSTAR1.mp3" or alike.

Programs like Winamp, Windows Media Player, and RealPlayer provided the features necessary to organize libraries heavily on metadata, but they generally didn't create much of an abstraction layer between the file system and the music library. Your audio files were linked, and its tags read, but the files were otherwise left alone where they were.

The Music Library: iTunes and Winamp

iTunes took a different default approach, and it made it a polarizing music library application. Unless settings were set otherwise, it organized your files for you by creating folders for each artists under a single parent directory, and sorting each song within appropriate nested folders named by album name. The song files themselves were renamed by track number, a comma separator, and the song name.

So on Windows, you might get:
C:\Documents and Settings\Gordon\My Documents\My Music\iTunes Library\Eagle Eye Cherry\Desireless\01 - Save Tonight.mp3

People either hated it or loved it.

This was managed music.

When the Windows port of iTunes came out in 2003, I began using it in parallel with Winamp, my incumbent music player of choice at the time. It was light, simple, and unmanaged. I had also stripped my entire library of all ID2/ID3 tags over the years, so it wasn't optimized for iTunes.

I was a hater of managed music.

I wanted to organize these files myself. I had my own folder structure and naming conventions. Yet over time, I grew to like iTunes managing my music for me. With every new file, I could drag it into the library, and it would take care of the rest (making a copy, renaming the file based on the metadata, and creating appropriate folders). Then I could delete that original copy or what ever I wanted.

The thing was that, as much fun as it may be to have full control and say over how to manage your own music, it just wasn't scalable to me past a thousand songs, much less several thousand. If the computer is so much better at automation than a human, I figured we should be offloading this tedious work to these machines.

The Photo Library: iPhoto and Picasa

If iTunes is to managed as Winamp is to unmanaged, then iPhoto and Picasa are the respective analogies for the photo library.

Like iTunes, iPhoto by default created copies of any photo you dragged into the application, but also like iTunes, you had the option of disabling copying to the photo library.

With the latter, iPhoto would simply link to wherever that file sat, and wouldn't make a renamed copy. With the former, it would place a copy in a bundle "iPhoto Library" in the user Pictures directory, like this:

/Users/gordon/Pictures/iPhoto Library/Originals/2007/October 22, 2007/IMG_0001.jpg

This is nearly identical to iTunes behavior, with the one distinction that iTunes still involves folders that can be navigated through via UI the traditional way, instead of bundles that require "Show Package Contents" or a terminal.

/Users/gordon/Music/iTunes/iTunes Music/Coldplay/Viva La Vida - Prospekt's March Edition/1-07 Viva La Vida.mp3

Picasa, on the other hand, offers iPhoto's link-to-file option as the only offering, but differs beyond that for monitoring those watched locations for changes to the files (renamed, deleted, etc.).

As a Picasa user, I haven't embraced iPhoto in the same way that I had with iTunes. I tried to determine why that might be, considering that I have a much more overwhelming number of photos than audio files to manage. It could be that the metadata in music files played a much bigger role in determining how to organize them. Many of us were already manually organizing by artist or album, perfect for metadata. Sorting and filtering by genre, beats per minute, length, and other attributes were perks, but the point was that a lot of us were already manually managing the same way auto-managing worked.

Whereas with photos, my guess would be that there is more fragmentation in the way these files are organized from person to person. Some might group by events (Graduation 2003, Italy 2002, Birthday 2008). Some might group by year, or month, or months nested within years. Or some might group by year, with the photos within each grouped by events. Some might not group at all.

iPhoto does allow you to create smart playlists a la iTunes based on criteria, so that you can do anything from creating playlist/labels filtering out all photos taken with a specific type of camera, or more usual things like grouping by year.

But these are folders. These are like, again, smart playlists in iTunes or IMAP labels in Gmail. And this may not work for everyone.

Ultimately though, I would venture to conclude that perhaps not as many people see a need for managed photo libraries, as useful as it is, because photos are much more visual by nature, and can be spotted in a grid of thumbnails. In time, with the ongoing release of new tools like facial recognition and geotagging maps, perhaps managed photo libraries will be compelling enough for more of us to alter our ways.