[mythtv-users] MythMusic Bounty Ideas

Stephen Boddy stephen.boddy at btinternet.com
Thu Sep 7 15:27:44 UTC 2006

On Thursday 07 September 2006 14:45, Steven Adeff wrote:
> On 9/7/06, Stephen Boddy <stephen.boddy at btinternet.com> wrote:
> > Ideally this would be done face-to-face with a reasonable group of music
> > lovers, but that's obviously tricky due to dispersed nature of the users.
> > So you might have to settle for a cobbled together conference (skype?),
> > and I think inkscape has some kind of Jabber collaboration, so you could
> > use that as a whiteboard.
> I don't think it needs to necessarily go this far.  This list works
> well for discussions, and allows for people on different schedules to
> collaborate. I also don't expect the final Bounty to come together
> overnight. If it takes 2 or 3 weeks to come together thats fine.

The list works a little too well for discussions ;-) It goes to everyone, and 
everyone throws in their 2c worth, and then next thing you're off on tangents 
about all kinds of miscellanea not related to the task in hand.

Second, the list isn't great for visualisation. As you're not sold on the idea 
of an interactive process, then perhaps set up a page on the wiki. You can 
get visuals on there for debate, and there's the option for the people who 
care most to discuss and contribute. And I know this sounds somewhat 
counterproductive, but this will also reduce the level of throwaway e-mails 
and noise.

Finally, due to bad mailers, newbies and so on, the list can get disjointed 
and cluttered at the same time, making it hard too get a handle on the "whole 

Often in the early stages the smaller the group, the more cohesive and 
successful the end result. Design by committee is frequently a disaster.

> I think the trickiest part is how will the new UI work. Though I think
> this may be eased by having MythMusic contain UI modules that the
> theme designer can then organize and relate in the manner they like
> the best. For instance, allow for "pages" that can allow the theme
> designer to create a tabbed structure, and modules that can be placed
> on the page, like a "Source" module, "Tree" modules, etc. Each with a
> set of controls, items that can be displayed, etc. Allowing the theme
> designer to mix, match and organize as they like.

Sounds good in theory. Can you draw me an ASCII diagram in your next 
e-mail... ;-) Only kidding. See comment above re using wiki for 
design/discussion/mockups and the like.

> I truly believe all the iPod/Last.FM type stuff can be more like a
> plug-in. But what needs to be in place is a way to organize all that
> for the user. Much like how iTunes uses its "Sources" tree where it
> has your main Library, Playlists, iPod(which pops up when an iPod is
> mounted), etc. Having a flexible tree that allows for this is needed.


> > For my part, my single most important objective would be for the
> > interface to get me as close to the ease of use of Amarok for creating,
> > selecting, playing and managing playlists. (Of course the trivial way to
> > do this is to have MythMusic access the db of your desktop Amarok...) My
> > secondary objective would be a framework for extensions (but not the
> > actual extensions) for additional features (i.e. iPod, lasf.fm,
> > shoutcast, radio streams etc.)
> Agreed. Some method for managing playlists and basic browsing and song
> selection needs to be implemented.
> I like the idea of some Amarok integration but I also like MythMusic
> having its own database tables in mythconverg. I think the best way
> for doing this is perhaps working with Amarok to create a "device" in
> the manner of the portable player integration that is actually the
> MythMusic database so that playlists can be created that way. Still
> the problem of file location/mount points has to be figured out. This
> though can be added later.

Yes, my original comment was an example of the earlier throw away ideas. It 
would be much more sensible for Amarok to upload it's playlists to MythMusic. 
(Slight issue with this, as MythMusic expects all the music in one place I 
believe, whereas Amarok can play tunes from any old path the user has 
permissions for.)

As an alternative (I don't know if Amarok can already do this) is to stream 
from Amarok, and treat it as a form of radio/podcast or something. I don't 
know if the metadata could be passed around to make choosing different 
playlists and seeing the contents of the playlist.

> > I'll admit that I'm still on 0.18, so I haven't seen what, if any,
> > improvements are in the soon-to-be-release 0.20 version. What I do know
> > is that 0.18 has a horrible UI to the point that I can't really bring
> > myself to use it. I just turn my desktops Amarok-driven diddy speakers up
> > really loud ;-) . If 0.20 isn't dramatically improved then I'm happy to
> > throw in some money, depending on the design/plan and acheivability.
> Sadly, I don't think the UI has changed much if at all. The db has
> gone through a good overhaul which will make these changes easier (and
> was mostly done for the MythWeb Music features being added), but the
> TV interface side of things has not improved.

OK. So it sounds like I'm in.
Steve Boddy

More information about the mythtv-users mailing list