&gt; Your proposal to store track info in with verbose naming isn&#x27;t very robust and doesn&#x27;t solve even the most basic problems that a simple metadata scheme does.<p>But that&#x27;s how anyone who is serious about collecting digital music has been ordering it since ages. Sure, I never considered putting track length in the filename as :) (but I can see why), and if I can help it I have them tagged correctly too. But the file&#x2F;folder structure is how I keep it organised.<p>There may be better ways to go about this, but it at least needs to be an actual improvement. iTunes is not.<p>Currently I&#x27;m experimenting with a command line tool called &#x27;beets&#x27;, which from reading its docs, definitely has a philosophy that aligns with mine. Unfortunately I haven&#x27;t quite figured out how to tell it where to get the metadata from, it defaults to MusicBrainz which seems to have quite a few inaccuracies in their data (spelling of &quot;Kung-Fu&quot;, hyphenated or with spaces I don&#x27;t care really but if you use both spellings on the same album, one of them is wrong). It&#x27;s got plugins for discogs and figure-out-from-pathname so that&#x27;s good, but then it still uses MusicBrainz too. All in all it&#x27;s a bit fiddly, but I can&#x27;t really imagine a way to do it better, if you want have accuracy, keep control, some assistance with automatic tagging, but without messing up weird edge-cases like the classical albums and bootleg recordings mentioned above (for which &#x27;beets&#x27; tries real hard to do the right thing, that being what you decide it to be).