If this happens at all, it won't be until we handle per-source play orders.  

For the use cases I've heard, the queue playing in linear order is the preferred behaviour regardless of the shuffle/repeat settings.  Can you explain the way you're using the play queue and why it makes this a good idea?

Wow, thanks for the quick response!

The way I would like the Queue is to scroll through the Library, selecting songs that I would like to hear now, add them to the Queue and then have all of them played, Shuffled if that mode is turned on. I can do this by creating a new playlist every time and then deleting it after it finishes, but having a built-in, one-time playlist (that also shuffles in newly added songs) would be a great improvement. Is there a way to do this that I am missing?

No, there's no way to do this at the moment.

Another possibility would be to have a 'randomise' command for playlists and the play queue, but this would only really work if you selected a set of songs, randomised them, then played them without adding any more.

I disagree with this bug report.

Queue means non-random order for all people. Orderedness is the entire definition of a queue.

If I use rhythmbox in shuffle mode, I expect the following decision order:
* If there's something in Queue, play the top Queue song.
* If not - play random song from library.

I haven't used XMMS/BMP, but AFAIK Winamp didn't shuffle the queue, and I don't think iTunes does.

I agree with this bug.
I have a huge library and I normally don't want to hear songs from all this library but just from a specific group (playlists I created for specific moods for example). I'd very much like a mode to play songs from this group in a random order.

Again, let me repeat that though such a behaviour could be useful for some people, it'd hardly be a queue, and couldn't be called that.

What is a queue? A way of sorting things into an order, and going through them one by one. This applies for computing queues, the line at the bus stop, etc.

The behaviour you are asking for can easily be done by just dragging things to a playlist where the songs get shuffled. I seriously don't get why someone would want to shuffle the play queue...

It's important in a party to be able to decide: I want to play songs A, then B, then C, and leave the computer without being afraid of them playing B, C, A.

I'd say NOTABUG on this one... use a playlist instead.

Ups, it seems I confused playlists and play queue.
As it is possible to play play lists in shuffle mode, the problem is fixed for me. Sorry for the confusion.

Making the queue play in a random order also doesn't make sense to me, as the whole point of the queue is to be able to tell the program to play several songs in a particular order.

As people have suggested, using a playlist works fine if you want to play a group of songs in a shuffled order.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm not interested in what other players do, nor am I interested in justifying a feature based on its name.  I disagree that the playlist functionality is enough (otherwise people like me wouldn't complain :-)).  Let me explain.

There is a major feature in the queue which make it unique to playlists.  After a song is played it disappears.  Why is this important?  Well it lets the user know that its not going to played again, no matter what.  Further, it is important because when all songs are played, the queue is empty again.  That means its ready to accept music that is independent of what was playing before.  So lets take a look at how one may use this.  It seems like a playlist that had this feature would be able to fulfill the desire to have a queue that plays in a random order, lets call it a pool.

User Herb is in the mood for Greek music.  Herb places his favorite greek albums (alpha and beta) into the pool and has the music play randomly.  After getting his greek music fix, he is now interested in listening to his latin albums.  But Herb recently listened to his favourite album (A), so instead of listening to his favorite three (which is his normal habit), he wants to listen to B, C, and D.  After listening to some his music, Herb has an idea, this time, he wants to add in a little techno with his latin music.  He then puts in album 4 (album four he thinks would fit best) in his pool.

In the current case, four playlists are necessary.  One with his Greek albums, one with his favorite latin albums, one for his current desire to listen to album D instead of album A, and finally one with his partly reduced playlist of music that  can not be easily recreated (since he randomly played songs) and his techno music.  Creating all these playlists would be cumbersome and it would make a big mess and would be removed later on, forcing Herb to be constantly creating and deleting playlists.  Herb would be very annoyed (like I am)...

I agree with this bug. I was on my way to launchpad to report this bug and ended up here. I read through the comments and I agree that the play queue does not play back my music the way I would intend it to.

I understand that the developers here all agree that a queue is meant to play music in order, so I have a proposal.

What if selecting the "random order" button, when in play queue mode, it shuffles the order of songs in the queue, yet while the queue "plays", it does play "in order". If it worked with this functionality, I would assume the random button does not stay pressed, or in the "on" position, it would shuffle whats in the queue, and go back to the previous un-pressed state. If the button is then pressed again, it would shuffle the play queue again, and once again return to the un-pressed state.

FWIW: This is how winamp works.

I understand from the above comments that there is not a use case for this. I don't know what all goes into a use case, but I'll explain how I am using Rhythmbox, and maybe you can see why this needs improvement.

USECASE: On my work PC I prefer to traverse across my music directory in Nautilus and use drag and drop to select what songs to add to my play queue. I have the play queue selected, and hide the sidebar. After a song plays, I want that song removed from the queue as I never intend to listen to my music in the same order ever again. I do not use the library function, or playlists in this instance because it makes me have to micromanage my music collection too much. I would rather drag and drop a song, or a directory of songs to the play queue, press the random button to shuffle the play queue, and not have to think about the music again until it runs out of songs to play.

It sounds like you'd be better off with a simpler player like totem for that sort of usage.

Perhaps I didn't understand what you were proposing in your third paragraph correctly, but in general, making UI elements behave differently depending on other conditions that may or may not be visible is a bad idea.  Also, there is no 'play queue mode'.

Hey Jonathan, thanks for the reply. I realize this bug has been resolved as NOTABUG, so I appreciate you taking your time to listen. 

I am sure you know that totem leaves something to be desired as an audio player. It's not that its not a good piece of software, but it just doenst have functions that I have come to expect from an audio player. Last.fm support, tag editing, album covers, come to mind. I know that this might seam like im flip-flopping from before about not wanting to micro-manage my collection at work. but sometimes a quick tag edit is essential.

I created 2 videos describing my use case, the first one is me using rhymthmbox the way I described in the USECASE, above. The second video is me using listen in the way I described in my 3rd paragraph above.

http://pigsevolvedonmars.com/rhythmbox.ogg
http://pigsevolvedonmars.com/listen.ogg

As you can see from the videos, I am attempting to use the 2 programs the same way, and yes, I am sort of asking rhythmbox to adopt functionality from other players. I stumbled upon this usecase for rhythmbox, and I expect that others will as well. You can see from the rhythmbox video that in this regard, rhythmbox is largely unpolished, and not entirely user friendly.

I agree that changing the functionality of a button is bad design. In a way I don't think this changes the functionality, but the end result would be displayed different then using the button on a playlist. As you can see in the second video, listen resolved this by creating a button that provides this functionality only.

In the end, I am still on my quest for the perfect audio player for Linux. Right now its a toss up between Rhythmbox and Quod Libet, both have awesome features not found in the other player. Neither are perfect at everything they do. 

*** Bug 514011 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 515218 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

The Shuffle and Repeat buttons should be disabled when the Queue is in use (ie, when there's stuff in it).  I consider it a usability bug that these buttons have seemingly no effect and that they aren't greyed out when they are, in all actuality, unusable.

I second that the Shuffle and Repeat buttons should be greyed out when playing from the Play Queue.

Could this be a compromise that allows people to keep current function for some, but enable users like me and kimiko to get our preferred behaviour?

- When playing from Play Queue, disable Shuffle and Repeat buttons
- When Play Queue runs out of songs, re-enable buttons
- In the Library column, add a new command to right-click menu: When I click on Play Queue or any playlist, allow me to "randomize list order".

In this way people can use the Play Queue to prepare exact play orders for parties, or alternatively add lots of music and randomize the order, to have a "temporary playlist".
I won't go into the merits of having a temporary playlist, this has been discussed before.

Damn, I need to learn programming to just get this kind of thing done for my own use... It seems there are users out there who are confused by the behavior of the Play Queue, and I don't have the power to fix it even for myself :( Damn ;)

Maybe someone who CAN already write code could help out here?

I also find myself here ready to log a bug that the shuffle key doesn't work in the play queue. I wanted to listen to a few tracks and went through my library adding tracks I came across to the play queue. Of course, now all my tracks are ordered alphabetically, and I figured I could just press 'shuffle' to shuffle them..but no.

Having read the comments, I have to disagree that the word 'queue' has any relevance to the order tracks are played. Instead, I consider the word to mean that the tracks are played one at a time.

If there is a queue of people, and I tell them to 'shuffle' themselves, then what they end up in is still a queue. The order is irrelevant.

Furthermore, if someone thinks that it doesn't make sense to shuffle them, then why is it possible to change the order of the tracks manually (via drag-and-drop)? I could do that 'randomly' if I so chose...and that's what I want the 'shuffle' button to do.

If one can vote, I vote for the shuffle button to actually do what it says (and why not repeat too).

Max.

I agree with Max, and this is what I attempted to describe in my first report, however he was able to get the desired functionality across better then I was.

I find myself deeply disappointed with all audio players under gnome. I realize this is outside of the scope of this bug report, but I want to make record of it here anyway. I have a very large music library, I have spent years looking for the perfect audio manager for my library, and though there has been great progress, I still don't feel like we are there yet. I very much dislike having to micromanage what is playing, I have spent enough time hand picking what goes into my music collection that I care less about which album or song is playing, and care more about the music just never stopping. Sort of a perfect radio station, if you will. As of late, what I have the most desire for is along the lines of what Charbucks has been working on over at http://undamped.blogspot.com called "In The Mood". I have not been able to test this out, but I understand it to be along the lines of the music genome project used by Pandora. 

I have used last.fm suggestions supported by various players, but this dynamic playlist support leaves something to be desired. What I have found is that all suggestions lead to mainstream artists/songs and at some point stops offering suggestions of my obscure music.

Example:

Place in queue The Moving sidewalks
Last.fm suggests ZZ Top, Jimi Hendrix, 13th Floor Elevators
ZZ Top Plays, Last.fm Suggests Led Zeppelin
Jimi Hendrix plays, Last.fm suggests The Rolling Stones
13th Floor Elevators plays, Last.fm suggests Pink Floyd
Now there are no more obscure artists left in my queue, so none get suggested

In the same regard, I also feel that Smart Playlists leave something to be desired. If I want to play Slow Blues for example, I would have to tag which songs are not just blues, but slow blues in the genere tag. This is major micromanaging.

The example for In the Mood, I understand that it takes a fingerprint of the audio and it attempts to figure out which songs are similar by tempo, volume, key, etc. and should provide a more accurate selection of songs. Where in my example above with playing a Moving Sidewalks song, It will pull music from any and all genre, but which has a similar finger print.

Lastly I am providing a critique of audio players and I hope this provides a "State of audio players on Gnome" and not, "This sucks, you suck, everything sucks"

Quod Libet, very nice audio player, major slowdown of development once it hit 1.0. I feel that it is missing podcasts and dynamic playlist support. Has the best tagging support IMO for an audio player. Does not support "party mode" (full screen). Has an extensive plugin selection, but most of the functionality is for tagging, This is one reason I say it has the best tagging support. I very much like the "Album List" view in Quod Libet.

Exaile, more of a cosmetic problem for me, I dislike the vertical tabs along the left edge, I dislike the use of the "gaim" looking icons, has poor tagging support even though it borrows mutagen library from quod libet. Does not support "party mode" (full screen).

Rhythmbox, very basic though it has lots of functionality that other audio players do not. Lacks some very major features that I have come to expect, including, dynamic playlist generation (I am not talking about smart playlists), has poor tagging support, Play Queue doesn't function as expected (as described in this bug report).

Listen, has many of the features that I enjoy, including it was the first player under gnome that I found which offered suggestions from last.fm so your play queue never runs out of music. The interface needs some major love, and it is simply not usable with the size of my music library.

Banshee, I am a little envious with the progress that has been made here. But I feel it is not an option due to the use of mono. I realize that parts of C# are standardized, but many parts of the .net universe are not and are heavily patented.

Muine, not an option due to the use of mono. I realize that parts of C# are standardized, but many parts of the .net universe are not and are heavily patented.

Beep, sorry but winamp clones just don't do it for me or have the features I am after.

MPD + Sonata, This is a nice setup, but again, does not support many of the features I describe above.

I might have left out some audio players, but I feel like all of the major audio players supported under Gnome & GTK+ have been listed above.

Christian, this is not your blog.  Increasing the amount of noise in a bug report (and this absolutely is noise) does not help get it fixed.

I was under the impression that this was "NOTABUG" and was "RESOLVED" and not getting fixed anyway. Thanks for pointing out how stupid I am.

Decisions like that are not final.  If someone were to provide a compelling, well thought out argument for implementing it, and a way to do so that didn't adversely affect the existing use cases for the play queue, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.  If that argument got lost in a pile of off topic comments, then it would be less likely to get the attention it deserves.

(In reply to comment #6)
> Again, let me repeat that though such a behaviour could be useful for some
> people, it'd hardly be a queue, and couldn't be called that.

I disagree. It would still be a queue no matter what order the items are in the queue. 'Queue' implies that the things in the queue are processed one at a time, and doesn't preclude that their order be changed (even randomly).

> 
> What is a queue? A way of sorting things into an order,

Being a queue has nothing to do with sorting. You might argue that this is the process of *forming a queue*, and there's nothing wrong with forming a queue by selecting items at random (even from another or the same queue).

> and going through them one by one.

This is what defines a queue.

> This applies for computing queues, the line at the bus stop, etc.

So, you think that people for a bus queue by being selected in a certain order?

> 
> The behaviour you are asking for can easily be done by just dragging things to
> a playlist where the songs get shuffled. I seriously don't get why someone
> would want to shuffle the play queue...

Because the songs are added in a different order to the order they want them played.

> 
> It's important in a party to be able to decide: I want to play songs A, then B,
> then C, and leave the computer without being afraid of them playing B, C, A.

Yes, clearly. However, you can always not press the 'shuffle' button. Also, it would seem (to me) to be more appropriate to use a play list for a party, since that is something you would want to prepare for.

The significant difference I see between a play list and a queue is that the songs in a play list are persistent while those in a queue are one-shot - ie once songs are played, they are removed from the list. That is the relevant difference and shuffling is still a valid operation.

I can't see much use for 'repeat', but I guess it might have a purpose for a single song where it would repeat it until you turn it off. I'm not sure if 'repeat' will work on multiple songs, but that wouldn't make any since for a queue, IMO.

I'm going to have to say that I support the idea of the shuffle button working on the play queue.  It seems pointless to force the user to create, name, and then delete a new playlist just to play a shuffled subset of their library.  

For those of you who don't believe a 'queue' can be shuffled - deciding how a feature should be implemented based on its name is stupid.  We're not bound by any means to implement in accordance with its name.  I mean heck, the entire desktop environment is called "gnome", but we aren't stuck with lawn gnome wallpapers, right?

And it's trivial to just unclick the shuffle button - and poof! - you get a queue that plays in order.  But for the rest of us, there's no point in forcing us to mess around with playlists.

And avoiding shuffle because of the word "queue" doesn't exactly make sense, because queues can have different behaviours.  It doesn't say "Play FIFO Queue" just "Play Queue."