I would like to be able to change column positions, even choose which ones to view in the song picker display, to better fit my needs.

It would also be nice to have a column that would show song length. I would think this could be done mathematically if the program could analyze the number of measures, tempo settings and repeats. It would help build set lists and with live performance.

Column Positions: A reasonable request.
+1

Song length: BiaB does this if you generate the song first. It shows it on the form caption (which is perhaps a slightly unusual location)

!!! Be Careful with the song length.

It has been said over many past years, the displayed song length is not correct.
Request to change that has been posted in this forum several years ago.

/sidetrack

John-Luke, maybe we should revisit that, as it has been awhile. If I remember correctly, the error is that the count shown includes an extra two measures (or whatever the leadin bars are set to). Is that correct, or is something else in error?

/end of sidetrack

I undertook a number of tests and found that the displayed time did not include the count in time.

However, for very short songs (4 bars), the displayed time was longer that the actual time of the song, including the count in.

There was variability depending on the style and tempo and song length.

Regardless, for the purposes of knowing the duration of the song, it was always within a few seconds, so provides a satisfactory representation for most purposes.

I don't have a need to change column positions but would really like to do some other file manipulation tasks from within the song list. I still keep right clicking expecting to get a list of options.

e.g. delete a file or change the file name.

Tony

I see what you mean, but :
1 - It could be better for a pro music software to get an exact length of a song, we are in 2017
2 - The present length don't take in account the tempo changes and other rallentendo inside a song...
3 - For a 4/4 song with a slow tempo, 60 for ex., you may get a 8-second gap or more.

Seems to me that this should be simple math that could be computed in a few milliseconds.

Good points, more accuracy would not be impossible to achieve, and would definitely be an improvement. That's why I only mentioned "provides a satisfactory representation for most purposes."

As John stated, it's not likely to take very long to actually calculate it - as far as processing cycles are concerned.