Cataloging and numbering music collection

[Pegwill]

I would be interested to know how Lps, CDs etc are numbered so that they are easy to put back in the racking. I have a a large collection of Lps roughly around 9,000 and the one thing Thai I said I would do when I retire is put them (and keep them) in order. While alphabetical is easy, I find that I have to keep going through the alphabet to put them back in the right place. I have developed what I think is a logical system that primarily uses numbers. For example,

Lps fo the band CREAM would be labeled:

C - 18.5 - 1/6

C - first letter on the band name
18 - 18th letter of the alphabet
5 - 5th letter of the alphabet
1 - first artist with this number
6 - 6th Lp in the collection

So for CREEDENCE CLEARWATER REVIVAL it would be

C - 18.5 2/1

So as you see very similar but vey unique

2 - second artist in the collection
1 - first lp

So when putting them back on in the rack once you have located the C section then it is all numerical.

It would also be possible to list the lps for that artis in year order, but that might be just going a bit to far as if you bought an earlier record you would have to renumber them all.

I do keep all my records in plastic sleeves to protect then so I intend to stick a label on each cover to assist.

Anyway it’s just an idea it would also help in cataloging the collection onto computer as each gets a unique number.

Just my thoughts for now.

How do yo do yours.

Regards

Bill

[Mikeandvan]

House clearance dream!

[Pegwill]

Need a big van.

But of course if I ever mange to do it they will be all cataloged.

[Barry]

I separate them by genre: Classical; Blues; Jazz; Soul and Reggae; Folk; Rock and Pop; 'World', 'audiobooks' and radio recordings (the latter two being filed together). And by separate, I mean each genre has its own separate rack(s).

Within each genre the artist or performer is filed alphabetically (and by surname if it is a single performer or is the notional leader of a group/ensemble). For each artist(s) the recordings are filed in chronological order by date of recording.

When it comes to Blues, if the artist uses a 'stage name', such as Muddy Waters, or Howling Wolf, then recordings made by them are filed alphabetically under the first 'name', that is M" and "H" for the above examples.

For 'World' music, I file the artist(s) geographically by longitude going west to east from the UK; thus African music comes before music from Arabia, which come before East Asia and before the Americas. Somewhat Quixotic I know, but it works for me.



Classical is more complicated. Composers are always filed alphabetically by surname. Then for each composer, the ensemble size is arranged alphabetically: thus cello concertos come before piano concertos and violin concertos etc., and these before operas, quartets, quintets, sonatas, symphonies and trios.

Because I have single pieces of work performed by different soloists and orchestras, these works are sub-divided alphabetically by the soloists surname, and the same by the name of the orchestra; and if the work has been recorded more than once by a particular orchestra but with a different conductor, then again a sub-devision is made by the conductor's surname in alphabetical order.

Quite often a classical record will have more than one piece of work; for example Mozart's 40th and 41st symphonies. They are filed in order of the first title. If a recording is made which has work by two different composers, then it is filed under the first named composer as described above. Finally collections, for example pieces performed on the viola, are simply filed under "V".

General collections or compilations are filed at the very end (after "Z") of the particular genre. Since these are usually only a few in number, I'm not too fussy about strict filing.


The system is not infallible, and I do sometimes 'loose' recordings which have been mis-filed, but in general it works well for me. The only problem I sometimes have is with 10" LPs - these can often get lost, pushed back between two 12" records.

[Pegwill]

Thanks Barry

That’s similar to how a book library works, crime drama, history etc. I did think of that but I have to many that I would just classify as ‘pop’ I don’t have that many classical so don’t have a problem there For contemplations I file them under ‘Various’ it’s gets difficult filing by genre eg the Eagles and Poco not sure if they are the same and country and new country. I need to look on discogs to see if they categorise artists.

I need to give it some thought. But you still have to place them back in the system in the right place.

Regards

Bill

[Barry]

Agreed there can be some ambiguity with filing under a particular genre. That is why my 'Rock and Pop' catagory includes some Heavy Metal, Grunge, Punk and New Wave. 'Country', of which I have very little (mostly Johnny Cash and Linda Ronstadt) is filed next to Soul and Reggae. But one could argue that it is American folk music and so should be filed under 'Folk'. The Eagles and Poco are all filed under 'Rock and Pop'.

I do have a problem with artists 'crossing over' - is late John Martyn folk or pop-jazz? Is late Joni Mitchell jazz crooning or folk? :doh: Argh - maybe doing it all alphabetically has some merit after all!

Categorisation used by Discogs is even more specific.

[AJSki2fly]

Agreed there can be some ambiguity with filing under a particular genre. That is why my 'Rock and Pop' catagory includes some Heavy Metal, Grunge, Punk and New Wave. 'Country', of which I have very little (mostly Johnny Cash and Linda Ronstadt) is filed next to Soul and Reggae. But one could argue that it is American folk music and so should be filed under 'Folk'. The Eagles and Poco are all filed under 'Rock and Pop'.

I do have a problem with artists 'crossing over' - is late John Martyn folk or pop-jazz? Is late Joni Mitchell jazz crooning or folk? :doh: Argh - maybe doing it all alphabetically has some merit after all!

Categorisation used by Discogs is even more specific.

Someone told me you even have a RAP section :lol:

[Barry]

Someone told me you even have a RAP section :lol:

Yes, the "C" is silent. :D

[AJSki2fly]

Yes, the "C" is silent. :D

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mikeandvan]

Genre then date of release. But what to do with jazz funk ? ? ? ? ?

[RobbieGong]

Yes, the "C" is silent. :D

lol :D

A lot of CRAP in most if not all genres. I'm a classic soul and reggae man myself but have heard some quality rap, not necessarily pc, but as rhythmic as you can get and seriously skilled poetic flow.

P.S - The jokes still funny though :D

[Barry]

lol :D

A lot of CRAP in most if not all genres. I'm a classic soul and reggae man myself but have heard some quality rap, not necessarily pc, but as rhythmic as you can get and seriously skilled poetic flow.

P.S - The jokes still funny though :D

I admire the skill, especially if done 'on the fly', but don't really like the result.

[RobbieGong]

Certainly not pc but case in point.......

One my mate was pumping in his flat this evening


https://youtu.be/3FwlKPrvDG0

[Teleton]

Hi William, 9000 phew. It sounds like you have a cataloging system already. I had a quick search on YouTube and others have had the same problem.

My ramblings on such a large collection:-

If your are going to label each one, and you have the time, then I would be thinking of using a barcode label placed on the outside of the plastic sleeve facing you/on end. Each CD box has a bar code on them (not on the end unfortunately), so you would have to physically somehow move or copy each barcode onto the end of the cd or LP plastic sleeve.

Then a cheap Amazon bar code scanner would in theory help you scan and locate an item from up to 2m away. I see my recent LP,’s also have barcodes (again not on the end though). With older Lp’s no barcodes though! Here you would have to devise/make up barcodes for each item, place one copy in your spreadsheet next to the catalogued Item and then stick a hard copy printed barcode on the plastic sleeve facing you/on end.

So how would this work in practice?

Step 1 Locate your item in your spreadsheet with its own unique barcode
Step 2 scan the spreadsheet item barcode and save the items barcode into your barcode scanner
Step 3 Move to the rack/shelf the item is expected to be in
Step 4 Put the bar code scanner on search/find mode and scan the rack/shelf
Step 5 The scanner will beep when it locates the target barcode, Hopefully scanners can move at 100 barcodes scanned per second.

So if you don’t have any system at all and the items are randomly placed to scan all 9000 could take 90 seconds at that rate.

These are just my thoughts, I haven’t done this, but bar coding and usb bar code scanners linked to a laptop must be used in libraries, stock rooms, etc already. Amazon sell them for £20 ish. Barcode devising, labelling and printing for older stuff, is old technology, so shouldn’t be terribly expensive either. 9000 items makes a good size database/spreadsheet, you basically have a record shop at home! I only have approximately 400 LP’s. My uncle on the other hand has about 5000, 50’s and 60’s rock n roll, jazz and pop records - mainly singles.
Best
Steve

[Teleton]

Thanks for correcting to William.�� cheers

[Pegwill]

Hello John

To really make use of the barcode scanning idea you need the database that identifies the item. I have no idea if this code is for each record manufacturer, I don’t know how barcoding really works. I can see that say for butter in a supermarket it would be the same number no matter what supermarket is selling it, but records I expect are unique numbers each one different. I know in my cd collection there are some catalogue numbers that are the same for completely different artists.

My original problem was putting the record back in order after listening to it. Using a bar code system would need the laptop switched on. I still believe that alphabetical is going to be easier and also puts all that artists recordings in one section. The same reference could be used for CDs which would be stored separately.

Classical would seem to pose its own problems, I do not have many recordings but I think it could be done by composer instead of performer, yes you might end up with 6 copies of Holst Planets, but at least they would be all in one place.

Labeling CDs is easy it fits down the spine, but there is a problem with the cardboard covers, even trying to keep them free from damage is difficult.

Regards

William

[AJSki2fly]

Hello John

Have a look at https://clz.com I use this for my CDs and Vinyl collection, you can scan the bar codes to add to the library and you can have it on PC or Mac alternately can have it just on their cloud storage, but this means you cannot add your own data fields. Can also have it as APP on mobile phones or tablets, so great when out and about to check what you already have. You can also enter older stuff using catalog number it picked these up from discogs, it is very rare to not find a match.

Cheers

Adrian

[Teleton]

I should have guessed there is already an ‘app’. What is highly coincidental on your link Adrian is that the barcode app is called ‘CLZ Barry’ ! !!

http://www.clzbarry.com/reviews

[Landloper]

Certainly not pc but case in point.......

One my mate was pumping in his flat this evening


https://youtu.be/3FwlKPrvDG0

At least Biggie Smalls is funny.

'To all the ladies in the place with style and grace
Allow me to lace these lyrical douches in your bushes (Uh)
Who rock grooves and make moves with all the mamis?
The back of the club, sippin' Moët is where you'll find me (What?)
The back of the club, mackin' hoes, my crew's behind me (Uh)
Mad question askin', blunt passin'
Music blastin', but I just can't quit
Because one of these honeys Biggie got to creep with (That's right)
Sleep with, keep the ep a secret, why not? (Uh)
Why blow up my spot 'cause we both got hot?
Now check it: I got more mack than Craig, and in the bed
Believe me, sweetie, I got enough to feed the needy (Come on)
No need to be greedy, I got mad friends with Benzes
C-notes by the layers, true fuckin' players (Uh)
Jump in the Rover and come over, tell your friends jump in the GS3
I got the chronic by the tree (Let's go)'

[Landloper]

I have nowhere near 9,000 LPs but I find I can get into a rare pickle, usually because I make a decison about filing, then forget i've made that decision, and make another that conflicts with the earlier decision, and so on. Over time resources become fragmented and harder to locate when wanted.

[paulf-2007]

I would be interested to know how Lps, CDs etc are numbered so that they are easy to put back in the racking. I have a a large collection of Lps roughly around 9,000 and the one thing Thai I said I would do when I retire is put them (and keep them) in order. While alphabetical is easy, I find that I have to keep going through the alphabet to put them back in the right place. I have developed what I think is a logical system that primarily uses numbers. For example,

Lps fo the band CREAM would be labeled:

C - 18.5 - 1/6

C - first letter on the band name
18 - 18th letter of the alphabet
5 - 5th letter of the alphabet
1 - first artist with this number
6 - 6th Lp in the collection

So for CREEDENCE CLEARWATER REVIVAL it would be

C - 18.5 2/1

So as you see very similar but vey unique

2 - second artist in the collection
1 - first lp

So when putting them back on in the rack once you have located the C section then it is all numerical.

It would also be possible to list the lps for that artis in year order, but that might be just going a bit to far as if you bought an earlier record you would have to renumber them all.

I do keep all my records in plastic sleeves to protect then so I intend to stick a label on each cover to assist.

Anyway it’s just an idea it would also help in cataloging the collection onto computer as each gets a unique number.

Just my thoughts for now.

How do yo do yours.

Regards

Billsounds more like code so nobody else could ever find any one album. What happens if dementia calls

[paulf-2007]

I separate them by genre: Classical; Blues; Jazz; Soul and Reggae; Folk; Rock and Pop; 'World', 'audiobooks' and radio recordings (the latter two being filed together). And by separate, I mean each genre has its own separate rack(s).

Within each genre the artist or performer is filed alphabetically (and by surname if it is a single performer or is the notional leader of a group/ensemble). For each artist(s) the recordings are filed in chronological order by date of recording.

When it comes to Blues, if the artist uses a 'stage name', such as Muddy Waters, or Howling Wolf, then recordings made by them are filed alphabetically under the first 'name', that is M" and "H" for the above examples.

For 'World' music, I file the artist(s) geographically by longitude going west to east from the UK; thus African music comes before music from Arabia, which come before East Asia and before the Americas. Somewhat Quixotic I know, but it works for me.



Classical is more complicated. Composers are always filed alphabetically by surname. Then for each composer, the ensemble size is arranged alphabetically: thus cello concertos come before piano concertos and violin concertos etc., and these before operas, quartets, quintets, sonatas, symphonies and trios.

Because I have single pieces of work performed by different soloists and orchestras, these works are sub-divided alphabetically by the soloists surname, and the same by the name of the orchestra; and if the work has been recorded more than once by a particular orchestra but with a different conductor, then again a sub-devision is made by the conductor's surname in alphabetical order.

Quite often a classical record will have more than one piece of work; for example Mozart's 40th and 41st symphonies. They are filed in order of the first title. If a recording is made which has work by two different composers, then it is filed under the first named composer as described above. Finally collections, for example pieces performed on the viola, are simply filed under "V".

General collections or compilations are filed at the very end (after "Z") of the particular genre. Since these are usually only a few in number, I'm not too fussy about strict filing.


The system is not infallible, and I do sometimes 'loose' recordings which have been mis-filed, but in general it works well for me. The only problem I sometimes have is with 10" LPs - these can often get lost, pushed back between two 12" records.makes more sense

[Pegwill]

Hi Joanna

I have exactly the same trouble cataloging is one thing and filing is another to quote a friend ‘ any fool can file things it’s finding them when you want is the trick’.

I like the idea of the app but it appears that you have to pay for it every year, it’s not much but it doesn’t say what happens if you don’t keep up the subscription.

For me both elements are essential, probably I could live without accurate cataloging but putting them back in the right place is so frustrating when you are looking for something and you can’t find yet ‘ you know it’s there somewhere’

The system I came up with can do both of these things - yes you do need a computer to catalogue but not to file and retrieve. It may not be the greatest but it does work I was hoping that someone had a better system. I do like Adrian’s suggestion though an will carefully consider it.

Regards

William

[Pegwill]

Hi Joanna

I have exactly the same trouble cataloging is one thing and filing is another to quote a friend ‘ any fool can file things it’s finding them when you want is the trick’.

I like the idea of the app but it appears that you have to pay for it every year, it’s not much but it doesn’t say what happens if you don’t keep up the subscription.

For me both elements are essential, probably I could live without accurate cataloging but putting them back in the right place is so frustrating when you are looking for something and you can’t find yet ‘ you know it’s there somewhere’

The system I came up with can do both of these things - yes you do need a computer to catalogue but not to file and retrieve. It may not be the greatest but it does work I was hoping that someone had a better system. I do like Adrian’s suggestion though an will carefully consider it.

Regards

William

[AJSki2fly]

Hi Joanna

I have exactly the same trouble cataloging is one thing and filing is another to quote a friend ‘ any fool can file things it’s finding them when you want is the trick’.

I like the idea of the app but it appears that you have to pay for it every year, it’s not much but it doesn’t say what happens if you don’t keep up the subscription.

For me both elements are essential, probably I could live without accurate cataloging but putting them back in the right place is so frustrating when you are looking for something and you can’t find yet ‘ you know it’s there somewhere’

The system I came up with can do both of these things - yes you do need a computer to catalogue but not to file and retrieve. It may not be the greatest but it does work I was hoping that someone had a better system. I do like Adrian’s suggestion though an will carefully consider it.

Regards

William

I effectively do the same as Barry but also with the CLZ Collectors application to catalogue one of the user defined fields I have added is a location one, as some are in a study(not listened to as much) and the others are in the Lounge, with 9000 records you could use this to help where they are put back. IMO some form of genre split and alphabetical within that works best. Bu you do need to have some discipline putting them back to where they came from at some point, and/or update the database to indicate where they are, otherwise you are wasting your time.

[rigger67]

I don't get it. Why make everything so complicated ??
What's wrong with purely alphabetical ?

I put all my vinyl (2000 ish) in alpha order by artist surname or title if it's an OST.
The only section that I have separate from the main bulk is classical because some records have more than one composer on so I file them depending on the major work.

CDs I separate by genre then alpha.
I have Rock and Pop, Blues and Jazz, Electronica, Country/Americana, MOBO (soul, hip hop, funk, RnB), Reggae, OSTs, World, Classical and Spoken Word/Comedy.
The reason is because they're easier to read and it doesn't take long to find them if they should go missing somewhere.
As for crossover artists, I worked in record shops for more than twenty years so I know where I put each artist no matter how contentious (eg Prince is in MOBO, Portishead are electronica, Level 42 are pop, Stanley Clarke is jazz and Roy Ayers is MOBO).

Having said all that, I know people who file their socks in colour order :scratch:

[Lawrence001]

I don't get it. Why make everything so complicated ??
What's wrong with purely alphabetical ?

I put all my vinyl (2000 ish) in alpha order by artist surname or title if it's an OST.
The only section that I have separate from the main bulk is classical because some records have more than one composer on so I file them depending on the major work.

CDs I separate by genre then alpha.
I have Rock and Pop, Blues and Jazz, Electronica, Country/Americana, MOBO (soul, hip hop, funk, RnB), Reggae, OSTs, World, Classical and Spoken Word/Comedy.
The reason is because they're easier to read and it doesn't take long to find them if they should go missing somewhere.
As for crossover artists, I worked in record shops for more than twenty years so I know where I put each artist no matter how contentious (eg Prince is in MOBO, Portishead are electronica, Level 42 are pop, Stanley Clarke is jazz and Roy Ayers is MOBO).

Having said all that, I know people who file their socks in colour order :scratch:I think BLM might take you up on your old school definition of MOBO [emoji23] aren't blues and jazz also of BO? Possibly rock n roll too?

Anyway, I always sort by genre first as if I'm in a certain mood I know which section to go straight to. I then tend to put it chronologically within that by artists' first album. For example c.80s electronic/new romantic would start with someone like Human League (reproduction) although depending on mood when I'm sorting I might put someone like Kraftwerk before them rather than at the start of electronica/dance.

Classical is roughly sorted by composer chronologically (birth date generally) and then orchestral/chamber/choral/solo within composer. I might make exceptions eg French mid baroque will be together and not have a German composer stuck in the middle because of his birth date. Also Corelli is followed by Vivaldi then Handel as I find their compositions reflect the trend in musical development of that period, reflecting how I choose my music by mood (which is the ultimate point of sorting for me)

For similar reasons late classical tends to become more "sub-genre" than birth date eg all English composers from about Elgar onwards go together.

Now I've written it down it seems to be a lot more complicated (and subjective) than I'd realised!

Sent from my HRY-LX1 using Tapatalk

[Barry]

I think BLM might take you up on your old school definition of MOBO [emoji23] aren't blues and jazz also of BO? Possibly rock n roll too?

Anyway, I always sort by genre first as if I'm in a certain mood I know which section to go straight to. I then tend to put it chronologically within that by artists' first album. For example c.80s electronic/new romantic would start with someone like Human League (reproduction) although depending on mood when I'm sorting I might put someone like Kraftwerk before them rather than at the start of electronica/dance.

Classical is roughly sorted by composer chronologically (birth date generally) and then orchestral/chamber/choral/solo within composer. I might make exceptions eg French mid baroque will be together and not have a German composer stuck in the middle because of his birth date. Also Corelli is followed by Vivaldi then Handel as I find their compositions reflect the trend in musical development of that period, reflecting how I choose my music by mood (which is the ultimate point of sorting for me)

For similar reasons late classical tends to become more "sub-genre" than birth date eg all English composers from about Elgar onwards go together.

Now I've written it down it seems to be a lot more complicated (and subjective) than I'd realised!

Sent from my HRY-LX1 using Tapatalk

That's making it a lot more complicated than I would have it. I only have a very rough idea of when a composer was born - and when it comes to Medieval music, do you know the birth date of say: Guiraut de Bornelh; Jaufre Rudel de Blaye; Gaucelm Faidit; Bernart de Ventadorn; Raimbault de Vaqueras; Piere Vidal; Thibaut of Navarre; Guillaume de Marchaut, or Herman of Saltzburg? :scratch:

[Macca]

That's making it a lot more complicated than I would have it. I only have a very rough idea of when a composer was born - and when it comes to Medieval music, do you know the birth date of say: Guiraut de Bornelh; Jaufre Rudel de Blaye; Gaucelm Faidit; Bernart de Ventadorn; Raimbault de Vaqueras; Piere Vidal; Thibaut of Navarre; Guillaume de Marchaut, or Herman of Saltzburg? :scratch:

How did those medieval names work? I can't imagine that Herman of Salzburg was the only Herman in Salzburg at the time. Must have led to a lot of cases of mistaken identity.

[Lawrence001]

That's making it a lot more complicated than I would have it. I only have a very rough idea of when a composer was born - and when it comes to Medieval music, do you know the birth date of say: Guiraut de Bornelh; Jaufre Rudel de Blaye; Gaucelm Faidit; Bernart de Ventadorn; Raimbault de Vaqueras; Piere Vidal; Thibaut of Navarre; Guillaume de Marchaut, or Herman of Saltzburg? :scratch:All the CDs have their years of birth and death on the back (if known) so it's not that difficult, but country of origin will usually override exact year if they were born again within a few years of one another.

That way if I fancy some music from the Notre Dame school for example I can go straight to that section and pick what I want. (I've only got a couple of albums of that btw, I was introduced to it through David Munrow's excellent album "Music of the Gothic Era".)

Bach and Handel caused an issue both being born in 1685 but as Handel lived longer, and I find his later music adapted more with European musical development over the period then Bach, then I found it an easy decision to put Bach first.

I also found when I was young that doing this sorting helped me put the music into its historical context and appreciate it all the more.

Sent from my HRY-LX1 using Tapatalk

[struth]

i sort mine by cd box colours:eyebrows:

[Barry]

How did those medieval names work? I can't imagine that Herman of Salzburg was the only Herman in Salzburg at the time. Must have led to a lot of cases of mistaken identity.

True, but he was probably the only Herman in Saltzburg who was composing music at that time. Much like Gerald of Wales was probably the only chronicler in Wales at the time, or at least the only one we know of whose writings are known to us.

[Barry]

All the CDs have their years of birth and death on the back (if known) so it's not that difficult, but country of origin will usually override exact year if they were born again within a few years of one another.

That way if I fancy some music from the Notre Dame school for example I can go straight to that section and pick what I want. (I've only got a couple of albums of that btw, I was introduced to it through David Munrow's excellent album "Music of the Gothic Era".)

Bach and Handel caused an issue both being born in 1685 but as Handel lived longer, and I find his later music adapted more with European musical development over the period then Bach, then I found it an easy decision to put Bach first.

I also found when I was young that doing this sorting helped me put the music into its historical context and appreciate it all the more.



Haha - some of those names I cited were taken from a boxed set of Medieval music directed by the late David Munrow. I like the idea that if the exact birth year is unknown, musicologists will often use the term "fl." meaning 'he/ she flourished', denoting a date or period during which a person was known to have been alive or active.

I would file Bach (and his sons) before Handel, simply because "B" comes before "H" (and in connection to the above: Handel would come before Hildegard of Bingen). Whilst I admire your method of cataloging, and admit doing so on a historical basis means that if you are in the mood for some, say, Medieval music you would go to those records filed under the 12th and 13th century; or if Mozart you would look under 18th century, it wouldn't work for me!

A friend at University tried to do something similar with his record collection; putting 'similar' music next to one another. It didn't work of course as 'similarity' is not linear, and he would have had to have some sort of 3-dimensional system. Even then, it wouldn't work physically, but I suppose with an electronic filing system one could apply 'fuzzy' logic, so that if after playing a record you wanted to hear something similar, you would type in the title of the record just played and the system would suggest a few titles that were in some way musically similar.