Vinyl storage with slide out drawers

[Mikeandvan]

Want something like this, sick of not being able to see my LPs properly. Anyone made one? Wish I kept that plywood now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14LzsgG-f3I

[Barry]

Fine if you want your room to look like a record shop! :lol:

To my mind you are simply replacing difficulties in the reading of the LP spine with the inconvenience of knowing which draw your record choice is stored in and then having to flip through the LPs to find it.

However I would agree that the overall storage scheme is aesthetically preferable: visible record spines are not especially pleasing on the eye.

If you can get away with the record boxes sitting on the floor, then you need not worry about fitting sliders.

[Macca]

However I would agree that the overall storage scheme is aesthetically preferable: visible record spines are not especially pleasing on the eye.



Funny that, I think the opposite. I like CD spines on display too, actually think they look better than record spines.

You can always organise your vinyl by colour of the spines, although that has an obvious drawback if you're still using them.

https://i.ibb.co/d4PF3Xtg/f0890feff340ca18c98428f443489fa3.jpg (https://ibb.co/N295kfrS)

[Alex_UK]

You can always organise your vinyl by colour of the spines, although that has an obvious drawback if you're still using them.

I did that with CDs once, around 2000, it lasted about 3 days before I went back to alphabetical. My girlfriend at the time liked it, though.

[Barry]

There is a difference between CDs and LPs when it comes to reading their spines. With the former it is easy whereas with the latter it is difficult, especially if the sleeves have an additional protective plastic sleeve.

I don't know why I find the spines of either unattractive, yet am happy to have dozens of books on display in bookcases.

And to be contrary, I'm not that keen on the spins of DVDs either.

(When it comes to the filing of world music CDs, I used to have a bizarre system, before I changed to an altogether more obvious and logical system.)

[Barry]

To return to your question Mike, have you considered using IKEA KALLAX record storage cubes? They're not particularly cheap but would be a solution if you only need a few of them and can place them on the floor.

[Pigmy Pony]

There is a difference between CDs and LPs when it comes to reading their spines. With the former it is easy whereas with the latter it is difficult, especially if the sleeves have an additional protective plastic sleeve.

I don't know why I find the spines of either unattractive, yet am happy to have dozens of books on display in bookcases.

And to be contrary, I'm not that keen on the spins of DVDs either.

(When it comes to the filing of world music CDs, I used to have a bizarre system, before I changed to an altogether more obvious and logical system.)

I think that books lend themselves better to attractive displays, being of varying sizes and thicknesses, and by having some books stood up with others piled up and mingling with objects of interest the effect can be quite pleasing.

Doesn't really work with CDs, and definitely not vinyl.

[Mikeandvan]

Fine if you want your room to look like a record shop! :lol:

To my mind you are simply replacing difficulties in the reading of the LP spine with the inconvenience of knowing which draw your record choice is stored in and then having to flip through the LPs to find it.

However I would agree that the overall storage scheme is aesthetically preferable: visible record spines are not especially pleasing on the eye.

If you can get away with the record boxes sitting on the floor, then you need not worry about fitting sliders.

They'll still be in order! Genre then date of release, gets tricky sometimes as genres aren't always clear cut!

[Mikeandvan]

This is all the vinyl I have, would like the same size unit.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54538185356_5be608ab3e_z.jpg

[Barry]

This is all the vinyl I have, would like the same size unit.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54538185356_5be608ab3e_z.jpg

The best option would be an IKEA 4 x 1 KALLAX unit with 4 off IKEA DRÖMA drawers. The KALLAX is available in a number of wood effect finishes.

The DRÖMA units do not slide on rails, so might be heavy to push/pull in and out when filled with LPs.

Have a look to see if the above arrangement would suit you.

[Mikeandvan]

The best option would be an IKEA 4 x 1 KALLAX unit with 4 off IKEA DRÖMA drawers. The KALLAX is available in a number of wood effect finishes.

The DRÖMA units do not slide on rails, so might be heavy to push/pull in and out when filled with LPs.

Have a look to see if the above arrangement would suit you.

That is an Ikea kallax! The Droma drawers are too flimsy, but I could just stick some sort of box in there and pull it out.

[Lawrence001]

They'll still be in order! Genre then date of release, gets tricky sometimes as genres aren't always clear cut!Mine were broadly genre and period of band rather than release so say in Gothic, Bauhaus would come first then Sisters then Mission kind of thing.

I like to keep bands together. Do you literally mean date of release of each album so the bands get mixed up?

[Pigmy Pony]

Sorting by genre would properly do my head in. Sometimes you might get a particular artist who releases something outside of his usual fare, like Bryan Ferry doing an album of Dylan covers (Dylanesque), or artists collaborations (Ray Charles/guests). It all starts to get very complicated.

Imo alphabetically is the only sure way - I file them by surnames, though my local record shop files them by first names (eg Jimi Hendrix under "J"). Only thing is if you file something back in the wrong place, then you're screwed, but that would apply to any filing method.

[Macca]

from the pic looks like you have roughly 400 LPs?

Can see how sorting by genre is a good idea for a big collection - several thousand - but for 400 I'd just go with alphabetical.

[Pete The Cat]

For those artists including a personal name, is this alphabetical by surname, or alphabetical by first part of name? :scratch:

The Andys Records chain (big in the east of England back in the day) used the latter, eg they would file Elton John under E. It seemed odd when I first came across it, but it makes decisions about artists like The Jon Spencer Blues Explosion easier.

[Macca]

For those artists including a personal name, is this alphabetical by surname, or alphabetical by first part of name? :scratch:

The Andys Records chain (big in the east of England back in the day) used the latter, eg they would file Elton John under E. It seemed odd when I first came across it, but it makes decisions about artists like The Jon Spencer Blues Explosion easier.

But what about 'one name' artists? Is Kylie under 'K' or 'M'? - Is Madonna under 'M' or 'C' ? Is Cher under 'C' or 'S'? (Not that I have any Cher records).

What about made up names. Is Captain Beefheart under 'C' or 'B'? Doobie Brothers under 'D' or 'B'? I file by surname but I have the Doobies in 'D' and Kylie in 'K'.

[Pigmy Pony]

But what about 'one name' artists? Is Kylie under 'K' or 'M'? - Is Madonna under 'M' or 'C' ? Is Cher under 'C' or 'S'? (Not that I have any Cher records).

What about made up names. Is Captain Beefheart under 'C' or 'B'? Doobie Brothers under 'D' or 'B'? I file by surname but I have the Doobies in 'D' and Kylie in 'K'.

Me too. There will always be artists with more awkward names, but I find that whichever I choose to go with I instinctively use when searching. I did get a record at Christmas by some bird called Charli XCX - I think I may have filed her under 'C' but really I don't care if it's lost forever.

[Pete The Cat]

But what about 'one name' artists? Is Kylie under 'K' or 'M'? - Is Madonna under 'M' or 'C' ? Is Cher under 'C' or 'S'? (Not that I have any Cher records).

What about made up names. Is Captain Beefheart under 'C' or 'B'? Doobie Brothers under 'D' or 'B'? I file by surname but I have the Doobies in 'D' and Kylie in 'K'.

Precisely - whatever the rule you end up with a load of exceptions.

You also have the challenge of artists whose name changes position over time eg The Michael Schenker Group/Michael Schenker's Temple Of Rock/McAuley Schenker Group/Schenker Pattison Summit...or those whose name disappears eg Paul McCartney/Wings/The Fireman...

Most of my records are filed in the date that I bought them, kind of a diary of my life. It gets around the problem.

[Macca]

Precisely - whatever the rule you end up with a load of exceptions.

You also have the challenge of artists whose name changes position over time eg The Michael Schenker Group/Michael Schenker's Temple Of Rock/McAuley Schenker Group/Schenker Pattison Summit...or those whose name disappears eg Paul McCartney/Wings/The Fireman...

Most of my records are filed in the date that I bought them, kind of a diary of my life. It gets around the problem.

Ah - 'Chronological'. Or you could go 'Autobiographical'.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2msCS8dvSok

I'd never find anything that way. Most of my younger life is a blur. Or an Oasis.

[Barry]

Ah good ol' AoS thread drift.

I've been meaning to start a thread on this precise topic as I am in the middle of cataloging and filing about 2,000 LPs (completed) and about 3,000 CDs (ongoing).

The organisation is always personal, but for me it breaks down to genre, then surname of artist in alphabetical order, and date of issue of the recording in chronological order. Compilations are filed at the end of the artist's output.

There are some exceptions to the above rule: artist known by a stage name, for example Captain Beefheart is filed under 'C' rather than 'V' (for Don van Vliet). The same applies to Doctor John, filed under 'D' rather than 'R'.
Another exception is where an artist changes genre, for example John Martyn. In those cases I file them under their original genre; in this case: Folk.

If an artist collaborates with another, that recording is filed under the first artist named on the record sleeve/CD case.


The most difficult genre to be consistent is Classical. Composers are filed in alphabetical order of surname, then style of work, again in alphabetical order: concertos come before operas which come before symphonies etc., and within those subdivisions the solo instrument, in the case of concertos is filed alphabetically.
Where I have the same piece of work but performed by different ensembles, the name of the ensemble is filed alphabetically, and if the same ensemble (orchestra) is conducted by different conductors, then the surname of the conductor is filed alphabetically. Again often a recording by an orchestra will have works by different composers. In that case it is filed under the first named composer. It's not perfect but it works for me.

[Macca]

Genre is so difficult even for non-classical. I have 'Jazz' filed separately but still struggle over what should go in that category. Is 'The Nightfly' jazz? Or jazz rock, or jazz pop?

Are jazz rock and jazz pop really types of jazz or just types of pop or rock?

In the end that section is just mainly plinky-plonk (because that's definitely jazz), Sinatra and Pat Metheny. Even though Sinatra's not jazz and PM is 'Jazz-fusion' - whatever that is.

My thinking is that Metheny used to be on ECM so there must be jazz in there somewhere and Sinatra albums just look out of place sat next to Smashing Pumpkins.

[Pete The Cat]

The organisation is always personal, but for me it breaks down to genre, then surname of artist in alphabetical order, and date of issue of the recording in chronological order. Compilations are filed at the end of the artist's output.

Although I keep my records in the order that I got them, I keep CDs in an alpha system because I have a couple of thousand of those compared with a thousand records and at that number I start to lose track of what I've got. A few years ago I had a reorganisation and what I found was I could only land on a decent set of rules once I'd sorted about half of them out, because there are so many quirks that you don't initially think of until you come down to the detail of each.

I keep all live albums by an artist together in concert date order since it helps me to reconcile the complications there (eg earlier concerts are sometimes released after later concerts, or new editions get released). Deep Purple was a nightmare. I also found BBC Sessions a bit problematic - are they a kind of studio album, or more like a live album, or more like a compilation, and should I use the first broadcast date - but what if they cover different broadcasts - or the CD release date? You've probably thought of all this by now but I guess we all end up with plenty of exceptions to the rules that we started off with.

On the upside, like other kinds of 'pottering', it's harmless.

[Mikeandvan]

Mine were broadly genre and period of band rather than release so say in Gothic, Bauhaus would come first then Sisters then Mission kind of thing.

I like to keep bands together. Do you literally mean date of release of each album so the bands get mixed up?

No, bands stay together of course, like I said its not perfect, but doesn't matter. It;s just a way of helping you find whatever record you want, doesn't have to make sense.

[Mikeandvan]

Genre is so difficult even for non-classical. I have 'Jazz' filed separately but still struggle over what should go in that category. Is 'The Nightfly' jazz? Or jazz rock, or jazz pop?

Are jazz rock and jazz pop really types of jazz or just types of pop or rock?

In the end that section is just mainly plinky-plonk (because that's definitely jazz), Sinatra and Pat Metheny. Even though Sinatra's not jazz and PM is 'Jazz-fusion' - whatever that is.

My thinking is that Metheny used to be on ECM so there must be jazz in there somewhere and Sinatra albums just look out of place sat next to Smashing Pumpkins.

I've a section just for ECM, it has its own style, but if does cross from Metheny (broadly rock/folk? to straight out jazz). It's after the jazz section incidentally. TBH organising by genre makes the most sense to me, but yes there are bands who defy genre, they just go wherever. For me having only a small collection its not too much bother.

[Barry]

No system is perfect; its what works best for you.

That said however, I would be interested in the system used by the BBC's Record Library; which is (was?) the largest record library in the world.

[majex45]

When I had only a few LPs I used to keep them in the order "those I like best are on the left and move to the right as I like them less".
I sold all the LPs when CD started to become popular and I moved abroad for a while.
Then came CDs, and as the collection increased they were put under alphabetical order. Elton John is under "J", Third Ear Band is under "T", so it looks like actual names are under the first letter of the surname whereas a band name is under the first letter of the first word. This avoids a shelf of "B" for Edgar Broughton Band etc although "The Band" is under "B" and not "T".
Replacement LPs are stored in random order except I try to put all by the same band together.
On another point: I went into a charity shop selling CDs and DVDs, they filed then by colour of the spine in rainbow form R, O, Y, G, B, I, V very pretty but impossible to search. They also priced them according to some arbitrary "desirability and rarity" factor which I could not work out. Prices varied from £1 to about £15 - for a second hand CD. However, it seems that the CDs I was interested in were especially valuable.
I now also have stacks of unsorted CDs waiting for more shelf space. I need to sell some books, but that is a whole 'nother story.

[Barry]

The definite article "The" is rarely included in my record classification. Thus 'The Beatles' are filed under B; 'The Who' under W, and 'The Rolling Stones' under S (because I automatically think of them as The Stones).

Likewise all artists or groups named after a notional leader are filed under the surname of that person: hence 'The Spencer Davis Group' is filed under D, and if I had anything by The Edgar Broughton Band would be under B for Broughton.

When different artists share the same surname they are filed in order of their given name: hence Jeff Buckley is filed before those of Tim Buckley.

Your mention of DVDs filed under the colour of the spines of the case is as unique, unconventional and illogical as my original filing system for my world music collection, whereby they were filed by country longitude going eastward from the UK (i.e. from the Greenwich meridian)! Now they are more sensibly filed alphabetically under name of the country. :)

[rmcin626]

My vinyl is stored alphabetically, using a similar method to Barry, with various artist compilations separate, my small number of soundtracks are also separate . I also have a section for recent purchases which after a period of time are then filed into the main collection. There is also an “audiophile “ section and finally a an area where the albums from 4 of my favorite artists are kept. Best of luck guessing who they are.

[Macca]

My vinyl is stored alphabetically, using a similar method to Barry, with various artist compilations separate, my small number of soundtracks are also separate . I also have a section for recent purchases which after a period of time are then filed into the main collection. There is also an “audiophile “ section and finally a an area where the albums from 4 of my favorite artists are kept. Best of luck guessing who they are.

Ice T and Bodycount
Marilyn Manson
Abba
The Houghton Weavers

Was I close?

[rmcin626]

Ice T and Bodycount
Marilyn Manson
Abba
The Houghton Weavers

Was I close?

So very close Martin

[Macca]

:lol:

[Pigmy Pony]

my original filing system for my world music collection, whereby they were filed by country longitude going eastward from the UK (i.e. from the Greenwich meridian)!

:) Mental, I love it!

Did you have a world map on the wall above your shelves? I would need one, how else could I be sure that my Congolese bands should be filed before the Turkish ones?

[majex45]

Does that mean that Adge Cutler & The Wurzels (Somerset) and the Man Band (Wales) would be filed after ZZ Top and America?