Cataloging and numbering music collection

[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

Bill

sounds 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

[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

I think BLM might take you up on your old school definition of MOBO 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 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?

[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?

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?

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