Filing your music alphabetically - C/D?

Dr. C's system is alright - in theory... I'm arleady somewhat separating my collection by genre, as most of us are in some way. The problem is that unless you get REALLY specific (which then causes more problems with artists crossing genres), you wind up with WAY too much stuff in a particular genre to find it easily. Good lord, if I had an 'twee indiepop' section it would take up a whole shelf and I'd still never find anything unless it was alphabetised...

Why more than with any other system?

*must take up rather a lot of shelf space!*

A lot of wood, yes!

huzzah.

Tried a similar thing once, mainly because i loved the fact that, unlike *normal* people we can have 'genres' like 'trevor horn related' and the like - so brilliantly idiosyncratic. Stopped because they look silly next to such massive things as '70's pop'.

Yeah, there are problems here. MDC being a good example (where the letters stood for something different on pretty much every release, I think). Barring troublesome examples like that, I guess I look at abbreviated names as generally standing for a more "complete" name, and less as the shortening of a name over time. This also, however, creates problems when I don't know what an initialed band's letters stand for (like DI -- any help?).
I think GBH became Charged GBH later in their career, I could be wrong though.
I consider Southern Death Cult, Death Cult, and The Cult as three separate entities; they get filed under S, D, and C respectively.

Hmmmm. I don't actually feel entirely comfortable about DJ Shadow wherever I put him.

I was concealing secret doubts about my across-the-board amputation of "DJ" from peoples' names. For the most part I'm fine removing it, but in some cases where it seems to be a part of a larger phrase -- such as DJ Spooky That Subliminal Kid -- I get uncertain.

Also, what about MC5? They actually represent a number of conundrums

I wouldn't treat this "MC" the same way I would a hip-hop "MC." But it does present problems with my acronym rule. Maybe I need to split some more hairs and make a distinction between acronyms that are meant to stand for something and acronyms where what they stand for is somewhat more incidental, like the MC5. Ugh.

What do people do about numbers? Separate section or spelled out as letters . . .?

I treat numbers as their spelled-out equivalents in both band names and titles, unless the numbers are meant to denote a sequence. Carter USM's 101 Damnations,, 30 Something, and 1992 The Love Album get filed as if they were "One hundred and one," "Thirty," and, yes, I'm embarrassed to say, "One thousand nine hundred nintey two." AFX's Analogue Bubblebath 3 and Analogue Bubblebath 4 get filed in that order.

Do you treat Mc's and Mac's the same (i.e. ignore the "a" in Mac, like they do in the 'phone books)?

Personally, no. "Mac" would precede "Mc."

I need to have my head examined for giving this stuff this much thought.

Dr. C,

If you do start getting into King Crimson (and especially if you start exploring Adrian Belew's solo stuff) you're going to have to move that "Bowie / Eno / Roxy" section to sit between the your new "Prog" section and wherever you currently have Talking Heads filed.

Then of course Tomorrow and Caravan will link that "Prog" section to the "Psych" section....

Josh, "I guess I look at abbreviated names as generally standing for a more "complete" name, and less as the shortening of a name over time."

So everthing that includes the word "Foetus" get's filed under "F", right? I agree with that....

" I consider Southern Death Cult, Death Cult, and The Cult as three separate entities; they get filed under S, D, and C respectively." Huh? OK, Southern Death Cult maybe (only Ian Astbury in common with the later incarnations) but separating Death Cult from The Cult is just perverse surely (Ian Astbury and Billy WERE Death Cult / The Cult to all intents and purposes - who cared who the rythm section were?).

The abbreviated names always caused me problems too - I spelled them out. My OMD records were always treated as 'Orchestral...', etc, but what about REM? Surely nobody would file them as 'Rapid' (or maybe it represents something else for Stipe & co. - I'm not sure what the original inspiration was)

I used to have numbers right at the beginning (like a computer database), but then I reverted to the 'spell it out' system.

I had IKEA Billy bookshelves with extra shelves for my CDs (about 2000), but I moved here to London last winter, and unfortunately most of my collection is now boxed up back in Canada. I've been forced to become a 'CD Binder' guy, which I absolutely HATE. I just couldn't afford to ship all the stuff over - didn't seem like much point, plus I loaded my laptop with all the MP3s it could hold. Whenever I move back and re-unite with my collection, I'm gonna get myself a case of beer and have a big ol' re-org geek fest by myself. Yee-ha! Sad, I know.

I need to have my head examined for 2 reasons:
1) Starting this damn thread
2) Continuing to post to it!!

see I like the fact that I can't find the record I want to play bcz it forces me to play something else. but say i really wanted to play that disc...I'll search for it and go crazy so it can put you into a different frame of mind when you actually find it (so you can hear a record differently).

(yes, the record collection is still unfiled and you ppl are not gonna make me do anything ever).

I also have a big pile of disorganised stuff that has been listened to "recently".

I hear you, but I gotta be a hardliner about this. Different band name = different musical entity. Except in cases, like Foetus, where it becomes clear they are deliberately changing their name around just to fuck with me personally and to make me crazy.

The abbreviated names always caused me problems too - I spelled them out. My OMD records were always treated as 'Orchestral...', etc, but what about REM? Surely nobody would file them as 'Rapid'

This is a very good point. Shit. I . . . I gotta think this over . . .

sorry that was a typo. sorry.

thanks stewart. that'll be when the kids leave home i fear...by which time....ARRAAAGHARGAHH!!

ps i started some rudimentary re-sorting based loosely on genre last night. the problem i forsee is i have several shelves/storage areas spread through the house. will all the jazz fit on that shelf over there? and as that shelf is in "public space" should i put the 20th c avant garde there cos it fits, or just half the reggae?

If you do start getting into King Crimson (and especially if you start exploring Adrian Belew's solo stuff) you're going to have to move that "Bowie / Eno / Roxy" section to sit between the your new "Prog" section and wherever you currently have Talking Heads filed**

Talking Heads are in "CBGBs" of course. As for my Yes albums(!)they're in a separate (huge) "new listening" pile that's not yet on the shelves.

I feel that I am holding a lonely vigil here against the alphabetising metalists ;). Good to see that Julio has the right idea too!

Oh well, why didn't you say someone else was responsible for your dilemma Gaz?

In that case there's a very simple, sensible and completely reasonable solution:

Explain to the children very carefully, in a balanced and measured tone and without losing your temper, raising your voice or starting to cry hysterically, that those are Daddy's toys, not theirs and that although they are perfectly welcome to play with them (I'm assuming you are an easy-going liberal type like me in this repect of course!) but that if they ever fail to put fuckin' things back where they found 'em again, you'll immediately cut their horrible, fuckin' sticky, little hands off with a large ceremonial Samurai sword.

Second offences will be dealt with by summarily throwing them to a pack of ravening lions

Hey, don't knock it 'til you've tried it - it's worked for me!

Well, OK.... actually it may have worked against me 'cos now whenever my partner or her daughter get anything out to play they just leave the damned things out for me to put away again.

Bugger.

Do y'all store CDRs entirely separately from the rest?

I separate the regular CDs from the CDRs, because they don't really go together.

http://www.geocities.com/teulr/new-1.jpg

Afrika Bambaataa, under A or B?

im currently sorting my records out. getting rid of loads too, which i feel bad about, but i dont really care for half the late 90s indie rap stuff ive got here. i kinda think i should keep it just for collections sake but i cant remember half of it now, so im prob not going to remember it when its gone either. (anyone else buy stuff then never really listen to it?). i have started putting it all in a-z order but am now thinking its just stupid cos im not going to often think 'let me listen to some dj target', im prob more likely to think 'let me listen to some grime' (although ok, sometimes i might think 'let me listen to some target'). the virgoan in me is making this take a lot longer.

How about sorting by label. Works especially well for "underground" and dance music.

Do people file right to left or left to right?

I file right to left, i.e.

D <- C <- B <- A
H <- G <- F <- E
...

Am I mad? It makes sense to me somehow, the CD all point the right way, in that the front of the CD points to the front of the filing if you get what I mean...

Inherent in this question is a 'Classic' vote for alphabetical filing. Though I have just pulled all my Keiji Haino related CDs (Haino solo, collabs, Fushitsusha, Aihiyo, Compilations featuring etc.) out to file separately, for collection admiring purposes.

Classic.

I'd had it alphabetical for years but, after two moves in a row where things got shuffled and then reshuffled, I left the lps out of order (plus birth of child and house repairs and stuff that was deemed more important). I'd convinced myself I would enjoy the random selection and finding things I might not seek out had they been in order. While that was nice sometimes, I grew tired over the years of wanting to hear a specific record or artist and then scanning the spines for 15 minutes and ...no dice. With cds maybe it's easier since the spine is a bit larger and they can line up just right, but the lps often have small text, or have the sleeve pressed off-center so the title's falling off the spine, or it's just obscured behind plastic (major culprit), or it's one of those records that has nothing written on the spine.

In some spare time over the last few days I'm now putting the lps back in order and, for the first time, the 45s too.

my favoured system is no system at all. a vague memory of where things are means many happy browsing accidents.

and filing music seems somehow contrary to the free-roaming spirit of exploring music in the first place.

ATM filed:
Z > Y > X > W...
...> D > C > B > A

but the best system by miles was by year, my vinyl is still by year, I don't know what I was thinking going back to the meaningless alphabet.

before i got rid of 90% of my cd collection it was in alphabetical order, then i moved everything to HD and it fell out of use and my housemates started using my inlays as mfkn speed wraps. now that i've a much smaller selection (to go with my much smaller, much more normal house) it's in no particular order other than vague genres/moods and of course the more popular stuff is in the living room, while less listened-to stuff's in the kitchen.

my HD is in alphabetical order though, although I have two directories - one for stuff before last october (backed up on another HD), and stuff since.

Alphabetical. But it poses problems. We bought new shelves 2 years ago, and left, (we thought), ample room for extras in each shelf...and now...well...we're gonna have to annex the 'emergency' shelf at the very end, and move a little bit from each section down.
And I DON'T WANNA. so I have a stack of new purchases that I've bought over the last few months that just sit by my computer, because I really don't want to be assed to move them all around and file them away.

I built in hefty buffer zones at the end of each letter when I did my first main filing, filling the gaps with blank cases (also useful to have handy for replacing breakages). These buffers have lasted a year and a half in coping with the new additions, but I now need to do some full-scale moving again.

Oh and buy some more racks.

yeah, I think we may have to admit some form of defeat and spring for another rack. I like that blank-case buffer zone though. Our buffers were just a gap, but the cases is a good call.

I've always been an alpha order man myself, but never left space at the end of racks. I just took a day at the very end of each year to file everything that had been sitting on my 'recent acquisitions' shelf. Billy Bragg does this too, and called it his "nursery shelf" - that bit really endeared him to me.

Aye, filing something away can sometimes be the deathknell for it, if it hasn't yet had its due listening time. Unless it's already wormed itself into your brain then it can easily get forgotten once it's up there in the main racks, so it can be good to keep new stuff out on rotation elsewhere for some time....

but the best system by miles was by year, my vinyl is still by year, I don't know what I was thinking going back to the meaningless alphabet.

So how would this work for e.g. a compilation of music from the 60s and 70s that is released in the 90s?

is was

Got rid of my jewel cases about 7 years ago and put each CD into a rectangular plastic wallet big enough to allow the spine to be read when placed together in a draw. Only downisde is that I had to go alpabetical rather than the rainbow-spectrum system I used previously which went something like: greys->white->yellow->orange->red->purple->blue)green>greys(again)>black.

Vinyl is by genre: pop/rock/jazz are alphabetical, dance is by genre, but then arranged by label.

So how would this work for e.g. a compilation of music from the 60s and 70s that is released in the 90s?

Dating any record is a bit arbitrary, so discretion required for functionality. I'd treat a reissued album (w/ or w/out bonus tracks) as the original, comps&best ofs I'd put under the earliest release (e.g. "best disco album in the world... ever! 2" goes under '71 cos of the Shaft tune, complete Jimmie Rodgers is '26...). If I was interested in performances I'd organise classical stuff by recording/release dates but as it is I think in terms of composition dates (so I'd start w/Leonin&Perotin). Having it reflect yr idea of the history of music was what was good about it, sort of made it a resource just sitting there in order.

but the best system by miles was by year
I never considered this but reading it it makes perfect sense and I can't wait to see the juxtapositions that are going to pop up! I think I'd organise dedicated shelves for compilations that aren't one-artist/band comps.

The main reason I did this was because I inherited some shelves with about 50 compartments in a grid so I could dedicate half/one/two compartments per year and have lots of evenly distributed space for additions and not need to shift everything round all the time.

I gave up on filing my physical collection alphabetically because it was too much trouble moving everything for new purchases, but it was taking so long to open my mp3 folder that I thought I'd split it up, one folder per first letter of artist's name. And now I am having some moments.

La Düsseldorf under L or D? D'Arcangelo under D or A?
Is the "Captain" in Captain Beefheart a title? "DJ"?

What about pseudonyms which look like names (Marc Bolan, Laurel Halo)? I would be inclined to file by "surname" but then you have a whole continuum of arguably somewhat name-like 2-word solo artist pseudonyms and you've got to draw a line somewhere: Alex Smoke? Gary War? Robag Wruhme? And what if you don't actually know - Kemper Norton? And Josh Wink is almost his real name, but does that really mean he should be under W but if he'd called himself Josh Bink he'd be under J?

Yeah I'm thinking about this too much, and it doesn't really matter for digital files because I can always run a search, but I thought, I bet ILX has thought about this already...

1. "L"
2. "D"
3. "C"
4. "DJ"

Marc Bolan has solo records? At any rate, I file under last name in those cases (i.e. Edward Ka-Spel under "K").

no easy answers to some of these questions, but as a 3rd generation librarian I enjoy this kind of hairsplitting.

I am afraid that the rising tide of filing-by-first-name will eventually sweep me under, right now my hard drive is an unwieldy mix of the two.

I don't have any solo Bolan but according to wikipedia yes; I checked before listing him.

I work in a library (though am not a librarian) so I'm aware I'm reinventing some wheels but a quick glance at a book of cataloguing rules persuaded me that it was too different a problem space. I'm all for adding skip in filing indicators to ID3 tags, though!

(and yes, there does seem to be a certain perversity in using a computer system that will put them in plain ASCII order for me, and manually filing them to be in a less maintainable order instead, but hey)

just put it where you'll find it!

librarians have to catalog stuff so numerous people can find it. it's your personal collection so i wouldn't worry too much about all that, unless it's fun for you

1. "L"
2. "D"
3. "C"
4. "DJ"

Agree with all of this except La Düsseldorf, but I know I'm on a losing battle with this one. I ignore foreign words meaning 'the' in the same way I ignore 'the', basically.

Kemper Norton

It's a pseudonym. Most single-artist pseudonyms I would file like real names with surname first, but band names that are people's names (hello John Sims) would be under the first letter of the whole thing. For some reason I think of Kemper as more of a band name, so he'd be under K for me, but that might just be a quirk.

don't think the "La" in "La Düsseldorf" can be read as a conventional "The" because of the dual language mucking about

but then i think the cleanest way of avoiding all the first name difficulties is just to file by first name.