Filing your music alphabetically - C/D?

Move over, Jimmy Carter! xp

Daniels Band, Charlie, The
Matthews Band, Dave, The

Lee, re: PJ Harvey, I repeat: If you choose to call your band your own name then you're treating everyone else as a session player; don't then try to say "but it's a band".

Mr & St I think I expand into 'mister' and 'saint', but I'd have to check, it doesn't come up much.

because a band name might look the same as one of the band members doesn't mean that the band name is doing the same thing as the person's name

what about the Freddy Jones Band, noted chicago roots rockers. No member of the band is named Freddy Jones.

Burrito Brothers, The Flying

AKA "Oh and by the way, which one's Freddy?"

SMH, Noodle.

I think half the reason I don't own any records by excellent Danish jazz bassist Niels-Henning Ørsted Pedersen is bc no one knows where to file him alphabetically (and neither would I!!!!)

Floyd, Pink

I already dealt with this stuff, guys! Read the bloody thread.

can see the value in keeping your Alice Cooper and your Cooper, Alice records separate tho

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.

So if it's a fictional name that covers the band, it's the first fucking letter.

PJ Harvey doesn't get a pass, sorry. She chose to do it that way, that's the way it's gonna be.

I was looking for one of his LPs recently and looked in H, O, and P and couldn't find it. Turns out there was a scratched copy but it was filed in under the section of one of the sidemen (after someone got frustrated with the conundrum probably)

emily i don't agree if you mean "treating everybody as a session player" - yr status in a band is defined by contractual or other remunerative things, not the name of the band

i file randomly.

makes the hunt for a particular cd a lot more fun.

yr status in a band is defined by contractual or other remunerative things

Okay, I know you're talking about "real bands" with "real contracts" playing "real music" or whatever here, but that is so completely a) unlike any band experience I've ever had, and b) unromantic. ;_;

actually not earning any money is a good counter to my theory, must rethink

anyway, yr status in the band isn't about the band name, people might just mutually decide that one of them has a really cool name, like Dave Killdozer or Gary Modern Jazz Quartet

^__^

Yeah but what about PJ Harvey?

/ducks

ya know, most of these problems are solved with a "file under first name only" system, but I am just not ready for that part of the 21st century

our radio station switched over to first name filing a couple of years ago because that's how iTunes works

(assuming you don't change the CDDB tags)

yeah as i say i feel like first names is the most consistent way to go

But what about PJ Harvey (& John Parish) re: file by first name?

http://blu.stb.s-msn.com/i/CE/BDEF77ADBC4FCF24487FB64DB4A6B0.jpg
http://cdn.stereogum.com/files/2009/03/pj_harvey-a_man_a_woman.jpg

Their fault for changing the order of their names?

i assume the change in order indicates significant differences between the two projects and wd file them separately accordingly

I file it under the "spotify" icon

i assume the change in order indicates significant differences between the two projects and wd file them separately accordingly

yeah this, see also the 3 David Tibet/Steven Stapleton albums which I think are in different order depending

I'm proud of myself. I now group all Bill Callahan and Smog records together, under C. Asmus Tietchens and Hematic Sunsets records together, under T.

if you file by upc code number, all of these problems are immediately solved.

and then you just put some upc code detection software into your phone and everything is easy to find.

brothers johnson goes under "b" yes?

I think I'm inconsistently consistent. Tom Robinson Band under R, Bram Tchaikovsky (a pseudonym) under T.

I've had them under 'b' forever, but just had a momentary doubt thanks to this thread when I wanted to play strawberry letter 23

I have ~350 records sorted alphabetically (and chronologically for artists with multiple entries) in 4 categories (rock/pop, hiphop, jazz, soundtracks) with rock/pop being the biggest of these

thinking of rearranging them to form a top 350 of my collection, rating and ranking my collection

I'd do it for fun and to shake things up a bit, and while atm it's nice that friends can easily check what Neil Young records I have by going to Y, it'll perhaps be even more fun to have them offended when they find that Trans has been relegated to the lower shelves (or smth)

anyone tried this?

what sort of person looks for neil young records?

it's be fun arrange the records so that the best ones are directly next to the record player, the merely good albums kind of trail off toward the hall, the meh ones are near the front door, and the worst ones are kind of casually flung next to a box marked "free records" outside by the garbage

i just want to bump this to draw attention to the first few words of my post just above, i did a great job

You did a good job, you stacked the letters in each word very neatly

My records mostly look like this, I dont remember what most of them are called but I do know that spring is coming

http://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/161566344572-0-1/s-l1000.jpg

it would be very easy for you to arrange your collection by color

By Pitchfork score, duh.

Old system, until this afternoon:
- Collections for each decade, with each decade alphabetized.

New system:
1. All my 5-star records are in a separate section on the top shelf, alphabetized.
2. Jazz gets its own section. Though I may backtrack on this decision during the next re-org.
3. Everything else alphabetized (I collated all the decades in a massive merge sort operation)

Seems reasonable, my mate has always advocated a separate section for the best stuff, the theory being it will encourage more listening of favorites over endless crate digging.

sorted by whether or not the pile has been knocked flying recently.
With most recent purchases on top or possibly most recently played.
Always make sure you have more than one pile of cds around you and that most of them are obscured either by having other stuff piled on top of them or by the rest of the pile. So when you go to find something you are bound to find something else entirely.
Keeps your listening fresh or not as the case may be.
the Pollyanna system.

Idgi - if you organize by rating, don't you have to remember the rating of every record you own in order to find anything quickly?

For records: Alphabetical by size (12", 10", 7"), and then one square dedicated to new purchases, old favorites, and passing fancies. That square gets wheedled back down to a handful every few weeks as it slowly fills up and spills over into the turntable area. Another two long shelves are "to be sold" LPs/12"s and 7"s, which are every so often sold and every so often re-evaluated and put back in the main collection. My wife's LPs are another shelf, and another section is absolute dreck I was given by friends who know I like records and which I should throw out but...

CDs: In boxes in the garage attic. Not convenient, but no real CD player anymore and no room in the house. Hoping to get a dedicated CD player again when we do some remodeling and regain some space, and then these will come back in.

Cassettes: So few left, but these are in two small boxes nears the LPs. Getting my old Aiwa refurbished so i can play these properly again, as I've purchased two cassettes so far this year (Poison Ruïn and Angel Bat Dawid) so maybe more to come.

Idgi - if you organize by rating, don't you have to remember the rating of every record you own in order to find anything quickly?

― Taliban! (PBKR)

Yes I do, but it gives me a chance to reevaluate each time I play an album.

Also, I have my entire collection rated in discogs, so I can always fall back on that.