Filing your music alphabetically - C/D?

I hope you are joking. 8000 records? Let's say you paid seven dollars each - that would total $56000. That is a lot of clothes and beer.

What is the purpose of having 8000 records?

Derrick May says he has 60,000 records, though I'm sure most of them were free.

i only cry a little when i think about the thousands of records that i have sold or traded away. even though i can't remember what half of them were anymore.i opened up a little store in philly years ago with a friend and a lot of my initial stock of records was from my own collection. i've been making up for lost time ever since. and i feel positively normal with people like mr. diamond and the surface noise around. i need lots more but i've slowed down a lot. i'm pickier now too. drove across the country last year and only came back with about 100 l.p.s or so. i listen to them all too! they get a lot of use. plus, they inspire me and get my brain going. see, i cry when i think about how much money people spend on higher education. i spent years reading books and listening to music and as a result i got to write for my favorite newspaper the village voice. if i had gone to college i would have ended up with a real job and later i would have killed myself and my whole family in a blind rage. but i'm happy now and i have a family that i adore and we live on a beautiful island in the sea. thank god for all those records!!!

i heart scott seward

my collection is now divided up into vague and inconsistant sections all over the house. theres the discs my wife likes. the discs no one likes (hidden, just, but theres so many). the discs i just listened to. the discs i listened to last week. the discs i'm planning on listening to. the discs without covers. a clump of reggae appears to be forming over there. some jazz there, but not the disc i was looking for last night.

I found it this morning in another discs cover. i wonder where its own cover is? and i wonder where the disc from that other cover is?

i am a librarian.

Gaz, In my experience of similar situations:

a) the disc that belongs in the cover you've got without the disc in it, is almost certainly in the cover of the disc you've got without the cover for it (if you're unlucky there may be additional discs and covers involved);

b) it's probably best not to even attempt to put discs back in their covers when you're that far gone - in future, just leave 'em out 'til you're feeling more together and put them away then.

Hope that was some help?

I agree entirely although it does make me wonder.... is there anyone here who thinks (any) bands (with the obvious exception of The The) should be filed under "T" for "The"?

"Acronynic band names are generally filed under their expanded name (records credited to "A.C." get filed under "Anal Cunt," "GBH" gets treated as "Grievous Bodily Harm," etc.)"

I'd agree about "A.C." (I file "PiL" as "Public Image Limited" on the same basis) but "G.B.H." are filed as "G.B.H." in my collection because (afaik) they were always called "G.B.H." as opposed to having once been "Grievous Bodily Harm" and later shortened their name.... (actually there's now a faint alarm bell ringing - weren't they originally called "Charged G.B.H."?!?).

Hmmmm. Thinking back, The Ballistics / The Mighty Ballistics / The Mighty Ballistics Hi-Power / M.B. Hi-Power used to cause me as many conundrums as Southern Death Cult / Death Cult / The Cult.

"Personal titles ("MC," "DJ," etc.) are ignored."

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

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

What do people do about numbers? Separate section or spelled out as letters (The Four Tops go under "F", 999 go under "N", 23 Skidoo go under "T"....). If numbers, do you look at the whole number (The Four Tops go before 23 Skidoo) or just the first digit (23 Skidoo go before The Four Tops)? As a side issue, is there actually some deep-seated pschological reason why they always have to The Four Tops rather than the 4 Tops or is it just because that's the way I've always seen it written?)

Do you treat Mc's and Mac's the same (i.e. ignore the "a" in Mac, like they do in the 'phone books) so Paddy McAloon gets filed before Kirsty MacColl or just treat them as ordinary letters so Kirsty MacColl gets filed before Paddy McAloon?

Finally (for now, anyway) which should be filed first and why (I guess this is basically just a question of good filing practice so.... Gaz maybe?):
Blackalicious or Black Uhuru?
Devo or Howard Devoto?
King Crimson or Carole King?
The Mob or Moby?
Patti Smith or The Smiths?
Super Furry Animals or Supergrass?

Oh and spam@me.now, I think you may be on the wrong board if you think most of us are going to see owning 4,000 records as something other than either an aspiration or a memory!

My system is best - *my genres*. e.g obv. ones like Motown, Factory, Freakbeat, Disco, Krautrock. Also some less obv like : 'Manchester 1980's non-Factory bands' 'Post-punk bands with women singers (GAOB, Slits, Raincoats, Delta 5, Liliput)'. I've never not been able to find anything apart from a Can promo in a card sleeve which was lost for a whole morning in 1999.

Genres just wouldn't work for me - some of the things I like most I like precisely because they blur those sorts of genre divides!

Also, do numbers (50 Cent, 2Pac, 10CC, etc) go before "A" or aligned to their lettered spelling (Fifty Cent, Tupac, Ten CC)?

The point is that *I* know where they are. That's all that matters.

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.