Sort by artist name. Separate out any classical and multiple artist compilations. Classicals can be sorting by composer, performer, period etc.
26 responses Add your response
I generally arrange my LPs in "record store" alphabetical order and separating out a few specialty genres as well as titles for easy access. I also separate out specialty pressings such as direct-to-disk, half-speed mastered, and the like by record label.
Moreover, I found the best thing that you can do to make your life easier is to locate the majority of your LPs on shelves located at or slightly above or below eye level. It's a lot easier to stand while flipping through LPs rather than bending over or crawling on your knees.
I have about 7,000 LPs. About 3,000 are classical, about 3,000 are jazz; and the rest is mostly rock with some folk, "world music" etc. The classical is arranged in chronological order by composer, i.e., Bach before Haydn before Mozart before Bethoven, and so forth.. The jazz is arranged in alphabetical order by composer, as is the other stuff.
My collection is much smaller so alphabetical by last name of composer or artist works for me. If a group, I organize alphabetically by first letter of first word in name (ignoring, "The"). Had I a collection as large as yours, would sort first by genre and then alphabetically (as above) within the genre. Have fun.
For the most part, I'm in line with the above posters. However, with a slight twist. I'm into 12" singles. So, in addition, to a separation by genre, I have a separation of 12" singles. Also, I have a separation for what could be considered "audiophile" recordings or brand new releases (not reissues).
Three main groups. Classical, Jazz, Rock.
Alpha by name of Artist/composer.
Foor Classical after by Composer, arranged by size of group, Sonata, Duo, Trio etc. Withing each, Say Beethoven Fifth Symphony then by conductor.
For Jazz and Rock, after each primary artist or band name, in chronological order. (Which really helps but is hard to keep straight for many groups, but worth trying to do. It would be great for Classical too, but is way too complicated to keep straight, so i go with the other method in Classical.)
Actually a totally chronological order only, would be amazing. And informative. But total Hell to keep stright. And to find stuff unless you had a good handle on the dates etc.
I may have several groups of vinyl:
1. Disposal group is usually for worn records that are going to donation facility within close time of next year:-)
2. For sale(The largest group) that is usually sorted by genres(group of jazz, rock, classical and others)
3. In-out collection group consists of records that I'm listening to and sell at the same time sorted by band name. Band member's solo albums may be fit onto the band name as well such as John Paul Johnes or Rober Plant records can be found in Led Zeppelin pile.
4. In collection is sorted similar to In-out collection with the difference that it's not currently for sale.
Overall have near 10,000 records +-
I have roughly half of your collection...and at times it seemed unmanagable...i tried the alphabetical route but gave up...I simply fill them by decade...primarily 60s,70s,80s...not perfect...and for those purists that like genre specific divisions...probably not optimal...but it works well for classic rock, punk, new wave, post-punk,etc...down the road you could organize by artist in these decade increments...just a t hought....
Mine are a jumbled lot. When I want to play something, I'll have to look for it everywhere. In the process, I'll find some lp's that I would have normally skipped right past had they been in any sort of order. Maybe even forgot I had them. This way they're never overlooked as they're looked over. Staying acquainted with them ALL. I'll pull them out a tad to mark them for playing in the near future.
Oh the unanswerable existential questions, the questions that have no answer. I presume we have all seen the film High fidelity. One of the questions that proves women are from Venus, men are from mars, or is it the other way round?. Women will never understand the importance of this subject, with the honourable exception of our lady Audiogon members.
I put all modern music together alphabetically, including rock, blues Jazz. Classical is the problem, because of the higher numbers of mixed discs, but again alphabetically by composer, with the largest piece of music as the composer. Definitely not perfect, but it serves
Whatever works for you is good, but a sign of a rational filing system is whether a third party can find a record and/or put away a record without opening the field manual.
I once saw a film documentary about youth car culture. Young guys, and they were all guys, spending much money on their cars and hanging out in parking lots with the hoods open so you could see and appreciate the custom engine work. One guy was asked "Why?" and his response was interesting. He said, "if your car's together, then your life's together". I guess the same thing could be said about audiophiles and their record collections.
I still haven't decided how but I did find this http://www.discogs.com/
It seems like a good system for building a database the only problem is it's going to take forever.
I think I am going to divide by genre for starters but I can't decide on chronological or alphabetical from there.
I have major categories of classical, pop/rock, jazz, country, and comedy/novelty. The classical section is organized by music periods in chronological order--Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Impressionist, and 20th century. I also have a separate section for operas and cantatas. Each music period is alphabetized by composer, e.g. Bach, Handel, Telemann, Vivaldi. Compilations and some music genres are put at the end of the classical block--Baroque collections, classical guitar, etc. Pop/rock, jazz, country, and comedy are each alphabetized by artist, e.g., Beach Boys, Beatles, Carpenters, Ray Charles, etc.
I have them stored vertically in three Ikea cases subdivided into 13" open cubes.