Best Ways to Organize a Classical Record LP Collection ?

Bdp24

You can see TV clips from the 1950s, in which what is now called Classical was then referred to as "serious"---as opposed to Pop---or "longhair"---a pre-Beatles term!---music)

8^)

Bdp24 - having being born in the 60's, my LP collection is mixed, but mostly longhaired. 

The Classical - Serious were always an honored guest with a dedicated spot, but still a minority group.  But they are about to take over in that space - the pressure on me to get them there may make it look more like a hostile takeover.  

As we know with classical, the records need to be in good shape due to the large swing in dynamics. A noisy record, a well played lp can ruin the experience. I had been listening to a lot of recently acquired over the winter, classical on digital lately. It was sounding great   "soul resetting great". I happened to be looking for a good condition Symphony I was enjoying in LP format,  when by chance, replied to this ad for selling of a collection.  When I asked if he had that LP his answer was   "probably".  

 

Hi Almarg, 

I found your comment that "Decca, Argo provides good but not exceptional sound"  an interesting one.  

Arthur Salvatore posts on his blog.  

Most of the very best orchestral and (especially) opera recordings I have ever heard are from the Decca label, but their overall sonics are very variable. This is in contrast with their rival EMI, which are more uniformly excellent (though not reaching the highest standards of Decca).

The EMI's I have heard so far are excellent.

Here is Rushton's thread where the different label qualities are discussed.  

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/classical-record-labels-and-recording-engineers

I hope to be able to contribute to it in the future.  

I brought along the original post from Rushton's thread along with a few others that I had printed off,  "BUT", when I got there and fell into the honey;  it all went out the window as I flipped through the records in the boxes - my mind became a blur. It was like I could no longer read.  Having gone there to find one or two records, I initially came home with a box and based on those threads DECCA was big on my hit list. After a couple of hours home it dawned on me, what I was leaving behind ....next thing I know they are all in my house. The person I met was selling the records for a 75 year old audiophile/music lover who was moving to a condo. He had been collecting them for 30 years. Feel honored to have been given this incredible music opportunity.

Hi Ct0517,

Note that I referred to London rather than Decca. While as you no doubt realize London was the label under which for many decades Decca recordings were released in the USA (I see you are in Canada, btw), IME Londons tend to be somewhat more of a mixed bag, perhaps due in part to the varied provenance of their pressings. Also, many of the Londons I have were digitally mastered during the early days of digital (the 1980s), as well as in the days of increasingly common use of heavy multi-mic’ing, and I would definitely not place those recordings in the "great" category.

If and when you find London/Decca recordings engineered by Kenneth Wilkinson, however, who retired from Decca in 1980, consider them to have an excellent chance of being sonic masterpieces.

Enjoy! Regards,
-- Al

Ct, my perspective is different since I'm not greatly knowledgable about classical music plus my collection is much smaller than what many others seem to own.
 
One local friend has nearly 10,000 LPs and well over half are classical.  He organizes his alphabetically by label and then by serial number.  That would be useless for me but seems to work fine for him.  So I was a little surprised to see others here utilize similar systems.

All of my approximately 3,000 LPs are alphabetical, first by musical category, then by artist.  The exception is within classical where they are by composer.  Within composer I group by type - concerto, symphony, etc.  This has proven to be the simplest system and so works for me.

I think that everyone should organize by importance.
For some artist is the most important which means collection is to be sorted by artist alphabetically or per goven label if label is also important.
I don't have large classical catalogue. It might be around 6...700 records total. My favorite artists and frequently listenable records are separate. 

My two cents on this - really the only reason to organize by label would be if you consider yourself more of a collector, or if you are more interested in the sonics of a recording than the performance.  

As a professional musician, the concept of organizing by label is a little bizarre, as I am first and foremost interested in the performance.  I organize by composer, then by genre, then chronologically within each genre.  I do keep multi-composer albums separate, and those are organized by Orchestral, Choral, Chamber Music, etc.  Soloist albums are organized by instrument, and alphabetical by soloist.   

If you are a big time collector, though, then organizing by label would make perfect sense, as you could just file it by the catalog number.  You also don't have to put near as much thought into it if you go that route.