• Moon-Man1973 about 1 month ago

    I know but sometimes I like to browse my Jazz section and find something to listen to. But there is too much genre crossover a lot of times. Ray Charles especially. But I also have Bill Cosby and George Carlin as Comedy records and Leonard Bernstein doing Tchaikovsky as Classical music along with the Philadelphia Orchestra doing Mozart so should I mix them in with Lynyrd Skynyrd or do a separate section for Classical, Comedy, Children's, etc.?
  • rugogs about 1 month ago

    That's up to you to decide. ;-)

    Personally i sort by genre (quite roughly) and then Artist.
    For Artists that might fit into different genre sections at once i'll sort them into their "main genre".
    But i don't go that much into detail about genres as you seem to do.
  • Moon-Man1973 about 1 month ago

    It's not that I'm into genres it's just that I have a lot of different genres: Rock, Pop, Blues, Jazz, Funk/Soul, Classical, Comedy, Children's, Reggae. So for me it's weird to have certain artists next to each other when they are completely different but then there is artists that could fit into one or more genre so it's tough. But I guess Artist A-Z is probably the only one that makes the most sense in the long run.
  • rugogs about 1 month ago

    rugogs modificato about 1 month ago
    Moon-Man1973
    Rock, Pop, Blues, Jazz, Funk/Soul, Classical, Comedy, Children's, Reggae.


    If that's all, i don't see that big of an issue.
    I understand that you kind of struggle with some artists that released albums in different genres during their career, but personally i wouldn't overcomplicate that to much.
    File Ray Charles into Soul or Jazz or whatever, just as you like or find most fitting personally.
    It doesn't matter, it's just a personal thing.
    The main thing is that you know where you sorted him.
  • JRyall about 1 month ago

    Moon-Man1973
    Artist A-Z is probably the only one that makes the most sense in the long run.

    THIS
  • emptycyb1 about 1 month ago

    You should sort by seam color, and deal with it. I have thousands of records, and it can be hard, but it's fun, it's a challenge, and it's beautiful.
  • RhubarbRhubarb about 1 month ago

    /\ This /\

    Turn your collection into a rainbow.
  • Jussipekka about 1 month ago

    Two separate things:
    1) I like to have the records in the shelf sorted alphabetically by the performer;
    2) I have an Excel sheet of the records which is grouped in tabs according a few categories.

    I browse through the Excel to decide what to play (or just go to the shelf randomly) and then go to the shelf and pull the record out (or browse through the damn records for half an hour as the record is not where it's supposed to be).
  • devin306 about 1 month ago

    Moon-Man1973
    But I guess Artist A-Z is probably the only one that makes the most sense in the long run.


    Chronological?
  • rugogs about 1 month ago

    devin306
    Moon-Man1973But I guess Artist A-Z is probably the only one that makes the most sense in the long run.

    Chronological?


    By purchase date or release date?
    Or birthdays?
    ;-)
  • emptycyb1 about 1 month ago

    It also depends on how many records you have. I have around 12000, so I cannot shelf these all in the same place, of course. Which makes alphabetical not the best choice, far from that.
  • seventiesbln about 1 month ago

    14,000 records here, random on shelves, with a Kallax "shelf number" subfield on the Discogs collection file;
  • devin306 about 1 month ago

    emptycyb1
    You should sort by seam color, and deal with it.


    The sleeves in this series are a spot of trouble with that system: https://www.discogs.com/label/246578-Alphabet-Singles-Series
    lol. :)
  • emptycyb1 about 1 month ago

    That's 7"s, though, not as big an issue.
  • devin306 about 1 month ago

    emptycyb1
    That's 7"s, though, not as big an issue.


    Of course. I was just trying to illustrate how no single system will work once your collection becomes diverse enough, as you had with size. :D
  • King.of.Pain about 1 month ago

    Mine is listed as latest purchases. But you can change it within a second in the options, and if them don't fill your wills you can turn back immediately.
  • meevan about 1 month ago

    King.of.Pain
    Mine is listed as latest purchases

    I usually sort mine as latest purchases. It helps me when deciding what to play so a new item does not get overlooked. As King.of.Pain noted above, the computer can resort in a couple seconds. My records are shelved alphabetical by artist. For me it is the easiest way to locate a particular record.
  • AskeladdenBlack about 1 month ago

    With around 13,000 by genre is the best system for me, even with the overlapping of genres etc still works the best for me.
  • Titangoober about 1 month ago

    I put mine all RANDOM........ new vinyl separated from used records....... ONLY new albums played on my new UTURN , all USED albums played on older H/K and STANTON TT's..............I play all of my albums randomly,,,,,,, just reach in and grab one or a handful........I know what I have on my DISCOGS catalog so if I need to search,,,, I search..... LONG LIVE ROCK N ROLL!!!!!!!
  • jmcipale about 1 month ago

    Tossing my $0.03 in: i have a program i wrote 20 yrs ago while taking a c/c++ class. I still use it today. It stores by Artists (last, first), title, genre (user defined), format (user defined) release date, label. I use it solely for cataloging my media.

    The discogs database is, quite frankly, burdensome. I dont give a rip about matrix runout codes. I dont care about if a recording is a 'terre haute' pressing. All i care about is what i have in my collection.
  • Xe4ro about 1 month ago

    I'm doing it by genre, way more natural. You collection isn't a filing cabinet. I'm doing classical music by period ;)

    Here on Discogs I often have it sorted by "latest addition"
  • webkrawler about 1 month ago

    I sort mine by thickness of the vinyl...works well.
  • Hangry about 1 month ago

    emptycyb1
    It also depends on how many records you have. I have around 12000, so I cannot shelf these all in the same place, of course. Which makes alphabetical not the best choice, far from that.


    Purge them suckers
  • Canis_Lupus-Italicus about 1 month ago

    I have 3 albums in my collection I sort them by both genre and alphabetically (last first). That way I can find the disc I want quickly.
  • emptycyb1 about 1 month ago

    That seems highly impractical.
  • Canis_Lupus-Italicus about 1 month ago

    quote=webkrawler]I sort mine by thickness of the vinyl...works well.[/quote]

    Made me laugh out loud. Pythonesque!
  • jmcipale about 1 month ago

    Canis_Lupus-Italicus
    Made me laugh out loud. Pythonesque!


    Where is the like button.
  • vinylforlunch about 1 month ago

    i found in a large collection it is most convenient to arrange albums in storage shelves and 7 inch singles in flight cases chronologically, and use windows Excel for alphabetical artist listing, to find an album or single just look up the date (year/month) and cross reference on the shelves or storage cases, works for me!
  • Linttheory about 1 month ago

    I think this depends on how many records you own. If you're dealing with just a few hundred, then a basic alphabet should suffice. You should know what you have and where. But if you're dealing with 1000s, then genres do help. Record stores use them. In my collection, I have certain specific genres that mean something only to me that help me find something. This brings up something else. Genres on Discogs are kind of funky, don't you think? Pun intended.
  • rugogs about 1 month ago

    Linttheory
    I have certain specific genres that mean something only to me that help me find something.


    Same here.
  • Grendel292 about 1 month ago

    For a short period I experimented with filing everything by catalogue number then using a filtered spreadsheet to cross reference when searching for an artist or title.

    As you'll appreciate the spreadsheet was vital to the process.

    There were though very occasional exceptions. For example if you’re trying to find an LP such as the 1983 release by Yes it was easy to recover as long as one remembers the prefixing ‘7’.

    In retrospect though it was less a bold experiment in curation but rather a case of near Kafkaesque pratting about and an excuse to mess around with the record collection.

    I’m now back to a simple and straight forward alphabetical system with no distinction between genres and I’m feeling a lot better.
  • jmcipale about 1 month ago

    I HAVE have to sort by Genre/artist/album titles. My database program can implement a collection of genres or manipulate a single database. I choose the genres for speed, but the single db in the event of a single artist covering multiple genres
  • DarreLP about 1 month ago

    I wish discogs had a proper user-defined tagging system. That way I could tag those 'cross genre' albums and browse my genre within my own collection.

    Until then, I do divide by genre. Jazz, Classical, Soundtracks, Blues, Reggae, Compilations

    And then I have some 'muddy' genres like World and Country/Folk/Zydeco/Etc

    But yea, it's imperfect for sure. And then all the rest end up in one broad section anyways (Classic rock, metal, hip-hop, electronic, ambient) so it's also somewhat arbitrary as to which genres I decide to single out.
  • Christopher_Jion about 1 month ago

    I always did it by label.... and then chronologically.
  • ijustspeak about 1 month ago

    A-Z, then by Year early to latest.
  • 16830 30 days ago

    ijustspeak
    A-Z, then by Year early to latest.


    That`s the way Spock and I do it......the logical way.

Accedi Devi effettuare l'accesso per poter scrivere.