Raymond on Some advice on how to curate your tragic music collection
A few weeks ago, I got involved in a conversation with some friends about what to do with our old vinyl and CD collections, the assumption being that -in the digital age- nobody really wanted to keep hard copies of anything anymore. I begged to differ, because I’m one of those sad folk who does want to keep hard copies. I like having products to hold, look at, read, smell and –most of all- file.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a man in possession of a sizable music collection will have to devise an efficient filing system. CDs, for instance, should always be displayed in alphabetical order, preferably in the room in which you do your listening. Unfortunately, I don’t have that luxury for my own collection, which resides in the living room, wherein other members my family are to be found, usually watching something they call ‘the television’. Due to some legal mumbo-jumbo that I don’t understand, I am not allowed into this room without giving written notice, but at least I know that when I fancy listening to an old CD, my meticulously-curated display will allow me to find it within a couple of minutes.
An alphabetical system should be easy for the layperson to understand. Under a properly administered system, The Eisenhowers, for example, would sit comfortably between The Eiderdown Blankets and Ejector Seat Button. It almost goes without saying that, when filing any act beginning with the definite article, the ‘The’ should be ignored, unless the act in question is The The, in which case, you must simply ignore the first ‘The’ in favour of the second, or –if you wish- ignore the second in favour of the first.
But even something this simple can throw up the odd challenge. The demands of maintaining accurate filing will often wake me up in the middle of the night, as I fret over where to place acts like Boards of Canada (under B or C?), Captain Beefheart (C or B?) or Admiral Fallow. Is that bearded bloke who sings for them an actual Admiral whose name happens to be Fallow? If it is, file under F.
Grappling with the problem of whether I should file ‘A band called Quinn’ under A or Q is bad enough, but even more problematic is the question of where to place the 2003 album by the splendid hip-hop jazz collective The RH factor. The ‘RH’ in that moniker stands for ‘Roy Hargrove’, so should it be filed under ‘R’ because it’s the first identifier after the redundant definite article, or under ‘H’ for Hargrove? That coy nomenclature creates a headache for the dedicated filer; if the project had simply been called The Roy Hargrove Factor, I would have avoided a whole lot of sleepless nights and at least one bitter online fall-out and resultant caution from the police.
Compilation albums should be filed at the end of your collection, after The Zutons or ZZ Top. ‘Greatest Hits’ albums should be filed with the artists, even if the collection has a name which would –under normal conditions- place it somewhere else in your library. There is, among the CD filing community, a militant faction which believes that all compilation CDs (including, ridiculously, ‘Greatest Hits’ collections) should be filed together, under ‘C’ for compilations. This is nonsense of course, unless you are some kind of anarchist. No serious person would argue that ‘Kate Bush – The Whole Story’ could legitimately be filed under ‘C’, or indeed, ‘W’.
As an aside, I also have a section in my CD collection for stuff that I’ve recently bought, but which hasn’t yet been properly filed because I’m still listening to it. Stop sniggering at the back.
You may scoff, but scientists have proven in various studies that folk who don’t have their music and books in alphabetical order are more likely to become terrorists, drug dealers or used car salesmen. Not having a filing system is bad enough, but Dante’s ninth circle of hell is reserved for folk who take CDs out to play them and then put them back in the wrong case. That sort of thing really is not a million miles removed from how Hitler and the Nazis got started in 1920s Germany.
And what about vinyl, I hear no-one ask?
My extensive (and impressively tragic) collection now resides at two upstairs locations. Singles are stored in a cupboard in the master bedroom (I don’t think my wife has even noticed this), while albums are kept in what -if about a ton and a half of domestic flotsam and jetsam were removed- I could more or less legitimately describe as my ‘music’ room, which contains -among other things- a USB turntable and a USB tape deck. This reminds me that I have a big box full of tapes that I have yet to convert to MP3. I’m wondering if it is going to be worth the bother. The Chickasaw Mudd Puppies, anyone? Or Babylon Zoo? Or how about two albums from the one artist (Todd Rundgren) on the same tape? Was that a thing back then? Now that I think about it, some of this stuff might actually be worth some money; my guess would be somewhere around 43 Vietnamese Dong.
If you have ever thought about buying either a USB turntable or a USB tape player to ‘convert’ your old stuff to MP3, let me tell you what is likely to happen. All of your old vinyl and tapes can essentially be put into two categories:
Category 1: Wow! I’d forgotten how good this was! I think I’ll buy it again on CD.
Category 2: This isn’t very good. That’s probably why I don’t listen to it anymore.
All of my CDs have also been ripped to MP3 and stored on an external hard drive. For this, I use a simple system to avoid unnecessary clutter in the folders allocated to each letter of the alphabet. ‘Major’ artists (four albums or more) get a sub-folder within the alphabetical folder for all of their albums. For example, the ‘B’ folder will have a ‘David Bowie’ sub-folder containing all of his work. ‘Minor’ artists (three albums or fewer) just get filed under the appropriate letter.
Given my meticulously-filed collection of stuff, you may well ask why I have felt the need to back-up my collection to a hard-drive. I have taken this precaution, dear reader, in case there is some kind of apocalypse and I am the only survivor able to provide an extensive selection of middle-aged white guy pop tunes for the survivors. In the event of societal meltdown and an anarchic descent into violent chaos, it will be ‘survival of the fittest’ and only those of us with truly essential skills will endure. I’m sure you’ll agree that I’ve carved out my own particular niche in the post-apocalyptic landscape.
I hope this brief guide might prove useful to anyone who is thinking of how best to arrange their collection. I have very particular views on filing, but I appreciate that there are alternative opinions and lifestyles out there. Without wishing to appear judgemental, all I would say is that folk who don’t properly catalogue their stuff are probably the kind of sick weirdos who believe in astrology, feng shui and other new-age mysticism.
Such folk may, on the surface, appear to be harmless enough, but just don’t expect them to understand that the spirit of rock and roll resides in the ability to administer a system of classification that unambiguously locates a particular artefact in a position relative to other artefacts in a collection on the basis of its subject and /or name.
Simple. If it’s an individual, file by last name. If it’s an individual with an assumed name, such as King Creosote, file under ‘K.’ If it’s a band, file under letter of first word, after ignoring the definite or indefinite article.
If you can’t decide, simply allow your girlfriend to play your records and file them away. She’ll soon have them filed all over the place. “Oh, I put that Style Council album next to the Blue Nile album because they both had the word ‘blue’ on the cover. And anyway, they look so cute together.”
I nearly do the same, then some extra labels for some groups or singer that I have several albums of. I read once, maybe on the afterword about a man working in a shop that had a section in his vinyls called M-Head where he kept Motorhead and Murray Head records, so I have this one as well.
I don’t classify by the title Dr, Captain Mister, king , just the aftername. Barbecue Bob is classified as “Bob”
Compilations are classified by origins The Word section first, then Mojo and Uncut and some common compilations, friends compilations and the singles which are often a “one hit wonder”.
Then, some classical and contemporary music, I might, in the future keep the operas separately.
The holiday cd are kept separately in a bag, as they take too much place for the use I have of it.
all my mp3 players and thumbdrives hangs on the drawer Cassettes are kept separately as my vinyls, I am not done with my classification yet.
I do have a special section for the vinyl postcards though…
Agree with the basic premise, but then alphabetical or release date order under individual artist? Mrs Bungliemutt has a helpful tendency to file CDs in any case she finds handy, and many’s the time I’ve wondered why a CD won’t play, only to discover I’ve loaded a DVD into the CD player.
Yes agree with BBD. And then you have a row of uncategorizable albums, usually collections or “various artists” filed at the end. Just after Frank Zappa. And I’ve finally taken to putting Mothers Of Invention albums with the Zappa ones.
Captain Beefheart always gives me problems. Not musically, you understand. Under C or B?
Also, collaborations. Where does Songs for Drella get filed. Dont see why Lou should get it just because he’s named first. In fact I dont even know that he is.
Should Todd Rundgren’s Utopia get filed seperately from Utopia? Should Utopia (not mentioning Todd) get filed under R?
I’ve known people who catagorise according to genre. Now that strikes me as an absolute nightmare.
Normal people dont have these problems,
My wife has suggested filing by genre. It seems like a good idea until you actually try. Even the most basic things like the move from country to country rock to rock are fraught with problems. Then, even if you remember where you decided they should go the first time round…you’ll never remember when you come to look for it.
What, you only have one copy each of stuff? What are you, a civilian?
Well, only one per format. Poor show, I know.
Where do soundtracks go?
And comedy records?
Brian Eno is a nightmare! Is he a ‘B’ or an ‘E’? He does a lot of collaborations. Sometimes, his collaborator is named first (eg, Fripp & Eno), sometimes second (eg, Brian Eno and Jah Wobble). Sometimes, if he makes more than one album with the same collaborator, they switch around (eg, David Byrne & Brian Eno becomes Brian Eno & David Byrne). The iPod makes its own mind up, so finding an ‘Eno’ album the cover scroll is tricky.
Various Artists compilations go under V, duh.
Three words – Bonnie “Prince” Billy – a filing nightmare.
I’ve got more Neil Young LPs than CSNY ones so that location is the default for all things Neil Young – including CSNY Lps, because CSNY records are there it makes sense that CSN records live there too, oh and solo records by Graham Nash, David Crosby and Stephen Stills, obvious really isn’t it? Please tell my wife.
See also the Nick Lowe, Rockpile, Dave Edmunds, Brinsley Schwartz conundrum.
Separate sections for classical, comedy, spoken word, various artist and soundtracks, Elvis Costello kept away from the rest as it is the biggest section by far, sub divided into original releases, re-issues, promos, bootlegs 12 inch singles, 10 inch singles and 7 inch singles.
I have too much spare time…
I have a problem with filing by adjective. Screaming Lord Sutch, The Swinging Blue Jeans, the Flaming Lips. It doesn’t feel right somehow, because adjectives depend to some extent on personal interpretation, and filing needs facts or it’s fucked.
The important thing about Bonnie ‘Prince’ Billy, mentioned above, is that he’s called Billy; his looks and his questionable claim of royalty are interesting but putting him under ‘B’ would be like filing strawberry jam under ‘Strawberry’ on an inventory – and who would do a thing like that?
So The Strawberry Alarm Clock would go under ‘A’, because although ‘strawberry’ is adjectival, ‘alarm’ isn’t – it’s part of a compound noun. The ‘blue’ in Swinging Blue Jeans is an adjective, but it’s not a value judgement, unlike the ‘swinging’, so they go under ‘B’. Easy, really.
What an excellent OP. Reminds me of me. And also of the scene in High Fidelity where the practice of filing records alphabetically is condemned as being for amateurs. The shelves I have for new, unfiled purchases is getting out of hand because I’d have to move some of the main collection and to be honest I can’t be arsed. I also keep all compilation albums at the end, after Z, but have failed to come up with any order thereafter.
It bugs me that my online collection ended up with Zappa in the “F” section and The Average White Band alongside The Beatles alongside each other in the “T’s”, but I couldn’t bring myself to label folders as “Zappa, Frank” or “Allman Brothers, The”.
And, sort of on the same topic –
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandpopmusic/11547085/Record-Store-Day-High-Fidelity-shows-todays-music-lovers-what-theyre-missing.html
File by label. What do you mean, you can’t remember what label R Stevie Moore’s fifth album was on? Have you been asleep all this time? Jeez, amateurs.
Box. Loft. Sorted.
Randomly, whilst I get around to new shelving……….
Can I ever find ’em? Course not, but it’s usually the comp or the i-pod that plays their ripped versions anyway.
I can answer one question. It absolutely is not worth the time or trouble it takes to turn your vinyl into audio files. There’s some cognitive dissonance about hearing the recording of pops and crackles on an audio file that makes you want to either listen to it as a proper audio file or on the vinyl itself.
Play your vinyl, keep it for sentimental reasons, or sell it and replace as much as you can with CDs or downloads, but you’ll never look back and think the time splitting up one side into 6 tracks, manually labelling them etc was worth it.
Anyone going to advocate for it?
I largely agree with Raymond. I think problem cases like Captain Beefheart demand an emotional reaction which must be respected regardless of logic. To me he should be under B. He’s not a band – if he were he’d be under C, obviously. Boards of Canada should be under B too. Chaos would rain otherwise. One possibly helpful addition to the debate is that of box sets. These should be filed standing on end within artist (following the rules above) with the exception of those double length boxes which are stacked on top of each other. As to the tricky question of whether to remove the CDs and file with other CDs I am inconsistent. Simplicity says yes, and get rid of the box, but this strikes me as the first step in the slippery slope to digitisation and getting rid of the physical artefacts, and no one wants that.
I share your views on the importance of filing. Indeed, there is a certain catharsis to adding new entries to the collection. This involves moving all CDs along one (or more spaces)to create the requisite gaps.
Wholly agree Various Artists should be stored after the alphabeticals (I have gone one stage further, and the Various Artists are housed in their own shelves, away from the collection, on the other side of the room (space dictates this, not some unexplained leap of logic on my part).
The filing of compilations is a difficult one?
Should it be chronological, alphabetical or by genre?
For vinyl, it is 100% alphabetical, but for the CDs I have ended up with a hybrid system, where it is sort of by genre, but with no logical construct (Note to self: this really MUST be sorted out)
Filing of artists should always be in chronological order – this includes Live albums, but is not always applicable in the case of compilations. Where they mark a specific end to a phase of the career they should be placed as a marker separating the different eras of the band.
What happens when a band change’s its name?
– Tyrannosaurus Rex / T.Rex ? Easy, just follow the chronology principle
– Generation X / Gen X ? A little bit of “filers licence” allows the chronology principle to apply
– Madness / The Madness ? Definitive article does not apply, therefore chronology
– Joy Division / New Order ? Although 75% of the personnel are the same, they are 2 separate bands. File under J and N
– John Wesley Harding / Wesley Stace – why did he change his name? My brain says his last release under his own name) should be filed under S, but to maintain the artist chronology it is filed after his 2011 release ‘The Sound Of His Own Voice’, and sits alongside Steve Harley & Cockney Rebel ‘The Best Years Of Our Lives’.
The ‘Sta …’, ‘Ste …’ acts as a nice deflector, but it still “feels” wrong.
Is it important?
Yes
I’ve been stashing away my CDs in big cardboard boxes until finding the time to be able to put them in order.
After reading this thread I don’t think I’ll bother.
Chris de Burgh. D or B?
De Burgh, with “D” as a family name. It doesn’t work with “Marquis de Sade” as an author (D.A.F.! or Sade) but the group “Marquis de Sade” will end up with the “M”.
B. For bin.
All that Captain Beefheart stuff is easy. You should try filing classical. By composer seems obvious on the face of it – but what do you do when one artist produces a CD with, say, the Elgar and Dvorak cello concertos on it? And do you put all your Ann Sophie Mutter or Berlin Phil CDs in one place, or all over the shop? And even if you do organise by composer, how do you then order the records for each one? Separating chamber music from symphonic? In chronological order of piece? Or of recording?
It’s a bloody nightmare I tell you.
OK, then…
What about Alice Cooper? Band and solo? File under A or C? I can’t even remember which letter I have used (A or C).
Easy… A. The band was called Alice Cooper.
I have 99.5% of my music filed under “Stuff”. The other three albums are filed under “Wonder Stuff”.
(I got fed up waiting for someone else to make this naff joke)..
I apply a fairly loose and liberal interpretation to filing. (Have you the valium handy Raymond?)
I file by Genre – but loosely so that proggy stuff bleeds into Krautrock and Eno style experimentation, frinstance. And I do this cos that’s how I roll …. man. I mean I don’t listen to stuff alphabetically. If I’m away with the fairies on some Gentle Giant, I’m more likely to want to listen to some Caravan next and not Rory Gallagher – as great as he is.
Having said that Genesis is more likely to be next to Gentle Giant alphabetically, but you know what I mean. Great post btw Raymondo!
The 10cc thread worries me. Should they be under T, or are we following ASCII in which case they should sort first, in front of 10,000 Manics too!
Word Magazine provided helpful guidance about what we might call the Beefheart Conundrum.
Back in the mists of time, Word ran an “quiz” called something like “Are You A Rock Snob?” One of the questions was about how you file your music. If your answer was “Alphabetically with Captain Beefheart under B” then you were likely to be categorised as a Rock Snob as opposed to a Rock Yob or one of the other amusing categories posited by the article.
Anyone posting on this thread is likely to be a Rock Snob and so I suggest to them that they file the good Captain’s oeuvre under B.
At the risk of provoking outrage I’ve converted my filing to strict alphabetical order and away from Bowie, David etc. That is David Bowie is filed under, er, David Bowie. The only exception is ‘The’ bands where it’s Beatles, The etc (with the already noted exception of The The). This approach saves me having to think too hard about where something might be filed. Dangerous anarchy I know but there it is.
And away from the physical filing of CDs, LPs etc, what about the creation of catalogues? Does everyone use Excel or something more complex? I decided some time ago that creating a proper database (eg Access or Filemaker etc) is fine if you’ve just started collecting but if you already have a sizeable collection then the effort involved to create such a catalogue is just too great.
Tremendous.