# How do you catalogue (cross-reference?) your collection?



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

I can get obsessive about how to go about arranging my collection - I spent the day cataloging by stylistic period with a division when instrumental music begins to figure in the collection. I've tried everything from the simple but effective chronological by composers date of birth with all instrumental and vocal mixed together. I've done the same with vocal and instrumental separate, and chronological by composer within a certain genre (concertos, for example). Alphabetical by composer's last name, which brings me to the question...and how do you catalogue a compilation? By first composer on the disc? And especially Recitals where there is a range of styles from different periods. Do you use software, card catalogue, or no system at all? Do you label your discs? Do you hate jewel boxes and do you use different storage systems - wallets for instance? From what I've observed there are a large number of members who have vast collections, so, I imagine there are some interesting takes on the subject. I am hoping that someone will prove to have the most arcane method imaginable.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Buy a CD

Change Artist name from performer's name to the original composer's name (e.g. from Marc-Andre Hamelin to Alkan, Charles-Valentin)

Change Album name from whatever its name is to the name of the work as it was originally named by the composer himself (e.g. from Hamelin Plays Alkan to 12 Etudes in All Minor Keys)

Repeat the process for every single work in every single CD for every single composer (yes, a lot of work)

Order alphabetically by composer's last name


----------



## Conor71 (Feb 19, 2009)

I have my collection all on iTunes and just keep the physical Discs in boxes stored away.
I sort my collection by Album with all the Classical and Non-Classical music heaped in together.
For Classical Discs I tag the Album with the Composers last name first in the title e.g Beethoven: Symphonies [Disc 1]


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

Well, I asked for arcane  I think you're more obsessive than I am 



Dodecaplex said:


> Buy a CD
> 
> Change Artist name from performer's name to the original composer's name (e.g. from Marc-Andre Hamelin to Alkan, Charles-Valentin)
> 
> ...


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

NightHawk said:


> Well, I asked for arcane


So . . . was that too conventional for you? Or what?


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

I am wanting to do the same thing, and then copy it all to a stand-alone hard drive to keep in a separate location from the physical discs themselves. But, it is so laborious, plus iTunes and opera just don't get along very well - I have had to go through and reorder the cuts b/c they were completely skewed. Maybe that won't happen on the MacBookP. My classical collection is getting respectable and I have many complete cycles - the complete Haydn Symphonies for instance = 33 cds! The Complete Bach Cantatas = 60 discs, and the Miaskovsky Symphonies which number 27, about 10-12 discs I think - to name a few. I have a lot of opera, less than instrumental, but a decent overview collection and they range from one to five discs (Les Troyens is 5, I think - i've never made it all the way through it!).



Conor71 said:


> I have my collection all on iTunes and just keep the physical Discs in boxes stored away.
> I sort my collection by Album with all the Classical and Non-Classical music heaped in together.
> For Classical Discs I tag the Album with the Composers last name first in the title e.g Beethoven: Symphonies [Disc 1]


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

I did thishttp://www.head-fi.org/t/518613/my-music-server for a while


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

No! It makes perfect sense - so are you recording the renaming on a software program and/or applying a label to each disc with new naming?



Dodecaplex said:


> So . . . was that too conventional for you? Or what?


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

Superlatives fail. I'll just take my little bitty collection and stack them in the corner  Truly awesome collection, organization and unflagging energy to follow through at every level. Glad to note in one of the posts made to your site that you have it 'backed up several times'.  Thanks so much for showing how it works. Grand Prix du Disque!

edit: just noticed you ended by saying 'for a while' - are you not continuing the work? May I ask why, if no?



DavidMahler said:


> I did thishttp://www.head-fi.org/t/518613/my-music-server for a while


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Yeah, I have to rename every single track. 

Usually I don't mind too much, but Bartok's Mikrocosmos, things like Bach's choral music with 60 tracks for 90 minutes of music, and so on drives me crazy.


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

TO DAVIDMAHLER

And another question: do you go on impulse for choosing something to listen to, or do you try to systematically listen through a particular genre, composer, or particular work as with the numerous Mahler 9th's you own?



NightHawk said:


> Superlatives fail. I'll just take my little bitty collection and stack them in the corner  Truly awesome collection, organization and unflagging energy to follow through at every level. Glad to note in one of the posts made to your site that you have it 'backed up several times'.  Thanks so much for showing how it works. Grand Prix du Disque!
> 
> edit: just noticed you ended by saying 'for a while' - are you not continuing the work? May I ask why, if no?


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

This is for cds only. 

Strict alphabetical order according to composer's name. Then under each composer file under the following sequence of genres - 1/ symphonies 2/ concertos 3/ other orchestral 4/ chamber (which in itself is sub-categorised from 'larger' works down to sonatas) 5/ solo piano works 6/ choral 7/ lieder. All operas and larger box sets I keep somewhere else. What few compilations I have get filed under the composer who I consider to have the more prominent work(s) on the disc. Yes, it's convoluted and yes, it's 100% **** and my ever-decreasing circle of friends think I'm weird but, at least for me, this system is also 100% effective. 

Have a nice weekend.


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

Haha. I am _much_ less organized than some of you folks. I just stick everything in iTunes and seldom edit any of the information. It doesn't matter to me if "Mahler, Gustav" and "Gustav Mahler" are separate, I can still find whatever I want to listen to when it's all on the computer. I only change something when it's actually _wrong_--e.g., when iTunes listed Arcangelo Corelli as the composer of Pierrot Lunaire.

My CDs (much less numerous than those of many other members here) are stored in a very disorganized, uncatalogued fashion in many shoeboxes in a large cabinet--and some in the car, and some on various shelves around the house. When I actually want to listen to a CD, I can't always find the one I want. Would you go crazy, o ye catalogers?

But then, I am not exactly a collector.


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

elgars ghost said:


> This is for cds only.
> 
> Strict alphabetical order according to composer's name. Then under each composer file under the following sequence of genres - 1/ symphonies 2/ concertos 3/ other orchestral 4/ chamber (which in itself is sub-categorised from 'larger' works down to sonatas) 5/ solo piano works 6/ choral 7/ lieder. All operas and larger box sets I keep somewhere else. What few compilations I have get filed under the composer who I consider to have the more prominent work(s) on the disc. Yes, it's convoluted and yes, it's 100% **** and my ever-decreasing circle of friends think I'm weird but, at least for me, this system is also 100% effective.
> 
> Have a nice weekend.


This is very similar to the filing system in the music library where I work. There's a section for scores and a section for CDs (and another section for other types of recordings) and it's in alphabetical order by composer name and then there are four-digit numerical codes for each genre (and they are rather minutely differentiated--concertos, for example, do not all share a code; it depends on the instrument), which I finally have mostly memorized.


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

I like it. you have a nice weekend, as well and thanks!



elgars ghost said:


> This is for cds only.
> 
> Strict alphabetical order according to composer's name. Then under each composer file under the following sequence of genres - 1/ symphonies 2/ concertos 3/ other orchestral 4/ chamber (which in itself is sub-categorised from 'larger' works down to sonatas) 5/ solo piano works 6/ choral 7/ lieder. All operas and larger box sets I keep somewhere else. What few compilations I have get filed under the composer who I consider to have the more prominent work(s) on the disc. Yes, it's convoluted and yes, it's 100% **** and my ever-decreasing circle of friends think I'm weird but, at least for me, this system is also 100% effective.
> 
> Have a nice weekend.


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

No, actually I wouldn't go crazy, I'd just offer to organize your CDs for you! I've always thought that it's easier to wash someone else's dishes than your own. 

When I go on a listening binge which has been fairly constant since early summer, I pull discs out of the shelves and moved to the player then after playing to a 'holding pen' (ha) for refiling. Problem is the refiling can get put off for a while. Discs get moved to cars, and when a disc gets put in the wrong jewel box I freak until I find it. I have a disc of Mitsuko Uchida playing the Beethoven 3rd and 4th piano concertos that's gotten doubled in the wrong case (I guess). I love the recording so much I just bought another one. I lost the Brendel 2nd disc of the Late Beethoven Sonatas twice and found it - now it's lost again.



Meaghan said:


> Haha. I am _much_ less organized than some of you folks. I just stick everything in iTunes and seldom edit any of the information. It doesn't matter to me if "Mahler, Gustav" and "Gustav Mahler" are separate, I can still find whatever I want to listen to when it's all on the computer. I only change something when it's actually _wrong_--e.g., when iTunes listed Arcangelo Corelli as the composer of Pierrot Lunaire.
> 
> My CDs (much less numerous than those of many other members here) are stored in a very disorganized, uncatalogued fashion in many shoeboxes in a large cabinet--and some in the car, and some on various shelves around the house. When I actually want to listen to a CD, I can't always find the one I want. Would you go crazy, o ye catalogers?
> 
> But then, I am not exactly a collector.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

*How do you catalogue (cross-reference?) your collection?*

I don't.


----------



## An Die Freude (Apr 23, 2011)

I seem to be alone here in that I catalogue by composer's first names, rather than by surnames.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

An Die Freude said:


> I seem to be alone here in that I catalogue by composer's first names, rather than by surnames.


You must be having a fun time listening to all those Franzes and Johanns.


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

First name basis is a good thing! Whatever works for you 



An Die Freude said:


> I seem to be alone here in that I catalogue by composer's first names, rather than by surnames.


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

I catalog by composer's last name. If it's a compilation, I use the first composer mentioned.

In an Excel file, I enter whatever information I can about each album, and include a field for the location of the album. That way, I can browser, search, and sort in various ways to find what I need in the Excel file and on the shelves.

The problem is that I can't enter individual works in albums unless I create new records: e.g., a record containing information about the album and another record about a work in that album with a field linking the two.

A more efficient system is to create several databases, and in this case one containing information about the album and another containing information about individual works or tracks, with each record linked to the album database. The same can take place for genres, performers, etc. All these become transparent if a program that can access and use these databases are used: one can browse by album title, performer, composer, etc.

In all cases, work will be tedious because I have to enter information manually, and the more information I want for each album, the more data I have to input.

Some software come with a feature which allows me to scan the bar code of the album and search online, insert the CD in a computer drive and search for data online, or enter any partial data manually and search online. With that, I can select which data to use from results gathered online, and have additional features included, such as album covers.

Some of these programs can, like what I do for spreadsheets, browse, sort and search in different ways. In addition, they can also export to PDF (which I can, say, send to a friend), spreadsheet or flat file (which I can load in Excel), web page (which I can put online), etc. I can put the spreadsheet or flat file in a cell phone, which I can use to search for key words when I am in a music store.

Finally, I do not know if there are any sites similar to those that allow users to catalog books (enter the ISBN, and the book info is entered in your online catalog, which in some cases you may also export to a spreadsheet and download), but that would be interesting.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Why do you guys make things so complex?? I just make a playlist on Itunes called "Composer x" and just put whatever he/she wrote in there. With non-classical genres I do the same with the bands or groups name.


----------



## Mika (Jul 24, 2009)

This David's giant music server project makes me think : How to find time for listening those cds? David said he has listened 75% of +12000 CDs. That's a lot for me. I have thought I catalog while I am listening. I never seem to catch up my collection, which is less than 1000 units and growing faster than I listen to it .


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

elgars ghost said:


> This is for cds only.
> 
> Strict alphabetical order according to composer's name. Then under each composer file under the following sequence of genres - 1/ symphonies 2/ concertos 3/ other orchestral 4/ chamber (which in itself is sub-categorised from 'larger' works down to sonatas) 5/ solo piano works 6/ choral 7/ lieder. All operas and larger box sets I keep somewhere else. What few compilations I have get filed under the composer who I consider to have the more prominent work(s) on the disc. Yes, it's convoluted and yes, it's 100% **** and my ever-decreasing circle of friends think I'm weird but, at least for me, this system is also 100% effective.
> 
> Have a nice weekend.


Pretty much how I do it as well.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

violadude said:


> Why do you guys make things so complex?? I just make a playlist on Itunes called "Composer x" and just put whatever he/she wrote in there. With non-classical genres I do the same with the bands or groups name.


Have you no work to do? Do you not need to procrastinate?

Hurry up! I want to see nested playlist folders:

Level 1 must be the composer, in the form "Last name, Initials (Birth-Death)":
example: Schubert, F. (1797-182)
example: Bach, J. S. (1685-1750)

Level 2 is to be the type of work (don't say "genre"): 
example: Solo Piano
example: Organ

Level 3 is to be the name of the work in an alphabetically sortable matter and other standard nomenclature, followed when possible by the date of the composition: 
Example: Piano Sonata #15 'Reliquie' in C, D 840 (1825)
Example: Orgelbüchlein, BWV 599-644 (1708-1714)

Level 4 is to be the playlist, labeled by soloist or ensemble or conductor, followed when possible by the date of the recording: 
Example: Uchida 1997
Example: Preston 1989

Level 5 is to be the track names, with numerical labels including tempi and so on: 
Example: 1. Moderato
Example: 6. Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ, BWV 604

And for goodness' sake, have the capitalization and accent marks correct. It _matters_.

With this method of organization and procrastination, I can guarantee (based on firsthand experience) that you will never get anything productive done.

I, for instance, have never

- written a novel,
- built a house,
- learned to cook French food,
- studied Indian philosophy,
- hiked the Appalachian trail,
- canoed down the Amazon,
- climbed Everest,
- juggled scimitars or flaming torches,
- killed an assailant with my bare hands,
- achieved Enlightenment (though, to be fair to myself, I was handicapped by salvation for a couple of decades), 
- publicly condemned Brioni suits or Harvard diplomas as excessively bourgeois,
- memorized the Koran,
- seduced a supermodel in her prime, 
- directed and starred in my own version of _Hamlet_, 
- woke up from a bad trip naked on a balcony overlooking le Jardin du Luxembourg, 
- worn hot pink mirrorshades, 
- danced with the devil in the pale moonlight,
- flew over the cuckoo's nest,
- spoken to Bertrand Russel in a séance,
- mastered Chinese,
- saw a man about a horse,
- figured out the decisive interpretation of _The Waste Land_ let alone _Finnegans Wake_,
- made a hip-hop / reggae album with Sister Souljah, 
- finished watching that musical about the nun in Austria, 
- published my solution to the problem of free will in a naturalistic universe,
- repaired a small engine,
- rescued a kitten,
- scored a touchdown,
- sent one of Shaq's weak attempts to dunk on me into the bleachers with a ferocious "not in my house" glare,
- gave a daisy chain to my first fair love, 
- ran through the jungle,
- cast a bronze statue of Shiva Lord of the Dance, 
- rung the bells that still can ring, 
- beheld a pale horse,
- charmed the pants off a snake, 
- got down with my bad self (nor even busted a move),
- skinned a cat multiple ways, 
- discovered previously unknown numerological codes hidden in Bach's Passion of Saint John,
- found out who's on first,
- lost that loving feeling,
- painted a masterpiece.

But!

But, my friends, I have organized my iTunes.

Then I punched out my computer, destroying the hard drive, so I'm doing it again.


----------



## ThanksShanks (Dec 10, 2011)

Hi guys, Thanks for posting this. Dodecaplex when you say... 
"Change Album name from whatever its name is to the name of the work as it was originally named by the composer himself (e.g. from Hamelin Plays Alkan to 12 Etudes in All Minor Keys)"...
... I can see this working for compilations of 'works'. Like Nighthawk's Hadyn's Symphonies... but what about these pesky compilations that are just a collection of songs? They are all just a movement here or a movement there. If I change each track to the name of the work, I'll end up with a dozen or so disparate bits of works that will ultimately disappoint when browsers (myself included) discover it isn't the whole work. 
Would you advise simply exempting such compilations from this tagging system and treating them like pop music? (an album full of songs?). 
Thanks for your help on this.... I want to get clear before embarking on my mega-retag operation... S


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

What I do for now is use the comments section to put the original name of the disk (like "Sweet Sorrow") and then break it up. When there is just a single movement or something of a work, I include (excerpt) or (excerpts) in the album title. 

I debated the issue for a long time, but the consideration that made my mind up is that if 1-movement symphonies that are 25 minutes long can be an "album," then a 1-movement work that is 3 minutes long can be too.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

elgars ghost said:


> This is for cds only.
> 
> Strict alphabetical order according to composer's name. Then under each composer file under the following sequence of genres - 1/ symphonies 2/ concertos 3/ other orchestral 4/ chamber (which in itself is sub-categorised from 'larger' works down to sonatas) 5/ solo piano works 6/ choral 7/ lieder. All operas and larger box sets I keep somewhere else. What few compilations I have get filed under the composer who I consider to have the more prominent work(s) on the disc. Yes, it's convoluted and yes, it's 100% **** and my ever-decreasing circle of friends think I'm weird but, at least for me, this system is also 100% effective.
> 
> Have a nice weekend.


This pretty much my system too. Although I currently am needing another case because I have run out of room. 

Kevin


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

ThanksShanks said:


> Hi guys, Thanks for posting this. Dodecaplex when you say...
> "Change Album name from whatever its name is to the name of the work as it was originally named by the composer himself (e.g. from Hamelin Plays Alkan to 12 Etudes in All Minor Keys)"...
> ... I can see this working for compilations of 'works'. Like Nighthawk's Hadyn's Symphonies... but what about these pesky compilations that are just a collection of songs? They are all just a movement here or a movement there. If I change each track to the name of the work, I'll end up with a dozen or so disparate bits of works that will ultimately disappoint when browsers (myself included) discover it isn't the whole work.
> Would you advise simply exempting such compilations from this tagging system and treating them like pop music? (an album full of songs?).
> Thanks for your help on this.... I want to get clear before embarking on my mega-retag operation... S


I don't exactly understand what the problem is. If I had a "pesky compilation that is just a collection of songs", I'd try to find out who was the composer (or writer) of each song and put it under the name of the the artist. If it's not a whole work, then I'll get the whole work from somewhere else. If I'm too lazy to get the whole work at the moment, I'll just name the album "Miscellaneous" until I do get the whole work. Problem solved.


----------



## Guest (Dec 12, 2011)

I use iTunes and am religious about certain fields:

Genre: Classical

Composer: Last Name, First // never multiple composers, and no composers for non-classical. I omit the comma for Chinese composers.

Groupings: I have about fifty of these now (e.g. Asian, Baroque, Bassoon Sonata, Cello Concerto, Cello Sonata, Choral, Clarinet Concerto, ...)

Year: I always change this to year of composition (or my best guess) - this is actually a great thing to have.

Album: one of two formats: either "Composer: Works" or "Soloist - Album Name". Last names only here. Sometimes I chop up albums with unrelated works on them. I also may combine works from different albums to make a new group (e.g. Prokofiev: Piano Sonatas). Single track orphans I combine in a "zXtc" album.

Comments: I use this to make notes to myself when I listen. You can also use it for keywords to drive automatic playlists.

I have a lot of playlists which I occasionally update (if not automatic) - such as by composer, by month/quarter of acquisition, by decade, etc. A few other collections by theme. The composer lists are manual so I can eliminate duplicates, etc. And of course sorted by year of composition. 

I am horrified at the suggestion of a complex series of nested playlists. Yech. The way I do it everything is cross-referenced - I can pull up a list of all Russian chamber music before 1850 fairly quickly.

At the beginning of 2011, I reset all my play counts to zero, so I could make sure I listened to my entire collection at least once this year. Finished that by Oct 1 or so, and now I'm on a more casual mission to rate all my music from 1 to 5 stars based solely on how enjoyable each piece is to listen to -- with no extra points for historical significance, performer reputation, collector rarity, etc. I have a slew of playlists set up to help me with this project.

I'm also starting a personal wikipedia of sorts by major composer (major meaning I have at least 1.5 hours of their music in my collection). I want to formulate thoughtful opinions by composer, and also be able to intelligently answer, for example, which are my favorite cello sonatas, or favorite new albums of 2011.

It's kinda geeky but kinda fun. And it helps me to digest the music I already have.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Excel: Composer (sequence by birthdate); Work; Artists; Label; Price Category (B, MP, FP); Spars; Year (recorded). Works of each composer are sequenced (as applicable) by Concertos, Symphonies, Chamber, Solo, Choral, Opera. Collection is shelved the same way, with one exception...CDs and LPs are separate.


----------

