How much do you spend on CDs and recorded music?

[rchance]

I am a Classifile user, too, but now have a quandary as I can no longer locate the instructions for removal to a new computer which I desperately need to do. I have my registration details but that is all. Can you help?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

People put on CD's by the thousand but they don't hear them.

I "heard" 78s. Despite their fairly appalling sound quality, their other weakness was a kind of strength. Having to get up every 4 minutes to change sides was annoying, but it did help to concentrate the mind on the music in a strange sort of way. But who would really want to go back to them?

[umslopogaas]

Post 46, rchance, as an alternative to Classifile (which I know about, but have never seen), my solution has been to list all my records on an Excel spreadsheet. I have 10 columns:

A. CODE (LXT, ASD etc)
B. NUMBER (2501, 251 etc)
C. COMPANY (Decca, HMV etc)
D. COMPOSER
E. WORK
F. SOLOIST
G. CONDUCTOR
H. ORCHESTRA
I. NUMBER OF RECORDS IN THE SET IF MORE THAN ONE, OTHER DETAILS
J. CONDITION (OK or OK ISH)

You can use the Data/Sort command to instantly sort on any three of those columns in any order: for example, Composer then Work then Conductor. That will tell you first all the recordings of Mozart that I have, then how many versions symphony 40 I have, then how many recordings conducted by Solti - or any other combination you need to know. This is particularly handy if your collection is so large (mine is around 7000 discs) that you cant remember whether you've got a particular recording or not. So, if I ring one of my favourite dealers and he says I've got a nice copy of ASD 252, I can look it up and instantly tell him if I want it or not.

There is one shortcoming, which is dealing with discs with more than one composer, or more than one work. If its, for example Klemperer conducting a Beethoven symphony with an overture as a filler, I only make one entry, for the symphony, so the overture isnt listed and unless I can remember which symphony its coupled with, I've no trace of it. I guess I could enter it all under WORK, but I dont. Incidentally, within each Excel cell you can only see a maximum of 22 characters, but you can type as much as you like, it will all be visible in the tool bar at the top. Another way round multi-composer discs would be do a separate entry for each one, but that would be a terrible fiddle.

It would be a daunting task to make a database of 7000 discs all at once, but I have moderated the pain by starting it when the collection was much smaller and just adding new discs as I acquire them. I believe there is a maximum number of rows that Excel can accommodate, but I think its huge - something around thirty thousand?

[EdgeleyRob]

The "10 club" would be too many to list as I have over 11000 Cds

Blimey !!!!!!

[Roehre]

Umslopogaas (M.48), it looks your database is strongly Record-label + catalogue number / performer orientated.

My Access database is work orientated, based on the following entries:
Composer - title - key - opus number - sub-number - alternative number - year of composition or publication - remarks (version - arrangeur - "special category") - CD? - LP? - MC? - location - date of entry.

"Location" concentrates your fields A,B and C (and F,G,H where necessary), and with Access is searchable for any of these without taking too much space in my lists. Cassette tapes are simply numbered.
If I do understand your database design correctly, it is difficult for you to enter (or search for) specific details regarding the music, e.g. Mozart works with more than one KV-number, Schubert opus vs. D-numbers, Bruckner versions, Beethoven opus vs WoO, keys, chronology of compositions, to name but a few. Am I correct?

[Roehre]

The "10 club" would be too many to list as I have over 11000 Cds, but all are cataloged on computer using the "Classifile" programme which, unfortunately, is no longer available. I tend to leave cataloging to rainy days which, because I live in Spain, makes it difficult to keep up!

In my opinion there isn't necessarily a correlation between the "10 club" and 11000 CDs:
of the (last count) 46.202 pieces of music in my collection, only one reaches that club: Beethoven's Egmont overture.
No symphony of whomsoever even reaches the 5.

[johnb]

Post 46, rchance, as an alternative to Classifile (which I know about, but have never seen), my solution has been to list all my records on an Excel spreadsheet. I have 10 columns:

A. CODE (LXT, ASD etc)
B. NUMBER (2501, 251 etc)
C. COMPANY (Decca, HMV etc)
D. COMPOSER
E. WORK
F. SOLOIST
G. CONDUCTOR
H. ORCHESTRA
I. NUMBER OF RECORDS IN THE SET IF MORE THAN ONE, OTHER DETAILS
J. CONDITION (OK or OK ISH)

You can use the Data/Sort command to instantly sort on any three of those columns in any order: for example, Composer then Work then Conductor. That will tell you first all the recordings of Mozart that I have, then how many versions symphony 40 I have, then how many recordings conducted by Solti - or any other combination you need to know. This is particularly handy if your collection is so large (mine is around 7000 discs) that you cant remember whether you've got a particular recording or not. So, if I ring one of my favourite dealers and he says I've got a nice copy of ASD 252, I can look it up and instantly tell him if I want it or not.

There is one shortcoming, which is dealing with discs with more than one composer, or more than one work. If its, for example Klemperer conducting a Beethoven symphony with an overture as a filler, I only make one entry, for the symphony, so the overture isnt listed and unless I can remember which symphony its coupled with, I've no trace of it. I guess I could enter it all under WORK, but I dont. Incidentally, within each Excel cell you can only see a maximum of 22 characters, but you can type as much as you like, it will all be visible in the tool bar at the top. Another way round multi-composer discs would be do a separate entry for each one, but that would be a terrible fiddle.

It would be a daunting task to make a database of 7000 discs all at once, but I have moderated the pain by starting it when the collection was much smaller and just adding new discs as I acquire them. I believe there is a maximum number of rows that Excel can accommodate, but I think its huge - something around thirty thousand?

By the way, depending on which version of Excel you are using, you can also use the Auto Filter (highlight the data, including the column headings, then go to Data/Filter/Auto Filter). This gives you drop down lists at the top of each column, enabling you to easily 'filter' on any of the entries.

Presumably the 22 character visibility you mention is because you have set the column width to that. Of course the column widths can be set to any width at all by dragging the vertical to the left of the column letter. (If you double click on the vertical to the left of the column letter it will set the column width to the minimum necessary to display all the contents in all the entries of that column.

(I have all my CDs, etc, etc ripped to my hard drive and use Squeezebox to play them. So I use a plugin to export the Squeezebox database initially to Excel, where I do any tidying up that is necessary, and then to Access where they go into a relational database.)

[umslopogaas]

Roehre #50 and johnb #52, apologies for the delay in replying, I had to make an emergency dash into the garden to shore up the runner beans, which were in danger of blowing over in the gale. You are right, my primary reason to maintain a database is so that when one of the friendly dealers who feed my collecting habit rings me up and starts really off codes and numbers, I can instantly check whether or not I've already got any of them. It is a very flexible system and could easily be adapted to supply the types of information you suggest, the only caveat being that the more information you enter, the longer it takes to to the entries!

I guess I should be using Access, which I understand is a proper database, rather than Excel, which is primarily a spreadsheet, but I am a real computer ignoramus and have never grappled with Access. I was so pleased to have succesfully made Excel fit the bill that I havent dared to try anything else.

[barber olly]

Roehre #50 and johnb #52, apologies for the delay in replying, I had to make an emergency dash into the garden to shore up the runner beans, which were in danger of blowing over in the gale. You are right, my primary reason to maintain a database is so that when one of the friendly dealers who feed my collecting habit rings me up and starts really off codes and numbers, I can instantly check whether or not I've already got any of them. It is a very flexible system and could easily be adapted to supply the types of information you suggest, the only caveat being that the more information you enter, the longer it takes to to the entries!

I guess I should be using Access, which I understand is a proper database, rather than Excel, which is primarily a spreadsheet, but I am a real computer ignoramus and have never grappled with Access. I was so pleased to have succesfully made Excel fit the bill that I havent dared to try anything else.

My EXCEL is similar to yours but with more columns. The listings include commercial CDs CDRs Minidiscs

NO (Ind no allocated with coding to reflect wheter CD CDR or MC)
TRACK No (Useful for CDR and MC)
C (Code no Country of origin of composer)
CO (Company/Label)
CATNO (CD Catalague no)
COMPOSER
WORK
OP (Opus K BWV no)
SOL3
SOL2
SOL1
ORCH
COND

I also have a different listing for Pop/Jazz/Rock

NO
TRACK NO
CO
CAT.NO
ARTIST (Alphabetical but to preserve this compilations are ZZZ rather than various)
ALBUM TITLE

Ideally I would add another column SONG TITLE but this will be time-consuming and make the list exceedingly long.

This cataloguing system has worked well for me for a number of years now. The current version of EXCEL allows sorting under more than 3 headings.

[vinteuil]

I don't think I've ever really understood this "indexing of all my CDs" malarkey.

If you have not too many CDs, then no need, 'cos you can find them - just like that...

If you have too many CDs (and I'm probably in that camp) - then I can begin to understand that finding the X performance of Y work with Z performer can be a bit of a faff - but it seems to me - the perennial faff of updating a database is far more troublesome than the occasional extra minute it may take me to find the Frans Bruggen - or the Nikolaus Harnoncourt - or the Gottfried von der Goltz - versions of Tafelmusik - which as it happens are all classified under T for Telemann...

[umslopogaas]

Woops, curious typo in my last post, for "really off", read "reeling off". It should then make a bit more sense!

Vinteuil, as far as CD's go, I guess you are right, I have about 600 and have not bothered to catalogue them. However, I have about 7000 LPs and they are scattered in boxes and on shelves all over the house. It can take quite a long time, and give you a real crick in the neck, to read the lettering on the spines. Also, in many cases the lettering has worn off, and with many of the older ones, the spines had no writing, so each disc has to be pulled out to check what's on it. This can take a lot of time, especially if you have an impatient dealer on the other end of the phone. Much quicker to look it up on an Excel database.

Another advantage is that you can sort it to give you all sorts of information. As well as telling me how many Mozart works I have, I can find out how many piano concertos, how many performances by Brendel, how many LPO recordings, how many Karajans, etc etc. Admittedly its hard to imagine why anyone would want a lot of this information, but its there if needed.

I have not found it very tedious to update it. The thought of doing 7000 all at once is admittedly very daunting, but I built it up over many years, adding in a few discs at a time whenever I bought them. You just fill in new lines at the end, press Sort and whiz! they are instantly incorporated.

[Roehre]

I don't think I've ever really understood this "indexing of all my CDs" malarkey.

If you have not too many CDs, then no need, 'cos you can find them - just like that...

If you have too many CDs (and I'm probably in that camp) - then I can begin to understand that finding the X performance of Y work with Z performer can be a bit of a faff - but it seems to me - the perennial faff of updating a database is far more troublesome than the occasional extra minute it may take me to find the Frans Bruggen - or the Nikolaus Harnoncourt - or the Gottfried von der Goltz - versions of Tafelmusik - which as it happens are all classified under T for Telemann...

But if you like to listen to Frescobaldi in an arrangement by Bartok which was broadcast in TtN a couple of years ago (and only lasts some 10 minutes or so, therefore not filling a cassette tape or CD) it definitely is a different story I'm afraid.....

[Dave2002]

I guess I should be using Access, which I understand is a proper database, rather than Excel, which is primarily a spreadsheet, but I am a real computer ignoramus and have never grappled with Access. I was so pleased to have succesfully made Excel fit the bill that I havent dared to try anything else.

Now you've got me thinking about whether there really is a need for a relational database for this application. A flat file database would do just as well for most of us. Maybe librarians would have a view on this. A library, or music shop might find relational databases useful, as might a broadcaster auch as the BBC. Surely overkill for most people though, but as most relational DBs also function reasonably well as flat file DBs (but not the other way round)' there's no harm in using one, such as Access. Possibly some flat file DB systems may have better interfaces than Access.

[johnb]

Unless someone has a "techie" inclination or already has experience of using Access, say for work, I would advise them to stay with Excel. Access can be very useful indeed but it does have a steepish learning curve - it definitely isn't a 'just install it and press go' type of application.

Not only that, it is actually much easier to create the tables in Excel, then import them into Access, even if you do use Access!

I use Access because (a) I was already familiar with it, having used it in business, (b) the database tables that I export from Squeezebox actually require a relational database and (c) once you are familiar with Access it is very flexible and easy to set up queries.

There are some advantages in using a relational database such as Access but, for a project such as indexing one's record collection, they are massively outweighed by the complexity in setting the thing up.

(It would, however, be relatively simple to set up a flat file database in Excel and them import it into Access but there is still the learning curve as far as setting up queries, etc is concerned, not to mention the cost of the software.)

[johnb]

For people using Excel - do give the Auto-Filter that I mentioned earlier a try (Data/Filter/Auto Filter). You might find it useful and it is extremely simple to set up (highlight the data, including column headings - then select Data/Filter/Auto Filter). You might want to save your file under a different name first - so you can experiment without the risk of Excel's Auto-save preventing you going back to your original set up.

(The instructions are for Excel 2003 as I don't really see any point in upgrading to the latest version.)