Best Ways to Organize a Classical Record LP Collection ?

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.  

Man ct, it's gonna take you years to listen to them all! A nice problem to have. I was getting so many promos and other free albums when I was a Tower buyer that I couldn't listen to them all before the next batch came in (weekly). I finally now am able to listen to those unheard albums in my remaining years, hearing new music on a daily basis. So much music, so little time! I have resorted to prioritizing; surely I need to hear the Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart (substitute your own taste here) pieces that I have yet to before that of other, lesser (to me) composers. And then there's the new Pop (Rock 'n' Roll, Bluegrass, Singer/Songwriter) and improved reissues of old favorites (The Beach Boys, The Band) and previously unissued historical material (Dylan) to keep up with. I just feel blessed to have been born (this time ;-) when recordings exist. How fortunate we are!