Record Collection Database Template?
- Thread starter AweDeOh
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
House de Kris
Loud-n-Deep
I'd actually recommend using www.discogs.com. Very easy to enter in your collection (minimal typing), accessible from any web enabled computer or smart-phone, and you may actually learn something about your collection of music. I know I've learned a lot about my music in the short time I've been using Discogs. Plus, it can reportedly output you collection to a spreadsheet for you if you so desire, although I haven't tried this option yet.
Typically, I just enter the catalog number and go from there.
Typically, I just enter the catalog number and go from there.
Khodabear
Super Member
I've been doing the same research and Discogs looks like the way I'll go.
That said, for organizing my RTR and Cassette tapes I've been using DBoot by AK member Paulisme.
It's simple - easily configured - searchable - works very well for a task such as this.
http://www.paulcrowder.net/dboot/
That said, for organizing my RTR and Cassette tapes I've been using DBoot by AK member Paulisme.
It's simple - easily configured - searchable - works very well for a task such as this.
http://www.paulcrowder.net/dboot/
addaz
Well-Known Member
Discogs is great if you don't collect symphonic music. I got through most of my music collection before starting on the symphonic stuff and I couldn't find 70% of what I owned. I followed their instructions to do an "Add Release" (enter a new release into their database) but it was a really confusing form and considering many symphonic albums have multiple composers and songs (possibly conductors as well,) just added to my overall confusion. I didn't know what info to put where based on their instructions and I soon realized that taking the time to enter all that info was gonna coast me a week of my life.
Every now and then I go back to Discogs with the intent to finally tackle that form but I always walk away with my tail between my legs.
The Bone
Active Member
As a newbie to discogs, I agree with this statement. I have added (2) new releases and it was difficult... I suppose with practice....
JoeESP9
ESL's & tubes since 83
I looked at discogs. I prefer to have my information stored locally on my own computer.
I started in the 80's with PFS First Choice. Even back then I saw the need for keeping track of my collection. I switched from the flat file system of FC to the fully relational MS Access when it was first released. The search capabilities of a fully relational database provide a lot more flexibility. I've updated my db as new versions of MS Access have been released.
Sure, it requires some work to enter the data. However I can enter as much or as little as I want. Plus, I can do searches on anything and I don't need to be on line to access (sic) anything.
I started in the 80's with PFS First Choice. Even back then I saw the need for keeping track of my collection. I switched from the flat file system of FC to the fully relational MS Access when it was first released. The search capabilities of a fully relational database provide a lot more flexibility. I've updated my db as new versions of MS Access have been released.
Sure, it requires some work to enter the data. However I can enter as much or as little as I want. Plus, I can do searches on anything and I don't need to be on line to access (sic) anything.
jancumps
iRock
Adding records that already exist in Discogs is very easy.
To add a records that do not exist yet (even classical music) you don't have to type much more than when you would have your own empty database.
I've added quite some new releases. It makes my collection list complete, but in the mean time I also help others.
My list is in my signature.
To add a records that do not exist yet (even classical music) you don't have to type much more than when you would have your own empty database.
I've added quite some new releases. It makes my collection list complete, but in the mean time I also help others.
My list is in my signature.
House de Kris
Loud-n-Deep
I'm not going to defend Discogs, every choice comes with its pluses and minuses. It is up to the OP to determine for himself what set of compromises he's willing to live with. Heck, I started out with a simple text file before moving up to a spreadsheet.
The lack of Discog classical support is a factor to consider. When I started entering my data there, I began with my vinyl, since I don't have too much of that. I probably got about 25% of my classical selections in Discogs. When I entered the CD info, I figured I'd have better luck with classical. No go. In fact, I just completed going through my classical CDs, and only had ONE (1) match!
What I did find most fascinating about Discogs was learning about all the various versions of a release. It's fun finding out if you have an original, a reissue, a re-engineered, or re-mastered version. You can also learn if a reissue includes an additional song you don't have on your version. Plus, I find it fun to look at the different artworks that come with different versions of the same release.
Personally, I'm always a bit surprised when Discogs DOES have small run local releases. Means someone out there has as whacked of a musical selection as I do. Alas, while American and European releases are well represented, I've found that Asian releases are about as rare to find on Discogs as classical.
In the end, nothing is perfect.
The lack of Discog classical support is a factor to consider. When I started entering my data there, I began with my vinyl, since I don't have too much of that. I probably got about 25% of my classical selections in Discogs. When I entered the CD info, I figured I'd have better luck with classical. No go. In fact, I just completed going through my classical CDs, and only had ONE (1) match!
What I did find most fascinating about Discogs was learning about all the various versions of a release. It's fun finding out if you have an original, a reissue, a re-engineered, or re-mastered version. You can also learn if a reissue includes an additional song you don't have on your version. Plus, I find it fun to look at the different artworks that come with different versions of the same release.
Personally, I'm always a bit surprised when Discogs DOES have small run local releases. Means someone out there has as whacked of a musical selection as I do. Alas, while American and European releases are well represented, I've found that Asian releases are about as rare to find on Discogs as classical.
In the end, nothing is perfect.
That's what I do. One excel file w/ a page each for albums, cd's and 45's.
Columns are artist, title, label & #, year of release, comment, grade and value(what I paid). I keep it on my home computer and a stick that I carry with me, since I don't have a cell phone. Works great for me.
Enjoy the music,
-Mark
Edriz
AK Member
Thats what Im gonna do, just started. I dont really think Ill do all my LPs but at least the 500 I have in my Cave, the other 4300 will have to wait!!
I use MusicCollector V9. (V10 is coming out soon). There are two versions #1) Standard version and #2 Pro version.
99% of the time the standard is all you need. It runs $24.95 U.S. I believe. The Pro version is $40. There is not much the Pro version does that the standard does not do. It's a great program and loaded with features. You can get as detailed as you want as well. It even does reports and wish lists and if you loan records out it handles that as well.
Also if your putting in CDs or anything that has a barcode and you have tons of them, you can pic up a barcode reader for around $30 and use it to enter your CD or record or what have you.
It's a great program. I was going to do my own excel sheet, but that task became too daunting and then I was going to work with Access, but again too much development time. For $25 it was worth saving a ton of hassel.
V10 now has support for box sets, but I found a way to do it in the old v9.
99% of the time the standard is all you need. It runs $24.95 U.S. I believe. The Pro version is $40. There is not much the Pro version does that the standard does not do. It's a great program and loaded with features. You can get as detailed as you want as well. It even does reports and wish lists and if you loan records out it handles that as well.
Also if your putting in CDs or anything that has a barcode and you have tons of them, you can pic up a barcode reader for around $30 and use it to enter your CD or record or what have you.
It's a great program. I was going to do my own excel sheet, but that task became too daunting and then I was going to work with Access, but again too much development time. For $25 it was worth saving a ton of hassel.
V10 now has support for box sets, but I found a way to do it in the old v9.
JoeESP9
ESL's & tubes since 83
Sure, a spreadsheet will work as a substitute for a database. However, using one is like having a dancing bear. The wonder is that it can dance at all although it doesn't dance very well.
With a database you can look up anything you've entered into the database. The truth is a spreadsheet is a very poor substitute for even the most basic database.
Spreadsheets were invented to manipulate numbers for accountant types. Databases were invented to keep track of data. If you spend money on a commercially available record cataloging application what you are doing is buying a purpose written database program.
Before I retired from the IT business I saw plenty of "jury rigged" spreadsheet setups attempting to emulate what a database does. None of them worked one quarter as well as the most rudimentary database. Unfortunately, many turn to spreadsheets for clumsily doing things that any database does with ease and elegance.
If you don't want to go with an Access db I recommend what Anubis has suggested. Once you try a true database you'll never use a spreadsheet for db work again.
With a database you can look up anything you've entered into the database. The truth is a spreadsheet is a very poor substitute for even the most basic database.
Spreadsheets were invented to manipulate numbers for accountant types. Databases were invented to keep track of data. If you spend money on a commercially available record cataloging application what you are doing is buying a purpose written database program.
Before I retired from the IT business I saw plenty of "jury rigged" spreadsheet setups attempting to emulate what a database does. None of them worked one quarter as well as the most rudimentary database. Unfortunately, many turn to spreadsheets for clumsily doing things that any database does with ease and elegance.
If you don't want to go with an Access db I recommend what Anubis has suggested. Once you try a true database you'll never use a spreadsheet for db work again.
Last edited:
OneMalt
Will work for music
+1! I've been a user of this software package for so long that I honestly couldn't tell how many years I've had it. I love it! Initially setting it up can be a chore if you have a large collection but after that, it becomes religion - buy an album, put it in the database. They also have a mobile app for the iPhone that allows you to sync with your desktop. Very handy when you're at a record shop or show and you can't remember if you already have the album you're about to buy. Also a great way to show off your collection on the go!
OneMalt
Will work for music
Music Collector does this with CDs. LPs you have to enter manually.
goldear
Certifiable Audio Junkie
QFT. Working in IT myself, I have seen this many times over the years. Excel makes for an extremely poor, and very easily corrupted database. It simply is not a good choice for this sort of thing at all.
That said: My wife is guilty of doing this with our DVDs. Doh!
Similar threads
