Listen to your whole collection straight through.

[Brad]

I've tried the A-Z approach a few times but with a variation. I'll pick one cd from each letter of the alphabet. 26 cds shouldn't be difficult but I always get sidetracked.

[mikeweil]

Purely rhetorical question. :rsly:

[Jazzmoose]

Oh god...is this going to become the "Funny Aardvark" thread?

[chris olivarez]

A thru Z is how I generally approach it but I reserve the right to change my mind.

[garthsj]

Oh god...is this going to become the "Funny Aardvark" thread?

...and what's so funny about aardvarks?

[GA Russell]

I've never tried the alphabet approach, but each January 1 I start listening to my CDs over again. The goal is to listen to every one within the year, but it's been a few years since I've completed the list.

I mark the CDs I haven't listened to at the end of the year (just an index card at the end of the row), so I can see at a glance what I have not listened to since, for example, 2001.

Occasionally I'll put on one of those CDs I haven't heard since before 1/1/03, and it's invariably a disappointment - something to be gotten rid of.

With the warm weather I am now playing some summer rock and roll like the Beach Boys that I haven't heard since last summer.

Edited May 12, 2004 by GA Russell

[garthsj]

The reason I am still single is that I am afraid that some woman in my life would invoke the old clothes rule in terms of my CD collection ... "If you haven't listened to it in the last year, then OUT it goes.."

[rachel]

Man, y'all just aren't meeting the right women.

Then again, my clothes closet is a mess....

[patricia]

Here's a method which might work, as well as any. Start at the "A" 's, play one. Move to the "B" 's, play one, "C" 's etc. Then at least if you die after the twentieth round or so, alphabetically, the ones at the end of the alphabet have a chance.

[and, if this is our biggest problem, we're all Lady Luck's own tot.]

[garthsj]

Man, y'all just aren't meeting the right women.

Funny ... that's just what I told my second wife back in 1984!

[Rooster_Ties]

Actually, the key to listening to everything, is to NOT listen to the stuff you listen to all the time. (Or, to put it another way, to listen to the stuff you DON'T listen to all the time.)

I mean, going through everything from A to Z is a fine idea -- but it works better if you skip the things you have listened to multiple times during the last year or two.

Makes it easier (meaning 'quicker') to get through the alphabet.

[patricia]

Actually, the key to listening to everything, is to NOT listen to the stuff you listen to all the time. (Or, to put it another way, to listen to the stuff you DON'T listen to all the time.)

I mean, going through everything from A to Z is a fine idea -- but it works better if you skip the things you have listened to multiple times during the last year or two.

Makes it easier (meaning 'quicker') to get through the alphabet.

Good idea and a fine modification. Otherwise the less-listened to ones are truly orphans. You bought them for a reason, so they should at least get a chance to have their time in your ears and in your heart.

[Hardbopjazz]

Actually, the key to listening to everything, is to NOT listen to the stuff you listen to all the time. (Or, to put it another way, to listen to the stuff you DON'T listen to all the time.)

I mean, going through everything from A to Z is a fine idea -- but it works better if you skip the things you have listened to multiple times during the last year or two.

Makes it easier (meaning 'quicker') to get through the alphabet.

I've tried this approach. But I end up always breaking it. I find I still leave off stuff I haven't listen to in a while. I realized I have many CD's that I've listen to on'y on the day that I bought them. And it's not due to a dislike of the CD, they just became orphans among a ever growing collection.

[White Lightning]

Here's an idea:

How about listening each day to all the sessions that were recorded on the same date?

[John Tapscott]

Here's a method which might work, as well as any. Start at the "A" 's, play one. Move to the "B" 's, play one, "C" 's etc. Then at least if you die after the twentieth round or so, alphabetically, the ones at the end of the alphabet have a chance.

[and, if this is our biggest problem, we're all Lady Luck's own tot.]

This is a good idea and I might try it. One thing for sure is that I would be listening to my Denny Zeitlin CD's a lot more often than I do now. (nothing against Denny; he's a fine player, but I really don't have many "Z"'s to choose from).

[Dan Gould]

Here's an idea:

How about listening each day to all the sessions that were recorded on the same date?

That would take a great deal of discographical knowledge, doncha think?

[chuckyd4]

That would take a great deal of discographical knowledge, doncha think?

You underestimate the anal-retentiveness of some of your fellow board members, my friend

[WD45]

There was a thread about this on the old BNBB, and I decided to jump the bandwagon and go for it myself. I got to the 2nd Miles Davis Quintet after about 3 months, and then just couldn't keep up with it. Had too many new things coming out that I wanted to hear, and I was missing the M's (Monk and Mingus).

I always toy with the idea of trying again, or maybe just starting fresh from Davis onward.

That was my thread over at the BNBB. I started listening to everything from A to Z on new year's day. I had one rule: I had to listen to at least 1/2 of the running time or 1/2 of the tracks, which ever the greater. To plow through 650+ discs, it took me over three months. To make matters tougher, I could not buy anything in that time period, until I was finished.

Talk about a challenge...

[Dan Gould]

That would take a great deal of discographical knowledge, doncha think?

You underestimate the anal-retentiveness of some of your fellow board members, my friend

Undoubtedly.

[White Lightning]

That would take a great deal of discographical knowledge, doncha think?

You underestimate the anal-retentiveness of some of your fellow board members, my friend

Undoubtedly.

You ain't seen nothing yet, my friends

[Hardbopjazz]

Here's an idea:

How about listening each day to all the sessions that were recorded on the same date?

I can do this. I have everything entered in Music Collector and I have dates. This would also force me to listen to music by styles. I would start with Bop to post bop and fusion. I think I would like to break it up by styles.

[Hardbopjazz]

I've started this today. I am also going to give each record a rating of 1 to 100, 100 bing the highest of course. Music Collector has a field for this.

Edited May 12, 2004 by Hardbopjazz

[couw]

Here's an idea:

How about listening each day to all the sessions that were recorded on the same date?

actually, I did this once. It's a fun way to listen really 'cause you get a lot of diversity and draw connections where they may not be, but it's still fun to think them up to be there.

This is only for CRAZY anal retentives, which by definition are not anal anymore as craziness wipes the slate clean and occupies it all for itself. Not that I am crazy, I'm not!

I'm an airplane

[Hardbopjazz]

So far I've been on Cannonball Adderley in my collection. This a great test to see if you really like an artist. Nothing but the same artists can start to bother you. I am finding it hard to really listen liek I normally would.

[patricia]

Oh, and I forgot to mention this. When you listen to one of your LP's or CD's, no fair just listening to one or two of the tracks, even if you only bought the record or CD because they were on it. I am guilty of this, more than I care to admit.

When you consider all the thought that was presumably given to the flow of the selections on a collection, it seems only right that we should respect that, at least once and listen to it from the first track to the last, in sequence. I know that if I do that, the record, or CD has a whole different feel to it, at least for me.

Edited May 14, 2004 by patricia