Your record says one thing on the sleeve, but the alphabetical list puts it somewhere unexpected. The temptation is to rewrite the artist’s name until the software behaves. A separate sorting field can preserve the name you want to see while giving the index a predictable order.
Give each field one job
The display name answers, “What name should I read?” A sort name answers, “Where should this entry sit in this particular ordering?” In a paper catalogue, the latter can simply be another column. Software support varies, so check the fields your library actually provides before changing a large collection.
MusicBrainz’s artist sort-name guidelines show one established set of conventions, including moving an initial article in a group name to the end for sorting. Its examples also show why personal names should not all be rearranged with a blind last-word-first rule.
Test with a handful of records
Create a practice index with five entries: a solo artist, a group beginning with “The,” a name containing an accent, a collaboration and one artist whose naming convention you are unsure about. Keep the displayed credits intact.
Sort the trial list and look for each record as you normally would. If a rule produces an order you cannot remember, note the exception rather than changing the artist’s identity to fit the rule. A cross-reference can be more helpful than forcing every case into one pattern.
Keep the shelf location independent
Alphabetical order and physical location need not be the same field either. A record stored in Box B can still appear under the appropriate artist in your index. That separation becomes useful when a collection grows beyond one shelf.
Our exercise on making a shelf index that survives rearranging develops the location side of the problem. Start with the small trial, then carry the convention into your real catalogue once you can explain it in a sentence. The best ordering is one you will still understand when you return to the collection months later.