|
|
Post by baylink on Jan 5, 2013 17:53:38 GMT -5
I was searching for the Lou Rawls amnesia story, and Google turned up your 80s book.
And it's left me curious: in a bunch of places, you tell us the questions, but not the answers; for example: you say there were 3 new station mentions, but don't say the calls. Or you mention a question story (like 'oldest artist to chart' in 801-3) but don't say what the answer was.
Was your research based on contemporaneous notes that didn't preserve the answers?
(PS: The books look like a lot of fun, and as soon as I'm not unemployed again, I plan to buy them both; you do autograph, right? :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by at40petebattistini on Jan 6, 2013 5:53:55 GMT -5
baylink,
PC issues right now prevent me from providing a detailed response. Please bear with me. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrislc on Jan 6, 2013 7:47:49 GMT -5
Maybe Pete had a case of Lou Rawls Amnesia and he couldn't remember the other details!
You'll Never Find Another...Another...Another....Ummm what was I singing about?
|
|
|
|
Post by baylink on Jan 6, 2013 10:55:49 GMT -5
Maybe Pete had a case of Lou Rawls Amnesia and he couldn't remember the other details! You'll Never Find Another...Another...Another....Ummm what was I singing about? Amusingly, Chris, I sang that very song last night. I'm a bari; singing all this tenor crap near kills me; I needed something to get it out of my system. |
|
|
|
Post by Shadoe Fan on Jan 6, 2013 16:39:53 GMT -5
I can't answer for Pete, but for my Shadoe book I continued the same manner. I listed the question but did not list the answer. One reason I did is because I was afraid that some of the answers could be chart data that Billboard might consider copyrighted. Another reason is that the book isn't a true transcript of the show; it just shows the highlights.
|
|
|
|
Post by baylink on Jan 7, 2013 13:43:11 GMT -5
Well, not to derail this before Pete gets back to it, but...
there's some serious question as to whether the chart data *is* copyrightable; since it is entirely composed of facts, and the only real "creative" input that Billboard puts into them is to sort them by one column of the facts, there's a decent chance Feist v Rural applies.
It certainly would be fair use to cite individual results, I should think.
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelcasselman on Jan 7, 2013 14:35:56 GMT -5
I would think the omission would be justifiable due to the ever-changing nature of some of the chart records in question as the years progressed, and (or) the mistakes that were sometimes made.
|
|
|
|
Post by baylink on Jan 8, 2013 14:58:14 GMT -5
Well, errors, perhaps. But part of the *fun* is seeing what records were cited, and how they changed.
Perhaps in the second edition. :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by bestmusicexpert on Jan 8, 2013 16:51:47 GMT -5
It probably would have taken too much more time to do. I doubt Billboard could complain, its a music encyclopedia, I still dont see how they can publish a chart and then pregnant dog because people do countdowns based on them...
|
|
|
|
Post by at40petebattistini on Jan 11, 2013 6:37:43 GMT -5
baylink,
Sorry for the delay with my response.
When I first began compiling information for the 70s book (my information compilation actually started during the 80s with a list of specials and guest hosts), my hope was that one day the AT40 shows from the 70s would be broadcast again. I had faith that the "classic" AT40 programs could stand the test of time. The compiled information (stories, questions, chart info, etc.) was just a brief summary of what made each program unique -- just the highlights, as noted by Shadoe Fan.
With the questions, I didn't want to give away any answers because -- assuming the shows would hit the airwaves one more time -- having just the question might stimulate someone to tune in seeking that chart knowledge. And we are chart geeks, are we not?! I considered the chart questions (and stories, etc.) more as broadcasted music trivia -- Watermark had already obtained the right to utilize the material.
When I began the 80s book, the rebroadcasts were well underway and I decided to stay with the same program summary design.
|
|
|
|
Post by at40petebattistini on Jan 11, 2013 6:58:56 GMT -5
I should also point out that I worked with Premiere in obtaining overall permission to pursue both books.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jan 11, 2013 12:14:53 GMT -5
It probably would have taken too much more time to do. I doubt Billboard could complain, its a music encyclopedia, I still dont see how they can publish a chart and then pregnant dog because people do countdowns based on them... "Pregnant dog"...tee hee!  |
|
|
|
Post by baylink on Jan 12, 2013 20:45:44 GMT -5
Ah. got it.
Note to proboards: all female dogs are bitca's, not just the pregnant ones.
|
|
