[78-L] ARSC Awards 2011: Finalists - rules for inclusion

[Michael Biel]

On 4/28/2011 7:59 PM, Steve Ramm wrote:
>
> Cary's on the committe so he might know better but I think it may be because the book is an UPDATE and REVISED version of earlier research and I thought that awards could only be given for completely new works.

Peter Fulop's "Mahler Discography" is on the list, and I assume it is a 
revised update of his 1995 edition -- with the same title -- which I 
have in front of me.


>
> The Title of the book is" The Collector's Guide to Victor Records (2nd Edition)
>
> And I don't ever remember aa finalist being a (2nd or revised edition).

I think the photographs are close to 100% different, as is probably 80% 
of the written words.  If they had used a different title -- like Mike 
did when the previous edition replaced "The Paper Dog" -- would that 
have made any difference at all???

>
> I certainly think that - if eligible - Kurt and Mike would have sent a copy to the judges.
>
> Steve
>
>

I would think so too, unless a high percentage of the committee had 
already bought copies and they might not have known that free copies 
were also required.  Is this requirement spelled out?

Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com

>
>>> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 01:57:29 -0400
>>> From: mbiel at mbiel.com
>>>
>>> Did I miss something or did Sherman's Collectors Guide to Victor Records
>>> not make the cut?
>>>
>>> Mike Biel mbiel at mbiel.com
>>>