I'm trying to take a stab at it. If you have suggestions for formatting the table, tracking the sources, etc. let me know.
It's not as easy as it sounds. Here is the first few paragraphs from the 1970 book. I tried to figure out where the corresponding discussion was in your transcript and put both side by side. As you will see, the 1970 book jumps around compared to yours. But to answer your original question, the only thing that really jumps out at me so far is the reference to the Grand Ol' Opery [sic] and Flatt and Scruggs.
Otherwise, yours appears to always be the "unabridged" version, which is why it should be the master, I agree.
Side note: from what I can tell, there is no closed caption for the PJ film, only subtitles.
Mark
Pink Pajamas wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:21 pm I think the document I posted will have everything.
I think it should be the master.
What I am most interested in is someone comparing the transcription in the 1970 get back book to my document.
Can someone please do this ?
this will be in not-so-distant future, but I am mulling over the approach to the task now. So far, my idea is: a MS Word file presented as a Table. Chunks of text which can be easily identified go into the main column of Table. Rows of Table are to be made in process; they are only important in the final editing. Bits from different sources are identified by text color. Anything which requires the utmost attention is to be presented in, say, pink color. Other columns in Table are intended for: 1) notes; 2) notable variations which may exist in some cases. IMO it'd be good if something like this would be attempted here. If all chunks of (what is presumably the complete text to the best of compiler's knowledge) text are in different colors, the comparison with sources should be made just once for the easily understandable bits, though naturally more with the hard bits. 
