kohuept 24.07.2014 18:47 |
I just noticed The Lot is now available on iTunes in the US for $99. Has anyone tested it to see if it is the same as the corrected physical release (or maybe a more corrected-ed version)? |
Adam Unger (QueenVault.com) 24.07.2014 20:38 |
Wow, interesting. It's out through Hollywood Records too. This would be the first Roger solo release through them. |
inu-liger 25.07.2014 02:39 |
Really? Wow. |
people on streets 25.07.2014 16:00 |
$99 for a bunch of crappy mp3 files... Wow indeed. |
inu-liger 25.07.2014 16:19 |
That's a separate wow. My reaction was more geared towards a Roger Taylor solo product actually being released through Hollywood Records, which is the first time that's ever happened IIRC. |
Michael Allred 26.07.2014 02:03 |
Not that it counts for much as Roger still has no *physical* presence on CD in US stores. |
rocknrolllover 26.07.2014 02:44 |
people on streets wrote: $99 for a bunch of crappy mp3 files... Wow indeed.AAC, not mp3. |
BETA215 26.07.2014 14:34 |
rocknrolllover wrote:They don't distribute the music in ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec)?people on streets wrote: $99 for a bunch of crappy mp3 files... Wow indeed.AAC, not mp3. |
rocknrolllover 26.07.2014 15:30 |
BETA215 wrote:Through iTunes Store unfortunately NO.rocknrolllover wrote:They don't distribute the music in ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec)?people on streets wrote: $99 for a bunch of crappy mp3 files... Wow indeed.AAC, not mp3. |
GERRYISADICK 26.07.2014 15:43 |
Rocknrolllover i love you |
The King Of Rhye 26.07.2014 19:17 |
Amazon.com has it in mp3 form for $99.99......but only on cd as an import for more..... |
rocknrolllover 26.07.2014 23:38 |
Jefffab1995 wrote: Rocknrolllover i love youWhat you're smoking, troll? |
inu-liger 27.07.2014 03:18 |
rocknrolllover wrote:Certainly not what your country-backed rebels forced the MH17 victims to inhaleJefffab1995 wrote: Rocknrolllover i love youWhat you're smoking, troll? |
rocknrolllover 27.07.2014 03:48 |
inu-liger wrote:Bullshit.rocknrolllover wrote:Certainly not what your country-backed rebels forced the MH17 victims to inhaleJefffab1995 wrote: Rocknrolllover i love youWhat you're smoking, troll? |
cmsdrums 27.07.2014 04:43 |
I bought my boxset in the UK from Amazon (got the 'corrected' one). A couple if says ago I had an email from Amazon telling me that I could download another 'free' copy from their music store of the whole box set, minus the dvd (a bit late as I have already converted for my iPod!) Anyway, I downloaded it and to my annoyance I didn't get the two extra 'Fun On Earth' tracks; does anyone know if this is because they were exclusive to the physical CDs in the box? If they are offering me an exact digital copy of what I purchased I would argue that I should get them? |
Barry Durex 28.07.2014 09:04 |
cmsdrums wrote: I bought my boxset in the UK from Amazon (got the 'corrected' one). A couple if says ago I had an email from Amazon telling me that I could download another 'free' copy from their music store of the whole box set, minus the dvd (a bit late as I have already converted for my iPod!) Anyway, I downloaded it and to my annoyance I didn't get the two extra 'Fun On Earth' tracks; does anyone know if this is because they were exclusive to the physical CDs in the box? If they are offering me an exact digital copy of what I purchased I would argue that I should get them?Isn't this a bit of a new trick on Amazons part? My understanding is if you want to send back the order for some reason but have already downloaded the ''free'' mp3s that are now being offered, then they will deduct the normal cost of the mp3s from your refund. This is possibly in order to stop the return of ''sub-standard'' products. Or possibly I am just being cynical ; ) Either way I would be very wary of downloading free copies until I am fully satisfied the hard product is sound. Having said that, this does not really apply to ''The Lot'' of course. My advice to ipod users is to rip to apple lossless from the CDs and forget the free mp3s. |
Mr.QueenFan 28.07.2014 09:56 |
rocknrolllover wrote:Let's lighten up a bit here. The user Jefffab1995 is starting fights in every topic, but we don't have to follow through. As i see it, rocknrollover did nothing in this topic for people to start with this kind of attacks. Let's respect the original poster.inu-liger wrote:Bullshit.rocknrolllover wrote:Certainly not what your country-backed rebels forced the MH17 victims to inhaleJefffab1995 wrote: Rocknrolllover i love youWhat you're smoking, troll? And by the way, before it gets out of hand, let's try no to bring to Queenzone what Russia is doing in the world to attack rocknrollover. Not every Russian person is proud of that, and it only makes things worse. In lack of moderation, is up to us to be friendly to each other. |
The King Of Rhye 28.07.2014 10:20 |
Barry Durex wrote: Isn't this a bit of a new trick on Amazons part? My understanding is if you want to send back the order for some reason but have already downloaded the ''free'' mp3s that are now being offered, then they will deduct the normal cost of the mp3s from your refund. This is possibly in order to stop the return of ''sub-standard'' products. Or possibly I am just being cynical ; ) Either way I would be very wary of downloading free copies until I am fully satisfied the hard product is sound. Having said that, this does not really apply to ''The Lot'' of course. My advice to ipod users is to rip to apple lossless from the CDs and forget the free mp3s.Wow, I did not know that.......and I've did that a few times quite recently.....bought cds on amazon w the free mp3s........so if I returned the cd I'd basically get NO refund? (Looked up the CD I most recently got.....the mp3s cost $9.49 and the CD cost $7.98! So I'd owe amazon $1.51? lol) Guess it's a good thing I haven't had to return anything....... At least they seem to have good quality mp3s (244 kbs for the last cd I got) PS It does say exactly that in their "AutoRip Terms and Conditions"! link |
people on streets 29.07.2014 17:04 |
rocknrolllover wrote:same piece of lossy shit, different name.people on streets wrote: $99 for a bunch of crappy mp3 files... Wow indeed.AAC, not mp3. |
inu-liger 29.07.2014 20:33 |
Compressed Garbage = Do Not Want |
GERRYISADICK 29.07.2014 20:36 |
Also it has tracks from the cross so fuck that. |
people on streets 30.07.2014 19:15 |
Jefffab1995 wrote: Also it has tracks from the cross so fuck that.I've always liked the Blue Rock LP |
GERRYISADICK 30.07.2014 19:17 |
Sorry the cross lacked talent the only thing they had was rogers voice |
tero! 48531 31.07.2014 00:16 |
Jefffab1995 wrote: Sorry the cross lacked talent the only thing they had was rogers voiceFunny you should say that... You do realise that Roger wrote half of their material, and hand picked the members so he could be the star in at least one band! |
Apocalipsis_Darko 31.07.2014 07:20 |
The Cross first album is bad, but the other two? Fucking enjoyable hard rock fm records. |
GERRYISADICK 31.07.2014 07:26 |
Personal opinion |
tero! 48531 31.07.2014 12:40 |
The first Cross album sounds exactly like what it is: A vanity project of a drummer who isn't really a lead singer or a main songwriter of a band. On the subsequent albums the other members played a bigger part (literally!), and each album was an improvement on the previous. Personally I think their finest moment is Heartland. I also think it's entirely possible that Roger lost his interest in Cross when he realised he wouldn't be the star in that band either... |
people on streets 31.07.2014 22:55 |
This story has been told many time before: Roger was missing the touring life. Being on the road with a band. Queen quit touring. Roger wanted to tour. The Cross was born. Roger lost interest in the Cross when Freddie became really ill. Nothing to do with wanting to be a star in a band. Besides, Roger was always the most populair member among female Queen fans. |
tero! 48531 31.07.2014 23:48 |
The STORY has been told, but that doesn't make it the truth. He released solo albums before and after the Cross existed. He could have hired (the same?) musicians to tour with him if that's all he wanted. To me it's obvious that he wanted to be in a leading position in a rock 'n' roll band. A SUCCESSFUL band. Once he realised that wasn't going happen (because he wasn't really a star outside Queen, and the band wasn't good enough) he pulled the plug. |
tcc 01.08.2014 01:02 |
tero! 48531 wrote: The STORY has been told, but that doesn't make it the truth. He released solo albums before and after the Cross existed. He could have hired (the same?) musicians to tour with him if that's all he wanted. To me it's obvious that he wanted to be in a leading position in a rock 'n' roll band. A SUCCESSFUL band. Once he realised that wasn't going happen (because he wasn't really a star outside Queen, and the band wasn't good enough) he pulled the plug.I think Roger is a person with a lot of energy, He is also a sensible person and so his energy is constructive energy. If he is desirous of being a star, he could have taken over the singing for the band when Freddie passed away. I observed that when he sang the Queen songs, he adhered to the phrasing and note as per the studio albums. He did not assert his personality to indicate that it should have been sung this way or that way etc. I think he did the solo acts because the band was in a lull period and being an active person, he needed something to do to spend his energy. Organising the QE is an example of this. |
tero! 48531 01.08.2014 06:10 |
It's an undeniable fact that Shove It was recorded as Roger's 3rd solo album, and he only hired a group of musicians as an afterthought. It was a calculated move to create an artificial band, and it didn't achieve whatever Roger had set in his sights. Roger could never have been the star of a rock 'n' roll band, let alone as the successor of Freddie. He didn't (and doesn't) have the charisma, the singing ability, or the songwriting skills to pull it off. The Cross proved that once and for all, so there was no point in taking over as the leader of Queen. Don't get me wrong. I would love to see Roger on tour playing his solo material and The Cross material, but that still doesn't make him a star. It makes him an accomplished musician. |
Holly2003 01.08.2014 08:07 |
I would say he does have both the charisma and singing ability, but I agree about his songwriting skills. He is often good and occasionally excellent (Drowse, Rock It) but not consistently excellent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- tero! 48531 wrote: It's an undeniable fact that Shove It was recorded as Roger's 3rd solo album, and he only hired a group of musicians as an afterthought. It was a calculated move to create an artificial band, and it didn't achieve whatever Roger had set in his sights. Roger could never have been the star of a rock 'n' roll band, let alone as the successor of Freddie. He didn't (and doesn't) have the charisma, the singing ability, or the songwriting skills to pull it off. The Cross proved that once and for all, so there was no point in taking over as the leader of Queen. Don't get me wrong. I would love to see Roger on tour playing his solo material and The Cross material, but that still doesn't make him a star. It makes him an accomplished musician. |
tero! 48531 01.08.2014 10:18 |
Holly2003 wrote: I would say he does have both the charisma and singing ability, but I agree about his songwriting skills. He is often good and occasionally excellent (Drowse, Rock It) but not consistently excellent.We all would like to think that Queen had numerous stars, but is that actually true? When I was a teenager I used to claim that Roger and Brian were also "stars", but that just isn't true when you look at it objectively. Sure, Freddie needed the others to shine, but he was the only one out of the group who actually DID shine and stand out. |
Apocalipsis_Darko 01.08.2014 11:08 |
I think he has the voice, but not the charisma of a frontman. The Cross comeback concert was just ok... I love Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Know, also Blue Rock. I think is the best records Roger did, with his first single. |
Holly2003 01.08.2014 11:17 |
So ... a 6 foot 4 inch, afro haired, clog-wearing axeman who built his own guitar and is also an astro-physicist ... you don't think he stands out? I'd love to see your neighbourhood! :) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- tero! 48531 wrote:Holly2003 wrote: I would say he does have both the charisma and singing ability, but I agree about his songwriting skills. He is often good and occasionally excellent (Drowse, Rock It) but not consistently excellent.We all would like to think that Queen had numerous stars, but is that actually true? When I was a teenager I used to claim that Roger and Brian were also "stars", but that just isn't true when you look at it objectively. Sure, Freddie needed the others to shine, but he was the only one out of the group who actually DID shine and stand out. |
tero! 48531 01.08.2014 14:56 |
Holly2003 wrote: So ... a 6 foot 4 inch, afro haired, clog-wearing axeman who built his own guitar and is also an astro-physicist ... you don't think he stands out? I'd love to see your neighbourhood! :)He stands out, but not as the leader or a singer of a band, or even as a particularily charismatic rock star. It's like saying that a bright yellow ford transporter is the star of a motor show because it stands out from the other cars... :P It does its own job very well, but it isn't what the crowd is waiting to see. It doesn't have the excitement, the drive, or the sex appeal of the more interesting models. |