QueenZone discussion #1391072

people on streets wrote: $99 for a bunch of crappy mp3 files... Wow indeed.

rocknrolllover wrote:

people on streets wrote: $99 for a bunch of crappy mp3 files... Wow indeed.

AAC, not mp3.

BETA215 wrote:

rocknrolllover wrote:

people on streets wrote: $99 for a bunch of crappy mp3 files... Wow indeed.

AAC, not mp3.

They don't distribute the music in ALAC (Apple Lossless Audio Codec)?

Jefffab1995 wrote: Rocknrolllover i love you

rocknrolllover wrote:

Jefffab1995 wrote: Rocknrolllover i love you

What you're smoking, troll?

inu-liger wrote:

rocknrolllover wrote:

Jefffab1995 wrote: Rocknrolllover i love you

What you're smoking, troll?

Certainly not what your country-backed rebels forced the MH17 victims to inhale

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?

rocknrolllover wrote:

inu-liger wrote:

rocknrolllover wrote:

Jefffab1995 wrote: Rocknrolllover i love you

What you're smoking, troll?

Certainly not what your country-backed rebels forced the MH17 victims to inhale

Bullshit.

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.

rocknrolllover wrote:

people on streets wrote: $99 for a bunch of crappy mp3 files... Wow indeed.

AAC, not mp3.

Jefffab1995 wrote: Also it has tracks from the cross so fuck that.

Jefffab1995 wrote: Sorry the cross lacked talent the only thing they had was rogers voice

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 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.

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.

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.

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! :)