[QUOTE]
[b]pittrek wrote: [/b]
Did somebody buy it ? I'm curious to see some "customer review"
[/QUOTE]
According to someone on QOL, the box features just the 13 CDs and sleeves. No booklet or anything. Pretty much bare bones. Evidently the songs have been remastered, but others have said they sound either the same or worse.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
Lester,
Shock me.......
Perhaps they'll defend the sound quality by saying that the music was transfered directly from original 7" pressings in order to maintain that truly authentic single sound / mix...........
Bwa ha ha!
Shock me.......
Perhaps they'll defend the sound quality by saying that the music was transfered directly from original 7" pressings in order to maintain that truly authentic single sound / mix...........
Bwa ha ha!
NO BOOKLET?! But that was like one of THE saving graces of this set. What's the point of not getting the info behind the releases, just the remastered releases themselves? Now I can't see the point in looking at this at all. Weird...
Adam.
Adam.
'Remastered? Again?
Just how much more sound quality can you squeeze out of a bog standard CD?
SACD, DVD-A, Blu Ray Audio....'Now That's What I Call Remastered...71'
Just how much more sound quality can you squeeze out of a bog standard CD?
SACD, DVD-A, Blu Ray Audio....'Now That's What I Call Remastered...71'
[QUOTE]
[b]Adam Baboolal wrote: [/b]
NO BOOKLET?! But that was like one of THE saving graces of this set. What's the point of not getting the info behind the releases, just the remastered releases themselves? Now I can't see the point in looking at this at all. Weird...
Adam.
[/QUOTE]
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not...
[b]Adam Baboolal wrote: [/b]
NO BOOKLET?! But that was like one of THE saving graces of this set. What's the point of not getting the info behind the releases, just the remastered releases themselves? Now I can't see the point in looking at this at all. Weird...
Adam.
[/QUOTE]
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not...
Has anyone else perceived a sense of desperation in the marketing of this?
I reckon I've had about a dozen emails from QPL telling me about this by now, and although I have neither kept them or read them too thoroughly, I didn't note any particular changes in content.
Or maybe I'm reading into it something that suits my agenda. I don't know - anyone else have a view?
I reckon I've had about a dozen emails from QPL telling me about this by now, and although I have neither kept them or read them too thoroughly, I didn't note any particular changes in content.
Or maybe I'm reading into it something that suits my agenda. I don't know - anyone else have a view?
[b]Adam Baboolal wrote: [/b]
P_guru, it's not £3 for each cd though because there's the packaging that's been recreated AND a booklet to go along with it all. So, it's not as simple as the cd's costs. That's why I think it's generally worth it.
Adam.
[/QUOTE]
Still think that?
P_guru, it's not £3 for each cd though because there's the packaging that's been recreated AND a booklet to go along with it all. So, it's not as simple as the cd's costs. That's why I think it's generally worth it.
Adam.
[/QUOTE]
Still think that?
[QUOTE]
[b]Penetration_Guru wrote: [/b]
[b]Adam Baboolal wrote: [/b]
P_guru, it's not £3 for each cd though because there's the packaging that's been recreated AND a booklet to go along with it all. So, it's not as simple as the cd's costs. That's why I think it's generally worth it.
Adam.
[/QUOTE]
Still think that?
Touche salesman..! Seriously though, weren't we told that the collection box would come with a detailed booklet? And yeah, I was being serious.
I wasn't really gonna buy it, but I was interested in the singles booklet for information. And from what Lester says, it's just the cd's and nothing else...I don't get that.
Adam.
[b]Penetration_Guru wrote: [/b]
[b]Adam Baboolal wrote: [/b]
P_guru, it's not £3 for each cd though because there's the packaging that's been recreated AND a booklet to go along with it all. So, it's not as simple as the cd's costs. That's why I think it's generally worth it.
Adam.
[/QUOTE]
Still think that?
Touche salesman..! Seriously though, weren't we told that the collection box would come with a detailed booklet? And yeah, I was being serious.
I wasn't really gonna buy it, but I was interested in the singles booklet for information. And from what Lester says, it's just the cd's and nothing else...I don't get that.
Adam.
Being a long time Queen fan, today was my first encounter with the new Queen Box.
I was in a huge local music store here in Cologne, Germany, where there is a nice decorated desk at the entrance:
Among those newies are: the Queen Box, ZZ Top DVD, Genesis DVD and Bruce Springsteen 2DVD+1CD.
Not only that the Queen Box had the highest price of all, it somehow looks poor, sorry.
I checked the Bruce Springsteen 2DVD+1CD ( half the price of the Queen Box), and what do I read:
Bruce Springsteen at the [b]Hammersmith Odeon 1975[/b]!! Unreleased.
You know what I bought?
Not the Queen Box, containing material, i have 3 times more or less on various previous releases. I don´t need the same things over and over again.
[b]Hammersmith Odeon 1975[/b]
Okay, I take the Springsteen Boxset for 22 Euro, instead of the Queen Box, 39 Euro.
Wanted to see them perform this Queen location, and I was curious about the picture quality.....
And this is my result:
Nice show from Bruce, if you like him, but....
pictures are medium, sound okay.
But compared to the Hammi Boots we all have
[b]QUEEN Hammersmith 1975 DVD would be a blast from the past, [/b]but not this poor little Box.
I was in a huge local music store here in Cologne, Germany, where there is a nice decorated desk at the entrance:
Among those newies are: the Queen Box, ZZ Top DVD, Genesis DVD and Bruce Springsteen 2DVD+1CD.
Not only that the Queen Box had the highest price of all, it somehow looks poor, sorry.
I checked the Bruce Springsteen 2DVD+1CD ( half the price of the Queen Box), and what do I read:
Bruce Springsteen at the [b]Hammersmith Odeon 1975[/b]!! Unreleased.
You know what I bought?
Not the Queen Box, containing material, i have 3 times more or less on various previous releases. I don´t need the same things over and over again.
[b]Hammersmith Odeon 1975[/b]
Okay, I take the Springsteen Boxset for 22 Euro, instead of the Queen Box, 39 Euro.
Wanted to see them perform this Queen location, and I was curious about the picture quality.....
And this is my result:
Nice show from Bruce, if you like him, but....
pictures are medium, sound okay.
But compared to the Hammi Boots we all have
[b]QUEEN Hammersmith 1975 DVD would be a blast from the past, [/b]but not this poor little Box.
There's definitely no improvement in sound quality. "Digital remastering" doesn't automatically equal improvement, and a lot of these versions sound duller than before.
Just looking at the wave form for See What A Fool I've Been and notice that the right channel has gone through a digital hard limiter, whereas the left channel hasn't.... is this how previous versions have been?
Just looking at the wave form for See What A Fool I've Been and notice that the right channel has gone through a digital hard limiter, whereas the left channel hasn't.... is this how previous versions have been?
frank39 -- excellent point about the other box sets -- I'm looking at my *Chrome, Smoke, & BBQ* box set from ZZ Top. Keep in mind the little ol' band from Tejas actually does not have an album only of live tunes. Disc 1, 20 tracks, including pre-ZZ Top stuff when Jimi Hendrix was saying Billy Gibbons was going to become a rock legend. Box Set 1 from Queen -- we could even incl Crown Jewels I guess -- no Ibex, no Wreckage, no Smile, etc. Disc 2 ZZ Top -- 24 tracks. Disc 3 -- 20 tracks. Disc 4, 16 tracks, but some of these are mostly unnecessary dance mixes, although one song is a spanish-language version of a popular track. Thus, you have the background, development, and legend of the band in one convenient Clarksdale rib shack. Somehow it's bigger inside than it looks from the outside.
Booklets? Not zero, not one, but TWO (technically three). The "Menu" book includes rare photos, interviews with all band members about the meaning or development of each song released as a single, and other bits of rock history about the growth of chin warmers. The "Flipbook" contains photo stills from one of the 80s videos with the fuzzy white guitars, and if you flip the pages, just like on TV, the guitars spin around. And, if you turn the flipbook upside down, and flip the pages from back to front, you see Tres Hombres acting out another scene.
Some folks might call the "Flipbook" gimmicky or silly, I'd say it's just fun and different, something extra I didn't expect-- but compared to Queen's box set numero uno, ZZ Top's offering is a literary masterwork. Like Jim Beach is comparing JK Rowling to Dostoyevsky and expecting fans to fall over one another to get inside the store. There is NO MAGIC in Queen Box Set 1. Again, ZZ Top is a band that the label has not yet released a proper 'live album,' but the box set contains several live tracks to whet the appetite. ZZ Top played to crowds of 80,000 in 1973 -- and QSC #1 is the best Queen can do? Embarrasing. I love Queen's music, but I'm just not stepford enough to hold back this time.
Booklets? Not zero, not one, but TWO (technically three). The "Menu" book includes rare photos, interviews with all band members about the meaning or development of each song released as a single, and other bits of rock history about the growth of chin warmers. The "Flipbook" contains photo stills from one of the 80s videos with the fuzzy white guitars, and if you flip the pages, just like on TV, the guitars spin around. And, if you turn the flipbook upside down, and flip the pages from back to front, you see Tres Hombres acting out another scene.
Some folks might call the "Flipbook" gimmicky or silly, I'd say it's just fun and different, something extra I didn't expect-- but compared to Queen's box set numero uno, ZZ Top's offering is a literary masterwork. Like Jim Beach is comparing JK Rowling to Dostoyevsky and expecting fans to fall over one another to get inside the store. There is NO MAGIC in Queen Box Set 1. Again, ZZ Top is a band that the label has not yet released a proper 'live album,' but the box set contains several live tracks to whet the appetite. ZZ Top played to crowds of 80,000 in 1973 -- and QSC #1 is the best Queen can do? Embarrasing. I love Queen's music, but I'm just not stepford enough to hold back this time.
Perhaps, in these economically challenging times, QPL decided not to fork out for the printing of the booklet which was slated to appear with the set, meanig that they could still hit the same price point which included the cost for it.
Genius, Jim Beach. Utter, unimaginable GENIUS!
Wonder when we'll have Greggy boy popping up here again with a fluffy explanation?
Wonder whether we'll really see volumes 2, 3 & 4? Hope not. Polydor saw sense in not issuing volume 2 of The Who's set.......but pushed hard for the eventual release of the Kilburn '78 / Coliseum '69 DVD instead, God love 'em!
Genius, Jim Beach. Utter, unimaginable GENIUS!
Wonder when we'll have Greggy boy popping up here again with a fluffy explanation?
Wonder whether we'll really see volumes 2, 3 & 4? Hope not. Polydor saw sense in not issuing volume 2 of The Who's set.......but pushed hard for the eventual release of the Kilburn '78 / Coliseum '69 DVD instead, God love 'em!
[QUOTE]
[b]Benn wrote: [/b]
Wonder whether we'll really see volumes 2, 3 & 4? Hope not. Polydor saw sense in not issuing volume 2 of The Who's set.......but pushed hard for the eventual release of the Kilburn '78 / Coliseum '69 DVD instead, God love 'em![/QUOTE]
Oh I'm sure we're going to get volumes 2, 3, and 4, then a "collector's edition" box of all four box sets (spread over 52 discs), then a "highlights" box, then...
See, Polydor and The Who's management actually give the fans what they want. Kilburn '77 is notorious for being one of their worst gigs, and Coliseum '69 is grainy footage and incomplete ... but it's still a hell of a package. Same could be said of Tommy '89 and Quadrophenia '96. EXCELLENT package.
Instead, we're probably going to get Live In Rio, Live In Budapest, and then the re-re-release of Wembley because an extra 3.5 seconds of footage was found.
Someone over on QOL said that Greg said that QPL feels that any "non-mustache" show isn't marketable. How ridiculous is that? Just goes to show how clueless and money-driven QPL is.
[b]Benn wrote: [/b]
Wonder whether we'll really see volumes 2, 3 & 4? Hope not. Polydor saw sense in not issuing volume 2 of The Who's set.......but pushed hard for the eventual release of the Kilburn '78 / Coliseum '69 DVD instead, God love 'em![/QUOTE]
Oh I'm sure we're going to get volumes 2, 3, and 4, then a "collector's edition" box of all four box sets (spread over 52 discs), then a "highlights" box, then...
See, Polydor and The Who's management actually give the fans what they want. Kilburn '77 is notorious for being one of their worst gigs, and Coliseum '69 is grainy footage and incomplete ... but it's still a hell of a package. Same could be said of Tommy '89 and Quadrophenia '96. EXCELLENT package.
Instead, we're probably going to get Live In Rio, Live In Budapest, and then the re-re-release of Wembley because an extra 3.5 seconds of footage was found.
Someone over on QOL said that Greg said that QPL feels that any "non-mustache" show isn't marketable. How ridiculous is that? Just goes to show how clueless and money-driven QPL is.
Hi Lester,
So, to take the QPL "comment" a stage further, are they suggesting that any "non-moustache" album isn't marketable as well? Doubt it. You'd "think" that, given the popularity and visibility of the Bo Rhap video *worldwide*, there would be plenty of marketability for mid-late 70s shows, wouldn't you?
QOL's as much a disgrace as QPL in many ways, but I suppose you can't really expect anything more, can you after all these years? After all, what do we REALLY expect?
Regarding The Who's Kilburn show, where you say it was touted as one of their worst, along with the Woodstock show, this was more to do with Pete and or Roger hating what happened either at the show or events immediately before or after that had THEM telling everyone how bad it was. The Kilburn show's performance is actually pretty good for a band that hadn't played together for a while - it was just Keith not being 100% (he's actually at about 70% which is other drumer's 100%!) and then dying. Woodstock, as we all know (and when it finally arrives next year), was an absolutel BELTER of a performance, it's just that Pete hated what the Woodstock festival became as opposed to what it should have been.
Having said all that, it's taken them long enough...... :-) Now for the SERIOUS lobbying of Trinifold / Polydor!
So, to take the QPL "comment" a stage further, are they suggesting that any "non-moustache" album isn't marketable as well? Doubt it. You'd "think" that, given the popularity and visibility of the Bo Rhap video *worldwide*, there would be plenty of marketability for mid-late 70s shows, wouldn't you?
QOL's as much a disgrace as QPL in many ways, but I suppose you can't really expect anything more, can you after all these years? After all, what do we REALLY expect?
Regarding The Who's Kilburn show, where you say it was touted as one of their worst, along with the Woodstock show, this was more to do with Pete and or Roger hating what happened either at the show or events immediately before or after that had THEM telling everyone how bad it was. The Kilburn show's performance is actually pretty good for a band that hadn't played together for a while - it was just Keith not being 100% (he's actually at about 70% which is other drumer's 100%!) and then dying. Woodstock, as we all know (and when it finally arrives next year), was an absolutel BELTER of a performance, it's just that Pete hated what the Woodstock festival became as opposed to what it should have been.
Having said all that, it's taken them long enough...... :-) Now for the SERIOUS lobbying of Trinifold / Polydor!