Just for the record...The Lot

[QUOTE] [b]Stick wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]rocknrolllover wrote:[/b]

It's only poor excuse,GT.[/QUOTE]

You really are just a retarded russian homophobic troll aren't you?
Nothing, absolutely nothing about your presence on Queen sites could be appreciated by anyone who does not share your amount of frustration in life. It has to be a huge amount for you to come here every day and passionately take it out on others.

And worst of all, you don't seem to give a crap about any criticism coming your way, constructive or not. So many people are so fucking sick of you on Queenzone and Queenonline and you couldn't care less you psychopath.
Here's hoping for that one perfect lightning strike![/QUOTE]

Are you doctor Who? :-)
I haven't account in the place which you called Queenonline.
I'm not homophobic, I just hate Adam lambert an you know this differents things.

How on god's fucking earth do you think you can talk on behalf of purchasers and claim most are happy with it? Total bollocks - anyone that has actually listened to all the tracks, heard the poor tape transfers with speed issues and a track that cuts of abruptly won't be happy with it.

I have to agree with the consensus here - GT: I'm sorry you feel attacked, I'm very sorry that pieces of sh*t like rocknrolllover who go about flaming you haven't been banned yet, BUT I also find it improper and arrogant, not to say condescending to your customers and plain stupid from a business point of view, to respond to legitimate criticism of severe flaws in a product (flaws for which I, like most, do not hold you personally responsible) by going on an all-out defensive and saying what amounts to "people are buying it so bollocks to you". That I think is beneath you as a person, and unprofessional as a QPL employee.

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

I have to agree with the consensus here - GT: I'm sorry you feel attacked, I'm very sorry that pieces of sh*t like rocknrolllover who go about flaming you haven't been banned yet, BUT I also find it improper and arrogant, not to say condescending to your customers and plain stupid from a business point of view, to respond to legitimate criticism of severe flaws in a product (flaws for which I, like most, do not hold you personally responsible) by going on an all-out defensive and saying what amounts to "people are buying it so bollocks to you". That I think is beneath you as a person, and unprofessional as a QPL employee.[/QUOTE]

I'm not pieces of shit . I'm kind man.

I Posted this is the other thread, but thought it was an important point to make in this thread too:

GT might well be furious, but is unable to say that here, in case it puts his job at risk. With that in mind, he shouldn't have posted a response. Having said THAT, it must be hard to read negative comments and resist leaping to your own defence. GT's comment (the last line) was annoying to read, but he shouldn't have been put in that position. QPL should have set the record straight ages ago, but in staying silent, they effectively threw GT to the wolves. Has GT angered me? Yes, a little. But there is always more to every story than meets the eye, so ultimately GT's only fault is a hastily written post in response to frustrated fans. An official apology should be issued, along with a freshly produced set.

Thanks GT.

Can you please let us know who has written the erroneous and poorly worded resumes for each album on Roger's new website?

In addition, can you comment on the Blue Rock info that some say is copied directly from Discogs, errors 'n' all??

After you, Greg, Josh etc do all your hard work, can you tell us who then rakes responsibility for the remaining pieces of the set? (EG anonymous people in a marketing dept at Universal, or someone else directly in Roger's employ?)

Thanks

Oh, re' the Roger site, it's been built using Word Press. ie, on the cheap. Also a pity, because the holding page with "coming soon" on it, while basic, was really smart. I truly thought a great site was on the way.

[QUOTE] [b]GT wrote:[/b]

we did not proof read the
final version.
[/QUOTE]

Well that much I can't argue with - it is patently clear that no official Queen related product of the last several years has had the final version proof read or listened to!!

[QUOTE] [b]cmsdrums wrote:[/b]


After you, Greg, Josh etc do all your hard work, can you tell us who then rakes responsibility for the remaining pieces of the set? (EG anonymous people in a marketing dept at Universal, or someone else directly in Roger's employ?) [/QUOTE]

Universal had no part in putting the set together. The set was delivered to Universal for manufacture and distribution and it wasn't Universals place to go through everything with a fine tooth comb - that should have been done by Roger's team. Mastering and text errors are not errors on Universal's part. It seems likely that no one in Roger's team is going to take responsibility.

[QUOTE] [b]GT wrote:[/b]

Many people have been speculating here on QZ - as well as being personal and 
nasty again - about various things they think I did, or didn't do, or should
have done, with Greg, on the RT box set 'The Lot'.

(...)
We did the best possible job we could and despite what some people on here have said/think, most
people are pleased with the overall set.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for your explanation GT.
Someone did a bad job with this Box set, and i understand that you can´t say that in public, but you know this to be true.

I don´t have the box, but i could not ever be happy with the box if indeed some songs have issues that aren´t suppose to be there. Let me explain:

My favorite album of Roger is "Electric Fire". I absolute love this album and i´ve listened to it many times. I can spot any errors EASILY , and if it´s true that "Pressure on" has some backing vocals missing, it would ruin the experience for me. I rather not listening to it at all!

What i and others would like to know is if the errors are going to be replaced, or if team Roger Taylor are going to allow a second rate product to hit the shelves.

And to finish, i just want to point out to you the useless web site that was given to Roger Taylor. Someone is clearly taking the piss out of Roger Taylor, a man who stated many times that he doesn´t use the internet very often. Roger deserves better from the people he has on his team, and if people believe that a site like that is a good idea, then i say that it is time for a change. He deserves better, and his fans deserves better too.

So, i thank you for your explanation, but please discuss these topics and everything that´s been said in Queenzone about what´s wrong with the lot with your team and make every effort to fix it.

We care for Roger and Queen as much as you and GB, and in this case the internet (Queenonline and Queenzone) can be a good vehicle for you guys to know witch errors there are, so you can fix it and release the best product possible.

The Pressure On cock up, is, in a sense, a bit of a gem. It is an extended mix, two mins longer than the album version. Shame it is in the wrong place, but it's a nice "new" version I have not heard before :)

[QUOTE] [b]PEG wrote:[/b]

The Pressure On cock up, is, in a sense, a bit of a gem. It is an extended mix, two mins longer than the album version. Shame it is in the wrong place, but it's a nice "new" version I have not heard before :)[/QUOTE]

I was talking about the second voice that is missing in the beginning of the first verse of the song. You will never hear me complain about extra music on a Queen related release :-)

edit. Double post

^ As PEG rightly says, it's a misplaced gem.

I know what you mean, when I first heard it, I turned my head towards the speakers in the same way that Roger turned to look into the camera in the video for Calling All Girls :D