The Lot - In the USA

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"!

https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201420350

rocknrolllover wrote:

people on streets wrote:

$99 for a bunch of crappy mp3 files... Wow indeed.

AAC, not mp3.

same piece of lossy shit, different name.

Compressed Garbage = Do Not Want

Also it has tracks from the cross so fuck that.

Jefffab1995 wrote:

Also it has tracks from the cross so fuck that.

I've always liked the Blue Rock LP

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

Jefffab1995 wrote:

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

Funny 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!

The Cross first album is bad, but the other two? Fucking enjoyable hard rock fm records.

Personal opinion

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...

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.

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.

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.