what the hell is happening with john deacon?

[QUOTE] [b]whynot wrote:[/b]
That's what Brian and Roger also should have done, retire from music, instead of performing under the name of " Queen" .
[/QUOTE]
i can't believe i am reading such drivel

stop and think about it....

a company (and Queen were a PLC/limnited company - since 1978) does not cease trading because a major shareholder dies or retires.... companies OFTEN outlive their original shareholders. As it happens "Queen Ltd" still has two shareholders engaged in the day-to-day business and one sleeping partner (john)still taking his shareholder's dividends annually.

now, on the other hand if you'd said "they shoulda stopped because there's no quality control, and most of what they produce these days is substandard"....well i'd still disagree with the principle but, agree with your reasoning

[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]whynot wrote:[/b]
That's what Brian and Roger also should have done, retire from music, instead of performing under the name of " Queen" .
[/QUOTE]
i can't believe i am reading such drivel
stop and think about it....
a company (and Queen were a PLC/limnited company - since 1978) does not cease trading because a major shareholder dies or retires.... companies OFTEN outlive their original shareholders. As it happens "Queen Ltd" still has two shareholders engaged in the day-to-day business and one sleeping partner (john)still taking his shareholder's dividends annually.
now, on the other hand if you'd said "they shoulda stopped because there's no quality control, and most of what they produce these days is substandard"....well i'd still disagree with the principle but, agree with your reasoning[/QUOTE]

I'd say it's equally sad when your argument for Brian and Roger continuing as Queen is based on the fact that they are shareholders of a legal company.
Using that same logic, it would be perfectly acceptable to sell the company to Bill Gates and let him perform as Queen, because it's up to the shareholders to decide who is in the band... I can't even imagine where the company ends up once all the original members are dead.

In my opinion the 20 years of recording career with the same exact line-up pretty much says who the band consist of, but it seems that just about everybody (including Brian and Roger) disagree.

Probably getting a prostate exam.

;)


Nah. I'm sure he's involved in life's contentment. Mr family man. That's a fulltime pursuit...and having the $$ to go out and live it, must be very enjoyable to him. Wish him well.
I can guesstimate that he wouldn't attend a "stormtroopers in stilletos" function unless it was a RARE Q+A that focused on the bands career WITH FREDDIE... And that all questions were screened for anything reflective of his opinion on "Queen" after death..

He probably felt it was the right thing to do (stay home)...and probably showed up on a private tour if anything

Anyways, John...I'd love to have one of your basses. They ARE kinda just collecting dust n all. ;)

Bites the dust...

Queen Productions is a Limited Company not a PLC.

Brian and Roger can do as they wish,if we don't like it,its tuff.Deacy is missed for sure but it was his choice and we have to respect that.

If they perform with another singer it would be mote accurate to call themselves Smile. They were 2 thirds of that band, only 1 half of Queen.

"And continuing Queen wasn't right in his eyes."

Does anyone have proof that John Deacon feels/felt this way? I mean, other than his single comment on record about the Queen + Robbie Williams WATC remake, I've never heard anything from Deacon about anything--musical, QPR, reissues, anything--about the last two decades of all things Queen.

What I think has happened here in these fora/forums is that John Deacon becomes a convenient and effective person to invoke when someone doesn't favor anything Brian and/or Roger is doing. He's like a shapeshifter anyone here can turn into anything else for their own rhetorical purposes. No one can divine what John Deacon thinks, period.

John Deacon would have wanted it that way.

I think John sould have said some things over the years. Its like creating an electric love affair and then steping away and disappear, leaving the other half (in our case, the funs) in question. John Deacon always took his distances from the Queen interaction.However a true gentleman would have made somekind of precense, even in a subtle, low profile manner. To withdraw in accute silence somehow dosen't honor the special relationsip these four people managed to gain with the world.

After thinking about this for a while, I've come up with a new theory for the longevity of the Queen line-up and John's subsequent retirement...


My theory is that John wanted to leave long before Freddie died, but their business arrangement made it impractical.
John quitting and leaving his replacement to be nothing more than a hired hand along with three high-paid executives would have ended the band in arguments within a year.

He stuck out because of his sense of loyalty (especially towards Freddie) or maybe he was even coerced into it by the other members, but now that he has no reason to be in the band, he doesn't want to have anything to do with it.

Hmmm... I guess its a possibility but I think John is headstrong enough to quit if thats what he wanted at any stage of Queen.

this has never been suggested before - suppose it almost heretical to pose the idea...but

i think that "tero" has half a point here...it wasn't down to the business arrangement....i think he hung in there out of respect to Freddie....

consider the obvious facts: his song-writing credits (or co-credits) over that few years

akom: 3 songs
miracle: 4 songs
innuendo: 1 song

he was possibly ready to go before innuendo

A nice theory except ... doesn't it say in the Days of our Lives documentary that John was really bored and at a loose end between the later Queen albums and he was always keen to get back into the studio. There's no need for wild speculation: John took Fred's death very badly and basically called time on his musical career. There is a suggestion that he and Roger had a bit of a fall out with Brian about Made in Heaven and I think he had just about had enough by that point. One more collaboration for No one But You and that was it. No big secret, just a gradual realisation that it was time for him to move out of the limelight.

Suck it.

Regards,

John

[QUOTE] [b]Really John Deacon wrote:[/b]
Suck it.
Regards,
John[/QUOTE]

Haha.

That would make a great photo-op for John.

I can just imagine that... "NEW JOHN DEACON PHOTO EMERGES!!!"


(Captioned Photo of john in a black Leather jacket...white hair, a white top with the phrase "SUCK IT" encircled in red)

Caption: "Will John Deacon return for Queen + Adam Lambert??"

[QUOTE] [b]Holly2003 wrote:[/b]
A nice theory except ... doesn't it say in the Days of our Lives documentary that John was really bored and at a loose end between the later Queen albums and he was always keen to get back into the studio. [/QUOTE]

That's kind of the point, though.

Sometime around the Hot Space album he'd be just sitting at home waiting for the other guys to decide when it's time to get back together to work as Queen.

Imagine staying at home with your kids for a year (or two), and suddenly getting that call... "Hey, we need you to come join us for six months." As much as you miss being in the studio, you've just gotten used to your normal life during that break.

I imagine that ever since the GH album Queen was little more than a contractual obligation for him, and he was glad to get out of the waiting. MIH was different because a) it was a tribute to Freddie, and b) they could take a break anytime they wanted to. Once that was finished, so was all the obligations John had ever had for the band.