what the hell is happening with john deacon?

[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]

They're free to do what they want, just as I am free to say that they are whiny old men looking for a quick buck. However, to follow your argument, if they regard Queen, their band, in which they invested 30+ years of effort and creativity, as first and foremost a company, a business enterprise, then it would be better if they were to go into quiet retirement, because that is just too cynical for words.

First, let me preface this by saying it's not that I think Queen can do no wrong. They're as fallible as any of us. However, it's probably wise to maintain some perspective. Queen has to both be a functioning band AND a business. It was true during the days of the classic line up and it's true now. The business is there to protect the band and its work, and also to make money. The money pays for mansions and things, but it also pays staff and lawyers who work them. We gave them some of the money, yes, but they also invested and reap the benefits of those investments. I think what makes them different from, say, the inventor of Post-It Notes, who I assume is also rich now, is that what Queen create is art and we don't like thinking of art as something to be bought and sold. We want art and the artist to remain aloof of such base desires as money, as if he or she should have enough to be comfortable and that's it. We see the rich rock star and part of us resents it, especially when they stop doing what we like (releasing new albums, unreleased material and collaborating with "real" artists) and are still making money. That's when we complain that we're being taken advantage of, but after all this this time and loyalty, all WE get are re-issues, hits collections or nothing at all.

Here's the problem with these lines of reasoning, in my opinion, it fails to acknowledge that a) not every release is directed at seasoned fans like us; and b) it paints the fans in an unflattering light of "What have you done for me lately?" Again, I'm neither defending nor condemning any release or project since Freddie's death, nor am I saying everything Queen and QPL do is gold. This isn't so-called Stepford Fandom speaking. I'm just looking at the big picture and am seeing that context is required to understand the difference between the artistic output and the business decisions.

The Musical, The Extravaganza, American Idol, Hits collections and TV ads using Queen music are all mainly business, to expose the music they made to new fans. It's making use of different media to get their music out there. Is that selling out? No. They've always been selling their music and we've always been buying it. We resent it, I think, because we don't like these methods, where we previously had no problem with tours, singles, albums and videos, because that was the band itself coming directly to us. Has something been lost in using TV shows as a means to an end? Only if you think the end doesn't justify the means. Do they need more money? I don't know. Do we want to given them money for things we don't like? Heck no. Does that mean they should limit the outlets they use to only what worked previously? If they do so, they risk disappearing in the ever-growing pool of popular music. To quote Todd In The Shadows, "Glee is this generation's MTV." More people watch Idol and Glee than MTV. MTV isn't the go-to source for music it once was. Nor is radio, the traditional outlet for hit singles. With satellite and internet radio so specialized, people find their niche music and aren't exposed to as much variety. But even as many here don't care for Idol, its ratings and success demonstrate it to be a vehicle for a ton of young viewers to see and hear what they might otherwise not be exposed to. Again, is it selling out or adapting to the times? I don't know. I'm already a fan and can be selective about what I buy.

The ultimate question, then, is are these projects and appearances "any good?" They're good for getting Queen "out there". They don't add to our collections. The Extravaganza is part pet-project, something Roger wanted to do and went ahead and did. I don't feel put out by it because I don't really care. If it gets new fans in on Queen, great. If he makes money on it, fair enough. It's his investment. Same with the Musical. I can tell you that mega-musical theatre is not cheap to produce, so I doubt they made a killing on it and any money they made past recouping the initial investment has probably only been in the last few years.

Have I covered every point of contention? Lord no. They, like every band and artist, will do something the fanbase rejects. All I'm trying to say is that with often over-simplified complaints, like "They just want our money!" or "There's no boxed set, so they don't appreciate us anymore," it's easy for resentment to build momentum. No one is saying you must love everything Queen does now and say nary a word against them. This is just a little perspective on the situation.

I don't have all the answers, this is just how I see it. If I don't like it, I don't buy it, but I try to see if it was meant for me at all and why it was released.

Great post rhyeking, totally agree.

Who cares what JD is doing. The man is retired. Good for him! Would've done the same if I was him.

@rhyeking +1

During my days in the 90s when I used to speak with Jacky from the fanclub a lot (which was still a fully functioning and accepted institution) and a lot of other people around, it was always common sense that John is too shy to reappear on scene.

It was said that he'd still play the bass for himself and he was also helping one of his sons with his band at the time. Once he'd agreed to appear at one of his concerts to push the attendance and public response, but got so frightened that he ran away shortly before and was missing for several hours (or longer).
When questioned afterwards why he had been ok with tens of thousands visitors at a Queen concert and got stagefright with a crowd of 150, he answered that he'd always felt that everybody only watched Freddie on stage, that he could kinda "disappear" behind his huge stage presence. Now, without Freddie, he felt that all the attention and eyes would be on him and that made him feel more "exposed" than before.

It is also known that there were huge difficulties in the band in the 80s and that they almost split up after their last tour.
This, plus the fact that Queen came to a halt after Freddie's death, lead to John's decision to retire early and concentrate on the family.
You don't make 6 children if you're not a devoted dad and have the possibility to care for them. Just think of it: SIX CHILDREN!!! Do you guys really think he's laying on the couch all day?!? This is a 24/7 job, even with two parents at home!

I think he made a very thoughtful decision about what he wanted and stayed with it no matter what. I think he's happy with his life and this is everything one can hope for!

I glad Brian and Roger didn't retire. It would be a shame to lock away those skills forever. From what I've heard from bits of interviews from John he wanted to retire. Some do and some don't.

John just left the whole thing and it was the best thing to do,I did appreciate him even more for his attitude,the Queen ended in 24/11/1991,all the other stuff is just stupid

RIP John Deacon. Who could've known that snowmobile riding would be so dangerous

I know John appeared with Queen in 1997 with Elton John and the "No One But You" single? But why? Why do that but not show up to the HOF induction or any recent anniversary stuff? I mean, I get it if he doesn't want to record and tour, but it just seems odd that he hasn't participated in the celebrations of the legacy he helped build? As a Queen fan, it'd be nice to see him pop up every once in a while...

[QUOTE] [b]madprofessorus wrote:[/b]
the Queen ended in 24/11/1991,all the other stuff is just stupid[/QUOTE]
????

No.

Just...no.

Did you even attempt to read RhyeKing's very good and well thought-out post? If you had, you would be rethinking your oversimplified statement there. Plus, beyond that, Made in Heaven and No-One But You are awesome. Don't dismiss them as "stupid."

@waunakonor: of course I read rhyeking's post, I usually read all answers on a post before I write,no need to get crazy , we just see things different.ok no one but you was a nice farewell song and made in heaven had the last tunes Freddie recorded which I do like , beyond them, the collaboration with Paul was a good rock album with some queen music elements,for me it should never be released under Queen name in Any terms, they could call it something else. All the other things and collaborations they are useless for me, Brian and Roger could continue their solo efforts, they had the whole fan base to support them, no need to tour with Freddie wannabe boys. Maybe I see things a bit romantic, but Queen was my first band that I listened, and I will listen to them till I am drop dead, and some things should be left as it is, and we all must know when to stop and leave the new blood take over, Roger sung it once, maybe he forgot...

I share the frustration and disappointment of many fans regarding JD.

A few points from my perspective:

1) I continually read in this forum and elsewhere that JD "had huge respect for Freddie" and that he thought Freddie was irreplaceable.

Whilst the above may be true, I see very little evidence to support this. There is the quote attributed to him about "Robbie Williams being no Freddie", but very little else.

2) Poster Hot Buttered Soul states that "John took Fred's death very badly". I've even read that John saw FM as his "big brother".
Again this may be true, but where is the evidence for any of this?

I thought it was interesting that in the programme notes for Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert, all three band members provided a written tribute - Brian and Roger's tribute was expansive, John's was minimal with just a few lines.

3) I often read that John and Freddie were close.
Again where is the evidence for this? I've watched hours and hours of footage, read/listened to many interviews and the amount of interaction between JD and FM was hardly anything. They barely looked at each other.

I don't think many fans expect John to become musically productive again, but it would be so good if he could appear at some form of event. He needn't say anything, just have a photo taken with the other two.

It looks as though he's just not on speaking terms with Brian and Roger, and until this changes, I can't see this long hoped for reunion ever happening.

[QUOTE] [b]dagi wrote:[/b]

3) I often read that John and Freddie were close.
Again where is the evidence for this? I've watched hours and hours of footage, read/listened to many interviews and the amount of interaction between JD and FM was hardly anything. They barely looked at each other.[/QUOTE]

Well, each second of their whole lives couldn't be filmed, and cameramen couldn't follow them everywhere. Maybe they were a bit too shy when being filmed, so this is why we don't have any evidence. But apart of this they most likely were very good friends and saw each other *almost* every single day. It's we who don't have the evidence for this.

Thanks for your comments, but I respectfully point out that your perpetuating something which you and other fans hope to be true without any evidence whatsoever.

For much of his life JD saw BM and RT virtually everyday too. Using your logic, this must mean he was also close to them too. I just don't see the evidence. John's relationship with them would appear to be little more than that of work colleagues rather than good friends. If they were 'close', something very significant has happened since as they appear not to be on even speaking terms.