John Deacon statement in INNUENDO video

master marathon runner wrote:

.....i wouldn't regard anything a Portuguese DJ says.

Why? Are you better than a Portuguese DJ?

RafaelS wrote:

You would think that a guy who posted 1000 times would not say a rubbish as "John is not in the Innuendo video". Nonsense. I think the Portuguese DJ was only trying to play the guy well-connected or simply showing-off.

He wasn´t trying to play the well-connected guy or showing-off at all. And i hope you´re not saying that because he is Portuguese. Last time i checked you should be more concerned with reporters from the biggest economies in the world.
Let´s try to keep it civil. It´s better for you to ask in what context the story was told, instead of making Innuendoes (npi).

In this show in particular, let´s say he is presenting the Top 10 in August 91 in UK. Before each song starts he gives a little story about the song in particular - things like it´s place on the charts, number of weeks at the top, and numbers that are worth mentioning to put it in context. And if he has the information he gives littles things about the authors of the song, how the song came about, the inspiration behind the song, etc.

So, this wasn´t a show about Queen. Innuendo was just one of the songs he was playing and he happened to tell this story.
The difference between me and the poster who said he doesn´t trust a Portuguese DJ, is the fact that i know that he has told something that he got access to inside that radio station in his work as a reporter. It wasn´t something he invented! And it probably came out of a UK source back at the time of the release of the song (rumour or not). These guys have access to information you can only dream of (official or not official).

I´m pretty sure that until today the majority of Queen fans weren´t aware that John wasn´t featured in the video, let alone a DJ in Portugal who has better things to do than to look at things like this.

And because this isn´t something that one can catch at a first glance, specially when there is an official source, i´m willing to accept that there may be something to this rumour (considering everything i told throughout this thread).

And that´s the point of my post. John is represented, but John is not featured in the video!
Before you call rubish to what i write, take a look to what YOU write, because unless you can tell me where John is in the video, you are the one writing rubbish things.

We tend to believe what we´re told. People are telling that John appears in the video (the perception they have according to what they were told), when in fact John is not in the video - and this is a fact!

There is a cartoon painted in the style of Picasso. It´s different than to say it´s John painted in the style of picasso, where there isn´t any feature in the cartoon (other than the bass) that identifies the cartoon as being John Deacon. You take that cartoon out of that video and present it to anyone, and i´m sure no one can identify it as being John Deacon. That cartoon is anyone you wanted it to be - in the style of Picasso!

If you can´t have a civil conversation don´t bother posting here. You have lot´s of other very interesting threads in Queenzone where you can give a positive input.

musicland munich wrote:

There are tons of options why they decided to do such an video...

You are right about what you write and i appreciate your input. My intention is not to turn this into a negative thread. I rather stop posting here than to go that route again!

Thanks again.

That is an interesting story and observation Mr.QueenFan.
John's cartoon images in Innuendo is kinda off when putting next to the other three.
Picasso might just be an excuse (if he didn't want to show his face then Picasso is a perfect excuse).

I personally think that the DJ didn't invent that story.
If he invented it, he would say st like: "John was dissatisfied with st so he didn't want to show off in the video..."
But in fact the DJ said clearly that "John made an statement as..." That doesn't sound like an invented story. Provided that you gave us the correct translation ^_^

I wish people with actual knowledge in this matter will break silence, and the people with no actual knowledge in the matter will debate in courtesy instead of putting you down right away. Don't let the negative comments get to you. You know people here ;)
In the mean time, I give you the benefit of doubt.

Will you write a letter to that DJ to ask? That would be the fastest way.

....i probably am actually.

hobbit in Rhye wrote:

I wish people with actual knowledge in this matter will break silence, and the people with no actual knowledge in the matter will debate in courtesy instead of putting you down right away. Don't let the negative comments get to you. You know people here ;)
In the mean time, I give you the benefit of doubt.

Will you write a letter to that DJ to ask? That would be the fastest way.

Thanks for your kind words :-)

Don´t worry, i don´t let the negative comments get to me, i can handle criticism very well. What i won´t do anymore (at least i hope i remember this) is to fight other members in this forum. I did this in the past and it´s a waste of time, specially on a Forum with no moderation.

I just folowed your advice and i asked the DJ. I was able to find the show and his e-mail and will keep you guys posted in case he replies to me.

What people don´t understand in Queenzone is that the attitude doesn´t get them anywhere. It only leads to ignorance!
For example, if this site was moderated, i could have linked the DJ to this topic, and maybe he would feel inspired to participate. But because of some remarks here, i cannot do that, because he might feel offended and not willing to help (and rightly so!).

And this kind of thing happens in every topic. You just cannot link anyone from the outside here, because of the disrespectfull content of some posts. But lack of moderation was what ruined this site.

To be fair with you Mr.QueenFan, I `ve searched a little bit on the internet.
Yes, there are some Sites saying John "isn`t" part of the "Innuendo" video...more or less....
But they all got one thing in common....no evidence just personal opinions.
The thing is on my watch-list now, if something comes along I`ll reply to this topic.

Interesting topic that'll probably go nowhere!

I'd always recognized the slates in the video from BREAKTHRU, SCANDAL, INVISIBLE MAN, WEMBLEY , I WANT IT ALL etc in that video as being John. The motions and framing of each shot (also the fact that the animation was drawn over each shot) seem to indicate he WAS inthefilm AS A CHARACTER.

Strange to hear so many years later. ..a suggestion that he'd somehow refused to be a part in it.


If there's some factual basis to it then. .... go figure. One of those questions you'd have to ask John about

If John had made a statement to say he didn't want to have his likeness, I'm amazed that this has never been quoted, reproduced, or widely reported before in the last 24 years.

While it's not impossible for an artist not to want their likeness used in something (it's happened before many times), I can't think of a why John would refuse permission in this case?

If i was clutching at straws i would ask if anyone knows if he disliked the "kind of magic" cartoon of him, maybe he had visions of it being something like that?

This is one of the more far fetched posts on Queenzone... seriously, what evidence is there of what you are saying? first you say John doesnt appear in the video, now your saying take the Bass away and it could be anyone.... really?? go look at the record breaking picasso sold yesterday, the style is very similar to the JD animation in the video, it represents Picasso's style who didn't paint humans in a photographic style unlike the other artists chosen. maybe Picasso is Johns favorite artist??? hoave you thought of that? you argument is a bit like saying Brian hates the purple as you never see him wearing it on stage... unless you have evidence it's just nonesense. John may very well collect Picasso's who knows? where is the evidence that he didnt want to be in the video? he was in others before and afterwards, neither Roger or John wanted to be in It's a Hard Life, now that IS documented, they hated it, but still went ahead and were in it.
John's in innuendo and that's it.

I also forgot to say waht about the images of him at the begining in B/W taken from the Breakthrough shoot, you can see his face... and then later the illustraion of him with the jester hat? again his face is shown... So not only is he in there in other ways other than just the picasso he appears in three different versions.

Never thought I'd say this (unless I were a Viking or in Mordor*) but. .... I'm with Togg.




Might make a good t-shirt as well. "I'm with Togg."


nobody would get just what it means and it'd stand out.

Seems like a new rumor to me. I'm just glad it serves to make John more fascinating.

Togg wrote:

So not only is he in there in other ways other than just the picasso he appears in three different versions.

You are free to believe what you want, because nobody is forcing you to believe anything. And the things you are pointing out i already pointed it in my first post.
So, maybe you should relax and read what i wrote more carefully before you think you are debunking my posts.

I´m not challenging the artistic style, and i´m not saying that the rumour is true. When one joins in a middle of a conversation, it´s a good thing to read what came before to not make the OP repeat himself. Online ethiquete?

I will say it one last time - and people don´t have to agree with me.
Freddie, Brian and Roger appear in the video because their paintings were made over the frames of their respective clips, and they kept their identity coupled with the artistic side. They may have used John´s frames to paint the Picasso, but they didn´t kept anything John in the picture. No face, body, arms, legs, nothing! Therefore, John is the only one not appearing in the videos in the style of the other three.

And this is what the supposed rumour is about. That, for some reason that i´m stll not aware of, he didn´t gave the permission for the team to use his image in the same way of the other three.

If you see John in the Picasso character, then good for you. That isn´t going to change my view/perception that the character represents John, but it´s not John! Two different things!
I don´t care if it´s in the style of Picasso or Van Gogh. The other three i can see they´re there.

This has nothing to do if i believe if the rumour is true or not - i´m inclined to keep an open mind about it, but you and others don´t have to.

And Togg, since you already seem to know everything about Queen, from now on i´m going to pay close attention to your posts, wich i´m sure are full of interesting content about my favourite band.

Thank you for your input.

P.S.- Togg, you do know that Picasso had many styles, don´t you? They could have used Picasso in a different style and still make it believable. Here´s a picture of a young John Deacon portraited by Picasso (I kid you not!):

http://www.pablopicasso.org/boy-with-pipe.jsp

You´re welcomed!

P.P.S - I will stop post in this thread until something interesting comes up. I´ll keep you guys posted in case the DJ answers my email. Cheers!

Genius...

This topic gets more random with every one of your posts, it has certainly made me laugh out loud which I guess is a good thing.
Actually i'm very well aquainted with Picasso's work i studied the history of art while doing my degree. The fact that if you tried to paint a representation of Picasso's work you would have to chose one of his more well known pieces, in which he didn't chose to paint people in a life like way, had they chosen to use say the work you showed in the link nobody would have recognized it as Picasso... try looking up (in your own link, 'The musicians' i think you will find it clearly shows three people palying instruments none of which are painted in a life like manner. hence a well known artisting style.

I did read your post fully, and frankly it's nonesense from start to finish, why start a rumour without ANY evidence, where are you getting the comment "he didn´t gave the permission for the team to use his image" ? have you seen that somewhere? no, it's just making stuff up in your head. unless you can point to that as fact you might as well say Freddie told the band they had to stand on one leg while recording, it has as much a basis of truth... You can't claim he didnt give permission unless you know that?

I the fan club magazine of the time, he wrote his letter, it says a "thank you all for buying Innuendo and making it a number 1 album as i speak and thank you too for making the innuendo single a hit" "As i write this we are on teh third day of our next video shoot for Day's of Our Lives, complete with banannas and gorillas" He didnt go on to mention anything about being in this one, or not being in the last one, in fact he seems very happy to be part of both...

I'm all for people uncovering new FACTS about the band and i'm often delighted when they do, however start false rumours or making wild accusations such as you have done by saying he didnt give his permission is totally pointless and attention seeking. it's not true, it can't be backed up and not to mention one viewing of the video it is clearly incorrect...