Skip to content
Queen crest Queenzone.org

Deacon - Lucked in on the worlds biggest band!

19 posts
Thread

Posts in chronological order

Search forum

Sign in to watch

Watching a topic is how you opt in to reply pushes.

The guy's a legend, yet it always seemed like he happened to luck-in into a supergroup. A bit like Charlie Watt in the Stones maybe. Ever the consummate professional though and proved his worth with his songs and playing.
Charlie Watts is a genius.
Deacon not particularly a slouch himself.
For the same effect I can say Fred had the luck to be in a supergroup. Or Brian. Or Roger.
John hated Hot Space. Frederick's favourite singer was not Paul Rodgers. Roger didn't compose 'Innuendo.' 'Bohemian Rhapsody' hasn't got 180 vocal overdubs.
i think it was destiny
it was meant to happen
im so glad it did
~_*-+_Let us cling together as the years go by..._+-*_~
foxxy_moron wrote:
i think it was destiny
it was meant to happen
im so glad it did




Me too.
i know alot of people think that john was the least important, but in alot of ways he was just as important as freddie. he was the sesible one that held them together and he wrote their biggest international hit. i think that the four of them were just meant to be together.
I want to break free from your lies you're so self satisfied I don't need you
I agree. They were ment to be together. John was as important as the other ones.
Maby if they had another bass player they would have split up.
Ægishjálmur
Without John, there wouldn't be...

- Another One Bites The Dust
- I Want To Break Free
- You're My Best Friend

...and that just to mention his biggest hits, but there's absolutely no denying that John Deacon added a catchy vibe into Queen songs.

Also the fact that John Deacon listened to a lot of music aside from rock, (more particularly black rythms like R&B, soul, reggae and funk) was something that influenced Queen into experimenting to cross over to other genres.

By no means John Deacon is a Ringo Starr or a Charlie Watts, since both The Beatles and The Stones could have achieved the same or perhaps even more success without them.

I still believe that The Beatles could have been even bigger than before if they were allowed to keep Pete Best as their drummer.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Brandon wrote: [/QUOTENAME]... and now the "best you can offer is Mr. Jingles? HA! He's... just pathetic.[/QUOTE]
Let us not forget Brian's beloved 'Deaky Amp' :-)
http://www.outpimp.com/?x=234744|Powdah
I disagree. Without Ringo, Beatles wouldn`t have been Beatles. Poor old Ringo, way under-rated.
Aye, it's a fact: Deacon was lucky.
But it cuts both ways.

Queen lucked in on the world's best bass player.

I'm in such a philosophical mood tonight. Must be the brandy.
FLASHMAN STRIKES AGAIN! Paul Rodgers is not the best thing since fried Fred.
>>>>Let us not forget Brian's beloved 'Deaky Amp' :-)

You have just won first prize!!!!
john deacon was not "lucky" my god hes a cornerstone of the best fukin four piece ever! the songs,the business acumen,come on what a load of shite no comparisons ever!
martinjkstones
DEACON was important to. His subtle bass fills were very complimentary to Freddie's piano. The Queen trademarks are Brians sound, Roger's vocals, Freddies stage performance being just as good as his songs and John's subtle bass playing.

John made them all very very rich. Not with YMBF- Fred never really sung this live with passion, if it wasn't for the Queen sound on this, it would just be a corny cheesy song

ABTD- Yeah, he got it right on this. Lucky Fred took an interest in this song. This is why John is so loyal to Fred. John wrote "pop" in the same sense as Fred. Listen to "You and I" from ADATR, its so Freddie. Brian's piano songs were of a different nature with alot of vocal acrobatics written for Fred.

Say any of the Queenzone women with FB's?
Yeah...
i always got the feeling that johnnie and freddie were really close..
freddie seemed protective of him almost.
really cute :)
~_*-+_Let us cling together as the years go by..._+-*_~

Sign in to reply