1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  
    TalkBass.com has been uniting the low end since 1998.  Join us! :)

Why isn't John Deacon part of the Queen reunion?

Discussion in 'Bassists [BG]' started by andruca, Mar 23, 2005.

  1. andruca


    Mar 31, 2004
    Madrid (Spain)
    As many of you know, on March 28 Queen is starting their reunion tour with Paul Rodgers on vocals. But the fact is only Brian May and Roger Taylor are the onlyoriginal members involved. This leaves John Deacon out of the project. Do any of you know why? Do you know who will in fact play bass in the reunion tour? Thanks!

  2. cetera


    Apr 29, 2004
    Surrey, England
    Endorsing Artist: Spector Basses & Cort Basses
    John isn't taking part because he has too much self respect.... and respect for the history of Queen and Freddie Mercury.

    From what I can tell, he's the only one with any real 'class'.... i.e. refuses to try and be cool by being involved in horrible remakes of classic Queen songs with boy bands etc...
  3. andruca


    Mar 31, 2004
    Madrid (Spain)
    I agree in part, but can't find a single interview on the web where he explains that fact. I won't buy "Queen reunion" as May and Taylor's effort seems absolutely mercenary to me (I saw Brian performing at "We will rock you", an awful Queen inspired musical that's touring Europe and felt very sorry for him because I saw it as a degradation for such a musician). I don't buy all this post-mortem Queen bulsh*t. I loved them while they were there. The magic will never be there again without Freddie and John so, why try this kind of forced "resurrection" that won't ever be up to par? Why can't they just stick to their solo careers with dignity and "stop milking the dead cow"?

  4. fretlessrock

    fretlessrock Supporting Member

    Aug 8, 2002
    As soon as I saw the thread title my first thought was "he probably has too much class", and it looks like I am not alone in that assessment. Paul Rogers as Freddie Mercury? That is a joke.
  5. wulf


    Apr 11, 2002
    Oxford, UK
    Paul Rogers isn't Freddie Mercury but will probably be able to put in a good performance on the songs - the tour isn't really about new music but is instead a "super tribute band", augmented by having a couple of the original band involved.

    The impression I get is that John Deacon has made a decision to retire from the stage. To be honest, I can certainly understand that. He's been there and done it all before and is (probably) able to live fairly comfortably on the income. Perhaps he feels his life is already full and exciting enough that he doesn't need to go out and do it again; perhaps he just doesn't want to spend his time on a touring schedule and subject his hearing to big gig volumes.

  6. NOLA Bass

    NOLA Bass Mr. Worst Case Scenario Man Gold Supporting Member

    Feb 3, 2005
    New Orleans LA
    Let's just hope that Brian and Roger at least asked him, unlike Page and Plant not even asking JPJ to take part in the "unledded" thing. That was the lowest of the low considering JPJ was so vital to what Zep was. Maybe it is simply a case of John Deacon didn't want to tour anymore.
  7. bassmonkeee

    bassmonkeee Supporting Member

    Sep 13, 2000
    Decatur, GA
    John Deacon is simply happy being retired. They asked him, and he said, "Not interested. Do it with my blessings." Period.

    As for all of the venom being spewed towards May and Taylor--do you have a personal stake in this?

    If May and Taylor want to tour together playing Queen songs with Paul Rogers, why the hell shouldn't they? Calling them classless is out of line. If you don't want to buy the albums, or see the tour, then don't.

    Would it have been better if they had gotten someone like George Michaels (my personal choice for a Queen tour) who can sing like Freddy? Or, is it better that they went with, oh--a FRIEND who they enjoy playing with. I mean, you can't really think they are trying to replace Mercury with Paul Rogers, can you? You'd rather them tour with a tape recording?

    We could all hope for something like playing music we enjoy with friends. If you don't like it, don't support it.

    But, to act like you've done anything related to Queen, or anything that has touched as many people as Queen and call May and Rogers 'classless' is ridiculous.
  8. fretlessrock

    fretlessrock Supporting Member

    Aug 8, 2002
    Having an opinion is not ridiculous. My opinion is that the "Queen Reunion" is a joke, and a cash cow and has nothing to do with anything other than putting more money in Brian May's pockets. It may be out of line for me to superimpose that view on John Deacon, and I should not have done that, but I certainly would not apologize for having an opinion and expressing it.

    If I had a positive opinion would you be saying "It doesn't count because you were never in any band as commercially or artistically successful as Queen"? I doubt it.

    It doesn't just go for Queen. I think that trotting out stick figure bands (Cream, Beach Boys, the Who, CSN and sometimes Y... ) that used to have something fresh or creative, and tour mega-venues for $125/ticket is a disgrace. At the least they should continue to create fer crisakes. The Stones, where credit is due, continue to record new material. I'm not a Stones fan, but I'll give them that much. These bands cashing in on what they did 20, 30 40 years ago, with nothing but baby boomer wallets to motivate them, is the joke. In that vein I think that Queen touring with Paul Rogers and calling itself Queen is disgraceful. I never asked for an "amen".

  9. Nino Valenti

    Nino Valenti Supporting Member Commercial User

    Feb 2, 2001
    Staten Island NYC
    Builder: Valenti Basses
  10. So anyone else goes out and plays Queen songs, that's cool- but the former members of Queen do it and they're raping a cash cow?
  11. john turner

    john turner You don't want to do that. Trust me. Staff Member

    Mar 14, 2000
    atlanta ga
    i don't think any band of musicians should be made to suffer to not do what they love and what they spent their lives working on because one of their bandmates dies.
  12. fretlessrock

    fretlessrock Supporting Member

    Aug 8, 2002
    GoldenBoy, if you are going to tell me you disagree, at least disagree with something I said. But since you built such a nice strawman instead of replying to what I wrote: "anyone else" would not be calling themselves "Queen", and nobody would be thinking that they were seeing "Queen" when they shelled out the gate money to see them, or the inevitable dollars for their "reunion" CD. They would be a cover band, or a band covering a Queen original. Keyword: "original". So if Brian May wants to form a Queen cover band, more power to him. I mean, Black Sabbath had Ian Gillian as a lead singer. It kept being Black Sabbath! or did it? :rolleyes:
  13. Chiba


    Mar 11, 2005
    Brian May & Roger Taylor together & playing Queen songs would be called a Queen reunion no matter who the singer is, because people feel the need to classify/categorize music so they're more comfortable with it.

    If you go in to the 'Queen' concert expecting anything other than Brian, Roger, that singer guy, some random bass player, possibly Spike Edney on keys/rhy guitar, etc. then you're delusional.

    IMHO, John's smart to stay home. With Queen's past success, I have no doubt the guy's got enough money so that he doesn't have to work any more. He was never a huge fan of touring anyway, back in 'the day'. Brian & Roger obviously feel different.

    But it's not like they NEED the money, either. I know Brian at least feels a certain loyalty to Queen fans, knowing they want to hear the songs, live & loud again, and Brian has a LONG track record of doing what the fans seem to want. Good for him & Roger.

  14. This is a Straw Man:

    The word "original" can hardly be a factor with a band lineup. By "original" anything REO recorded with Kevin Cronin is not legitimate in your eyes. Neither is anything Journey recorded with Steve Perry, or anything the Beatles recorded with Ringo.

    In the previous post you had expressed disdain for Cream, the Beach Boys, the Who and CSN and sometimes Y for continuing to perform even though 'their best years are behind them.' In effect, you're saying that they should not want to perform, that their legendary status should be enough to sate them.

    The Stones replaced their bass player, in fact, if you look at promo pictures- they don't have a bass player. In fact, Ronnie Wood isn't an original member of that band either...

    Dio sang for Black Sabbath.
  15. Ok , Golden boy, FrettlessRock..........Ill ref this fight,

  16. fretlessrock

    fretlessrock Supporting Member

    Aug 8, 2002
    The Sab album I was referring to was "Born Again", with Ian Gillan.

    But It's all good. I think the Queen reunion stinks. I'm not asking anyone else to think it stinks.

    They are gonna do what they are gonna do anyway... I'm sure that Brian May ain't reading TB wondering how it is playing with the bass clef crowd :bassist: :bassist: :bassist:
  17. Adam Barkley

    Adam Barkley Mayday!

    Aug 26, 2003
    Jackson, MS
    Tickets in the cheap seats for the last Stones tour was very close to 100 bucks; floor seats were even more outrageous. I guess that doesn't count as "milking a dead cow" because they continue to put out original music that sucks ass?

    The only reason a band shouldn't be allowed to tour under a name is if an ex-member controls the likeness rights, or whatever else (merchandising rights, etc). I saw the Fabulous Thunderbirds at Jubilee Jam! several years ago; there was one original Fabulous Thunderbird one that stage that day, but it didn't stop the band from sounding awesome and rocking out.

    Maybe, gasp, even washed up acts still enjoy to play. The Stones could of "hung up the guns" in the late Eighties and still be insanely rich. Same thing with Clapton, Pink Floyd, and Bob Dylan.

    I would rather listen to a washed up "straw man band" who used to mean something and who created their own sound (regardless of whether or not I enjoyed that sound) than listen to 90% of the modern bands who are ripping off "classic" sounds.

    Just so you know, I dislike the Rolling Stones now and forever.
  18. My point was Sabbath existed with or without Ozzy.

    That it is! :smug:

    Here's a little story:

    A friend was living in Kansas City or something a few years ago, and he heard an ad on the radio that Frankie Goes To Hollywood was going to be playing at a local club. He decided to take his girlfriend, as she used to really like them. When they got to the club, a guy was selling tickets outside the bar, like he'd bought some for some friends that pussed out. The place was pretty dead and the show was fine- but not a lot of people. After the show he talked to the guitarist, who seemed to be too young to have been in the band- but he was from the US and got hired to do the tour. He was kind of clueless as to who in the band actually was in Frankie Goes To Hollywood.

    Later, the bar owner mentioned he really took a bath on the nite, the guarantee to the band was well over what the door was.

    It turns out, there's some guys that were in a FGTH cover band in England that came over to the US and started hitting medium sized markets and billing themselves as FGTH. They'd call clubs and say they were passing through to their next show and had the night off- get a good guarantee from the bar and they'd have people in the parking lot selling tickets so they'd get as much money as possible.
  19. Mark Wilson

    Mark Wilson Supporting Member

    Jan 12, 2005
    Toronto, Ontario
    Endorsing Artist: Elixir® Strings
    What Queen did for music was unbelievable. I think I speak for all of us when we say that we shoudl respect Johns decisions in dropping out of the tour. We're all bassists, and we're the laid back guys in the band. We have to accept whoever is on the bass now. I mean, nobody is going to do a job like John did. He was, and still in incredible, and no one can come close to that man's talent.

    As for Freddie, NO ONE can sing like he did. he can do what? a high A, naturally? he was INCREDIBLE, and they put on a hell of a show. But, he's dead. We should respect what Roger and Brian want to do. It's their love for music, and that's how we should see what they're doing. If the bass player plays Roots only (shudders) and the singer is a baritone, we still have those monster drum beats, and the complicated arpeggios from Brian.

    It's the love for music guys, not who's replacing who.