| Brangwen Rocker 13.11.2008 10:33 |
I ask this question from an obvious hypothetical perspective, and have no desire to add the debate as to whether the band should continue as Queen in whatever format, as I do have the utmost respect for the opinions of all those argue that without FM, there can be no Queen. My question is therefore, and accepting that FM is the indispensable ingredient, that had he (FM) survived, and John Deacon retired or stepped out of the limelight would the same argument apply, i.e that there can be no Queen without John Deacon? Or, as the quiet one in the group, he could have been considered dispensable, with the band then continuing as a threesome, or would fans have more readily accepted a new bassist? If this topic has been raised before, then I apologise for wasting everyones time as I am still new to Queenzone, however, if not I would interested in peoples views, especially from those who more vociferously argue that Queen without FM simply cannot be Queen. |
| Jazz 78 13.11.2008 11:09 |
John was an itegral part of the band and gave them some of their biggest hits. Behind the scenes he was the guy that looked after the business matters. It's been written that he's been asked before anything by Brian and Roger if he wants to partake in recordings, touring etc. I assume he's asked first but he politely refuses. It's interesting to note that the book written by George Tremlett in 1976 makes a comment by somebody Temlett interviewed when asked to describe each member. This person... may have been Norman Sheffiled but I'm not too sure, said that when the time comes to settle down he sees John being the one to leave it all behind and enjoy retirement. How prophetic because 32 years later John's doing just that. |
| Micrówave 13.11.2008 11:28 |
John was also the one that fixed things in the band. You think Freddie could change a tube? Without John, all their cables would've been shot, especially that curly one Brian used to use, so the Queen sound would have never made it out. |
| Jazz 78 13.11.2008 14:16 |
This is true and let's not forget that he put that electronics degree to good use and created the "Deacy amp" which Brian used on many classics. |
| lalaalalaa 13.11.2008 16:26 |
Pretty much none of them were dispensable ;) |
| Holly2003 13.11.2008 18:08 |
Despite "we're all in it together" statements from the band, both Roger Taylor and John Deacon could've quit/died and Queen continued mucha s they were. Deacon was the one whose loss would've been felt least. Sorry, that's just the way it is. |
| Al TurHao 13.11.2008 18:45 |
For a true fan, NO, he was not dispensable. For a musician, NO, he was CERTAINLY NOT dispensable. For a pratical common man, YES. Would Freddie carry on without John? I am guessing YES. (No point asking this about Brian or Roger...) For the average listener, who is John Deacon? |
| Rick 14.11.2008 04:32 |
John was a unique bass player, especially in the 70s. Whereas most bass players played just root notes, he was very melodic. |
| bst123 14.11.2008 05:01 |
I think that Queen worked so well because of it's 4 individual member. All four of them contributed to Queen and together they made Queen. So, is/was John Dispensable, no i don't think so. Look at the current Queen status, it's called QPR but has nothing to do with the old Queen. It's different and with Paul Rodgers in the band they created a new sound, vibe etc. Not a bad thing but they are in a different setting now. So to have the old Queen sound, writing abilities, live and in the studio, no member is/was dispensable. |
| Brangwen Rocker 14.11.2008 05:28 |
Al TurHao wrote: For a true fan, NO, he was not dispensable. For a musician, NO, he was CERTAINLY NOT dispensable. For a pratical common man, YES. Would Freddie carry on without John? I am guessing YES. (No point asking this about Brian or Roger...) For the average listener, who is John Deacon? Hi Al, thanks for your reply Your first comment could open up a whole new debate, i.e: define a true fan? For example is a true fan, one who is a fan of the music, the individual musicians or both. Are they inextricably linked? Is the band bigger than its individual parts or the other way around? Should a true fan be unstintingly faithfull to the original members, or appreciate the inevitablity of change, and embrace that change when it happens? There probably is no right and wrong answer. |
| Al TurHao 14.11.2008 06:58 |
Hi Brangwen, I couldn't agree more with you. :) For me, a true fan is not a blind one. Most Queen fans are a bit blind in some part of their existence and love show for Queen. I mean that we tend to adore everything with the "Q" brand on it. This is something quite wrong to do and many of us wake up in time and then approach Queen for what it's worth. That is why sometimes it's important to hear opinions from non-fans, as they balance our biased views. Balance is important and shows that a person is growing up as a music afficionado. Once we see the bad things, we cherish more the good ones. :) Back to the post, John Deacon contributed to what we know as Queen. I Personally, I don't consider him to be dispensable at all. But if he were to leave i am sure the others would carry on. The path would be a little different... As a final thought, the album Cosmos Rocks lacks a bass player. Some people can play a good bass, but just aren't bass players. Cheers |
| john bodega 15.11.2008 02:53 |
The new album has changed my opinion on this somewhat. I think, technically speaking, Queen could've carried on just fine without Deacon. But it would've been a poorer band for it. It took the absence of his playing for me to realise how important it was! |
| madeinheaven! 42122 16.11.2008 05:32 |
I think John was great and I really miss him. It's not fair to say stuff like "John was dispensable." because it's not true!!! You can't take away a quarter of the band and say it doesn't matter. Just because John was quieter than the others doesn't make him any less important!!!! |
| Brangwen Rocker 16.11.2008 06:03 |
MadeInHeaven! wrote: I think John was great and I really miss him. It's not fair to say stuff like "John was dispensable." because it's not true!!! You can't take away a quarter of the band and say it doesn't matter. Just because John was quieter than the others doesn't make him any less important!!!! That's exactly my point, his departure from the band should be taken in the same context as that of FM, as it would appear that for many Queen cannot be Queen without him. If however, circumstances were different and FM still be with us and JD had still chosen to retire, I doubt whether his departure from the line up would be felt the same way. I therefore agree with you, that the same argument should apply. The sad thing is it simply would not, therefore in that sense he would be considered dispensable, and is indeed unfair. |
| madeinheaven! 42122 16.11.2008 14:02 |
Brangwen Rocker wrote:MadeInHeaven! wrote: I think John was great and I really miss him. It's not fair to say stuff like "John was dispensable." because it's not true!!! You can't take away a quarter of the band and say it doesn't matter. Just because John was quieter than the others doesn't make him any less important!!!!That's exactly my point, his departure from the band should be taken in the same context as that of FM, as it would appear that for many Queen cannot be Queen without him. If however, circumstances were different and FM still be with us and JD had still chosen to retire, I doubt whether his departure from the line up would be felt the same way. I therefore agree with you, that the same argument should apply. The sad thing is it simply would not, therefore in that sense he would be considered dispensable, and is indeed unfair. It is really unfair!!! Poor John!!! I'm glad you agree ;) |
| fmarsong 17.11.2008 04:31 |
Queen compose of four brilliant musician we cannot say dispensable iether one fo them,Freddie once said that in interview that if a quartet gone cannot be called a Queen anymore. |