I have seen so many ( all perhaps ) the Queen/Mercury documentaries. Admit it, you have too. I do think Queen documentaries are somehow different from others artists . They have a drama-film quality. Freddie himself carries the role of the lead tragic actor. Mercury although very authentic in many ways comes across also as role.( Perhaps the absolute casting ever made was that Farrokh Bulsara did inside his head transforming Farrakhan to King/Queen Mercury.) His life became two dramas/adventures that run simultaneously and were able to be documented in a fair amount ( imagination filled the blank spaces). The most obvious was front man of game changer quartet Queen. Another super group who set the goal to rule the world but this time the group had real potentials.(Changing music and providing a dripping live-canvas are fair qualities to set you on different level among "every-day" people)
The other role was the immigrant who was transformed into English-man, boy to male-diva,person who can sing to singer to front man to art-royalty.
From conventionally sexually defined ( and a "good son" especially in the demanding spectrum of his tradition) to bisexual to homosexual to eventually a gay man ( there is a difference) .
Then from young frustrated male narcissist to someone who indulged himself to explore manhood through the peculiar prism of male sexuality and " gang mentality". ( the mustache is of course the symbol of that era).
Then finally to fatal secret holder ( when learns his HIV status) , to living and working patient, to between life and death artist ( The show must go on is a symbol of that era).
And in the end from human to a kind of legend. A colorful martyr perhaps.
So to return to the start the documentaries seem to be dedicated and "channeled" to tell those stories. Its almost as there is always a basic plot and its one of them tries to bring it ( the plot) into life (screen).[ hopefully with slightly different means].
BUT, WHAT ABOUT THE DEACON MIND?
Deacon's attitude even in the Queen years, and his silence ever since 1991 is intriguing.I honestly believe that is an all around different story about "who" the band was (and what the band did), and who and "how" was that Mercury guy/genius/persona.
Deacon being almost an outsider (at many cases) to the band is very possible to have a different and perhaps more accurate in-sight to what has been documented and speculated. I get the impression that the Deacon mind could be almost more objective and not just in a journalistic kind of way.
Well, at least, one can can tell that he was always determined not to be carried away form the "Glow" of things and that adds something if one wants a more sober look on things.
On the other hand his ''on terms'' dedication and psychological investment to the band perhaps explores different areas. Loosing his father as a child creates a very strong basis for more complex and deep investments to male groups . Also the craving for an alternative father figure must be more intense. For him when the group lost its figure head ( the psychological equivalent to the father) the group (family) was destroyed.
Therefore i believe that the Deacon perspective is unique.
But i think he is not going ever to write a book, giving us his view. I am afraid he will never want to share.
In a way i think he even doesn't want to know.
Good post. He probably did approach it all from a much different perspective. He hadn't had all the early SMILE time in the band And became an active collaborator instead of an egotistical as hole... or merely "just the bass player"
Im certain that even if purely for study' John Deacon has a v unique perspective about the band that probably has nt been approached in the public sector
It would be great if he even just reviewed pubs and strip joints for a national paper.
I just wish we heard more from him
.. the talented mfer
John. If you're reading this, please give me a bass you no longer use
Sincerely
-matt z
It's a shame that one of the bass magazines (one did a feature on his playing last year) hasn't tracked him down for an interview. Would be fascinating.
Sheer Brass Neck wrote:
It's a shame that one of the bass magazines (one did a feature on his playing last year) hasn't tracked him down for an interview. Would be fascinating.
You're still expecting John to appear and give an interview? :-( Those days are long gone now, and even Freddie is more likely to resurrect.
Sheer Brass Neck wrote:
It's a shame that one of the bass magazines (one did a feature on his playing last year) hasn't tracked him down for an interview. Would be fascinating.
You're still expecting John to appear and give an interview? :-( Those days are long gone now, and even Freddie is more likely to resurrect.
Nope, not expecting anything of the sort, just think it's a shame that someone can't force one of the great bass player/writers of rock to sit down.
"The nature of things and the Deacon mind."
The most ridiculous way of asking 'What is John Deacon doing' I have seen in my squillion years on this site!!!!
10/10 for originality.
:-)