Hi,
Due to John's retirement I know the following wouldn't happen, but could possibly be logistically feasible - what are your thoughts?:-
There are/have been a plethora of 'old' bands re-forming in different guises and touring with the various original members each going out with their own band (an example is Slade featuring Dave Hill touring whilst other Slade members toured their own version of the band, and there are countless more).
My question is that if John decided he wanted to go out and perform a set of Queen songs using the name Queen, or a varient of it, but not having Bri or Rog in the band but hiring others, could he do it?? If so, then he could really knacker up the impact of the Q+PR tour, whilst cheapening the Queen brand even more!!
It may be that there would need to be a majority of QPL directors (is this Bri, Rog, John and Jim beach/Mary Austin??) to enable him to use the name, and therefore he would probably be voted against, but if there is nothing to stop him performing the songs (if Queen tribute acts can then I'm sure that's the case) could they stop him going out as, say, 'John Deacon's Queen' and touring as much as he liked?
Any comments?!?!?!
Well, if the Guess Who can tour with just the original drummer and (occasionally) the bass player, I suppose anyone can. Maybe Ringo might think about it too...
Surely it would be no different to Brian or Roger doing solo tours, which they have already done? Sure, they played Queen songs, but mostly their own compositions within the band. John wrote some pretty good songs when in Queen, so, in my opinion, there's no reason why he shouldn't go on tour with a different band, if he wanted to, but I can't see it happening in a million years. If John wanted to tour again, he would have gone out with the Q+PR shows.
Let's be fair. I love John Deacon's playing and his songs to death, but he was hardly irreplacable, musically. I'm sure they'd miss him as a fun friend so much that maybe they'd stop for a while out of respect, but to be honest he never struck me as much of an amazing bandmember. He resembles someone who became big by accident, and liked the success but really wanted it to go away at the same time.
Come on. He doesn't even sing much.
And you'll never see John Deacon play bass again, I'm willing to bet on it (but not to pay).
they would have replaced roger aswell and even possibly brian. but i think Queen are one of those rare bands where all memeber are of equal importance it the fans. But in reality the band would have continued if John had died or even roger and brian.
Freddie would not have allowed Queen to be there without John, he understood that mutual respect
Maybe they would tour together at times, but not as Queen.
John doesn't participate now maybe because of the same reason he is upset that PR is fucking with Freddie's songs and the band's legacy
See here's the thing, if Deacon had left/died, it'd still sound like Queen because the only thing that's missing would be the bass. You'd still have Freddie's big harmonies, you'd still have Brian's orchestrated guitar and Roger would still have the same drumming style.
It's easy to get the wrong idea about what I'm saying... I love John Deacon's playing and his songs, as I said above.
But he is the one member of the group that I think they could've kept going without.
Maybe they could have played the same... (so can they even if Roger/Brian die... I guess there are many guitarists with a low voice or drummers with high pitch voices)
but if Freddie would have been alive he would not have allowed QUEEN to go on without him...
Yah yah, I get the "Freddie-not-letting-it-be-Queen" argument, but let's face it - if it was just John that 'went away', it'd still *sound* like Queen, and I've only ever been interested in the music. The arguments about what name gets used just bore me to pieces.