Queen without John Deacon

Well, of course, nothing of worth to me. But I think a lot of people feel the same from what I've seen, especially Queen fans.

 

It is.

It's a good photo... if you cover up the left-hand side.

 

Don't you see it....Queen+ is Harry James and Tommy Dorsey (to the kids).

 

People got used to it, Queen being fronted by different guys. But it’s still no Queen to me.
Queen is Freddie Mercury - vocals, Brian May - guitar, John Deacon -bass, Roger Taylor - drums.

 

You missed Greatest Hits III.

 

The average pop and rock fans have no idea who they were; no more so than they'd know Memphis Willie Johnson or Hank Garland.

 

Why? What's wrong with a Queen singer wearing hot pants?
Freddie made hot pants almost a Queen trademark in the 70s.

 

I did think of that. It's such a weird album as it has Queen, Queen+, and solo material on it.

Because of the Queen stuff and the solo stuff, I didn't include it.

 

I agree.

Queen (May & Taylor) have every right to tour and record to their heart’s content, but I don’t give a fig. As I said, Deacon wouldn’t matter that much to me either way in terms of authenticity.

 

Of course. That was just between us and the other old people here.

 

As a Queen fan, it might not be for you but I've always thought that, if we didn't know the individuals involved, it might have a more positive reputation.

It doesn't sound anything like Queen or Bad Company and it's slightly generic but it's a decent listen, for all that.

 

Yes. If the 3 living members are ok with it being Queen, it’s Queen. What’s the difference what it is called?

 

It’s a complete mess and too reliant on post-Freddie sentiments. Besides, even the collected solo hits isn’t complete. Love Kills should’ve been included and the Larry Lurex single and perhaps selected Taylor songs (besides the missing Queen hits), but the compilers, whoever they were, probably were pre-occupied trying to figure out which Tribute performance should be squeezed in...

 

They are little more than a Queen cover band without Mercury and a Deacon. If you are a purest.

 

Yeah, that line resonated with me too.

 

Thank you for this!
I wasn't aware!

 

May and Taylor have been going under the banner of Queen+ since Deacon left.

 

I'd love to read a revealing, honest and respectful book from Deacon. There is certainly an air of mystery around about the man.

 

It makes a difference because it goes to the nature of a band rather than of a group. Is a band a musical ensemble made up of specific individuals? Or are band members completely interchangeable like athletes on a sports team?

We have doo wop groups out touring the oldies circuit when all of the original members have died. If Mercury and Deacon can be replaced, why can't May and Taylor?

Queen was rock band. Queen+ is a corporate logo and applause machine. Calling it Queen or Queen+ is an insult to the fans.​

 

Yeah, Queen+...

Like something is being added rather than detracted...

 

...and as long as they continue to call it "Queen+" then I'm OK with it. Sure I don't love it, and if anything it would be more honest to call it "Smile+" (but there's no money in calling it that, is there?) but if they were to start calling it "Queen" without any qualifier, that would definitely be more than a little gross IMO.

I miss him more for the songwriting than the bass playing (nothing against his bass playing) and its a shame he's retired. Yeah its also a shame that Freddie is dead, but there's nothing to be done for that. Freddie's songwriting talent died with him robbing us of whatever future gems he might have given us had he lived. However Deacon is still with us, wasting his songwriting talent.

Was he their best writer? Well I don't know about that, but he was definitely their most consistent writer. Off the top of my head I can't think of a bad song he wrote for the band. Definitely can't say that for any other member. Yeah he didn't write nearly as many as the other three did, but he also didn't write any crap/filler like they (sometimes) did.

For consistency of high quality songwriting I'd rate them as:
1 - Deacon
2 - Mercury
3 - May
4 - Taylor

Its too bad that (unlike Mercury) Deacon has freely chosen to give up songwriting (and to a lesser extent bass playing).

 

It is to fans of the original band that are still invested in the band's legacy. Fans of Queen+ aren't insulted at all and are happy to pay the ridiculously inflated ticket prices for karaoke. All played by a guitarist and drummer that released a single (C-lebrity) under the Queen+ name that openly despised the nature of reality TV music stars.......

 

After that tribute concert for Freddie, a bunch of us speculated they might do a Joy Division/New Order maneuver by getting a new singer, changing their name, and carrying on with new material while doing a few Queen songs at every gig. They were still relatively young when Freddie passed and potentially could have forged a new direction.

Seems we were wrong.

A lot of legacy acts are doing much the same thing- carrying on with depleted membership. Dead & Co, Skynrd, Monkees, etc. The Market (i.e. Us) decides whether it is viable or not.

 

No it’s an insult to you for some unknown reason. Your opinion is not a fact.

Queen, like any group or band, is a brand. That brand is owned by someone. And that someone has a say in how it’s used. Not you. Sorry.

2/3 of the surviving members are there. They can do with it as they choose. As “fans” we choose to listen or not to listen. We don’t get to choose what they call themselves or determine its impact on everyone in the world.

 

I would love to hear everyone on here that calls this karaoke sing even 1/10 as good as Adam Lambert can