John Deacon interview with Bernd Gockel - from 'Musikexpress & Sounds' magazine, January 1981
Dec 7, 2022 8:39:24 GMT
leo82br, georg, and 4 more like this
Post by fabiogminero on Dec 7, 2022 8:39:24 GMT
Hello everybody.
Today I share with you all a nice and long interview with John Deacon, given by the German journalist Bernd Gockel and published in the German magazine Musikexpress & Sounds in January 1981. The interview is entitled QUEEN - Angenehme Macken in der Krone (translated as QUEEN - Pleasant quirks in the crown) and was probably held in December 1980 during Queen's visit to Germany for "The Game" European tour; the article also contains some beautiful photographs taken during one of the German concerts of that year (from John's outfit it would seem that the photos come from the Berlin concert on November 30th, 1980).
Below you will find the original article in German (unfortunately hard to read) and my English translation. I have indicated John's responses in italics.
Enjoy the reading!
QUEEN - Pleasant quirks in the crown
With relentless punctuality, there's a Queen tour every Christmas season: 1977, 78, 79, 80! Not much has changed on the show, not even Freddie's sleek mustache could help. But Queen fans don't expect that either; it is enough for them if good, new songs are added. And Queen have plenty of them. The fans (like the musicians themselves) don't see Freddie's macho demeanor as militant - it's a show. And the viewers, listeners and readers don't learn anything about the allies of the king of the queen, who hasn't given any interviews for years. In addition, Bernd Gockel managed to get bass player John Deacon in front of the microphone and he said some really interesting things...
There wouldn't be much to report if -- yes, if it weren't for John Deacon, who allowed himself to be persuaded to give an interview in Berlin and actually let it be known for the first time that a few teeth in the royal crown wobble dangerously from time to time...
The last album as well as the last two singles are the most successful records you have ever made, especially in the USA. Musically, it all sounds much simpler and more straightforward than the pompous arrangements you made three or four years ago. Why? How so? why?
Yes, the songs are a lot less complicated on average than they were a few years ago. This may have something to do with the circumstances of the recording. We've been together for 10 years now and decided to record the album in different phases -- a couple of weeks at a time for two, three tracks. "Crazy Little Thing" was the first number, and although we made very different songs after that, the first recording seems to have had something of a signal effect. Anyway, the whole record is simpler and more straightforward, no doubt about that. Why is that ultimately the case? I have no idea.
Has there ever been a point in the last few years when you said to yourself: We can't go on like this, we have to go back from the over-the-top arrangements to simpler songs -- away with "Mustapha", away with "Bohemian Rhapsody"?
You can't say that in such an exaggerated way. When you're working on new numbers in the studio, you sometimes wonder yourself what influences are there. Especially when -- as with us -- four people write songs individually. It's really difficult to answer what influences are being processed – or whether we're perhaps unconsciously pursuing a certain direction.
Is there such a thing as faction fights or at least differences of opinion...
Oh yeah.
...about the musical direction...
Oh yes.
...within the group...
Oh yes.
...whether you take the complicated or the simple songs...
Oh yeah, oh yeah.
Who is on whose side when opposing views or tastes collide?
Difficult to say. Everyone in the group has different tastes. As a guitarist, Brian is initially interested in music that is strongly influenced by the guitar. Roger is more rock'n'roller, while I'm more into black music. Above all, of course, because the bass plays such a decisive role in black music. And Freddy? You can't really say that about him. Freddie has odd tastes, he takes a little of everything. There is no musical style that you can say Freddie is behind.
Are there groups within the group that feel connected by a similar taste?
To be honest, there are four factions. Everyone has a very distinct and different taste. Of course there are sometimes groups, but the composition is constantly changing. As is well known, in groups where only one man is in charge, there is a danger that the entire band will be pulled in this one direction for better or for worse. Fortunately, that's not the case with Queen.
But at least that's how it was in the early years of the group?
Yes, in the beginning Brian and Freddie were the most important factors. They still write most of the songs, but Roger and I are much more involved with the group now. In fact, Roger now has so much material that he had to make a solo album. He just couldn't fit it into the group anymore.
But is he the only one with solo ambitions?
At least so far. I don't write as many songs as he does, so it's not too frustrating for me that only a part of this material can be used. Freddie could do a solo album because he can be really productive when he wants to.
And why doesn't he want to? Too lazy?
Yes, sometimes, I think so. When we're working on an album, he does it, but in between he likes to let the reins slip a bit.
How do the relationships of the four participants look on a private level. Is it like Pink Floyd, for example, who live in four different places around the world nine months a year and only get together in the studio when absolutely necessary?
No, no, we all live near London and still see each other fairly regularly. I know that some bands have problems if they live geographically too far apart. You have to get together regularly and discuss the problems at hand. We don't actually do anything unless at least three people have the same opinion. It's quite a democratic process.
So something is done, even if the fourth man has serious concerns?
That depends on the level of concern. If the fourth man pulls out all the stops and comes up with real arguments against the joint decision, then an exception is made to the rule. And such situations happen.
After 10 years, don't you feel the urge to completely avoid each other for a few months after a longer tour?
Oh yes, something like this is just necessary. Take the Who, for example, they were also on a dying branch two or three years ago because Pete Townshend was fed up with touring. But then -- also due to Keith Moon's death -- they picked themselves up and got their ship running again. I saw them in LA, they were amazing, they're back in full control of what they're doing! And Pink Floyd -- well, that's an odd group. We're still trying to do an LP and a tour every year and get everywhere, but Floyd does a few gigs in LA, a few in New York, a few in London and now a few in Dortmund -- and then it's a long time coming time nothing. Or take their new album, for example, which...
...which is actually nothing more than Roger's solo album.
Exactly, and that must be a strain on the group. The public doesn't know anything about it, they think Pink Floyd is Pink Floyd. Outsiders usually don't even notice the tensions and shifts that exist within a group. I can imagine that it's not necessarily good for the atmosphere in a group when Nicky Mason, for example, feels that he's only the drummer and has nothing else to call on. Luckily for Queen it's different, although we had a similar problem recently while recording the new LP FLASH GORDON. We all started working together, but in the end it was Brian who finished the record, who decided what songs to put on etc. This is an unusual situation for Queen, which promptly led to disagreements. Brian wanted to credit the German engineer, with whom he had worked closely in Munich, as producer, while we would have preferred to see it as a Queen album together. In the end Brian prevailed, we gave in. But for the public it will still be a normal Queen album. "FLASH GORDON -- Music by Queen." Beyond that, hardly any differentiations are made. I also believe that outsiders have no idea how personal and significant some songs that are created within a group are. To the audience it's a Queen song, even though it's actually a very personal song from one member.
How about the case of "Another One Bites The Dust" for example? How is this song personal and representative of you?
The song came about because I've actually always wanted to do something along the lines of black, disco-oriented music. I managed to get this song on the album as it is. He's not typical of Queen and I don't know if we'll ever do anything like it. Because there were immediately differences of opinion. Our company in America wanted to release the song as a single because it immediately got strong airplay on black radio stations. Roger was keen to stop it because it was too disco-heavy for Queen -- and disco is still a dirty word in some circles. He didn't think it would fit into the overall picture of the group.
Do situations like this happen more often?
They happen. For example, Brian can't relate to a Freddie song -- or vice versa. You don't bang it on the head straight away, but from behind you can already feel how a new song is received by the rest of the groups. "Another One Bites The Dust" is actually just the most recent example. Roger was really against it because he didn't think Queen should become a band that only thrives on hit singles that are also pretty poppy. We want to keep the heaviness that we have as a live group -- there's really no difference about that either.
Maybe then one more question about your show: For example, if you still bring "Bohemian Rhapsody" today, have to bring it -- isn't that ballast for you, which is outdated and old-fashioned?
The biggest problem with the performances is that we try to unobtrusively toss out old material. Of course, "Bohemian Rhapsody" is old hat for us, that's Queen 1975. But it's hard to let go of material that viewers are expecting.
So are you making compromises?
A little, yes. We try to balance old and new as evenly as possible.
Which songs would you rather throw overboard today than tomorrow?
Hm. We're trying to solve that problem by putting some old hits in the form of a medley. Sometimes Brian also says he doesn't want to play his usual solo on the next tour. He's been saying that for a long time, but it's kind of a feature of our show. We're running into a rubber wall. It's the same with "Bohemian Rhapsody", which is also a tough one for us. But finally, you have to take into account that we keep adding new fans who are seeing a Queen show for the first time. Then it can happen that as a long-standing group you have to carry a whole bunch of old hits around with you. But that's a problem all old bands can sing a song about.
Bernd Gockel
With relentless punctuality, there's a Queen tour every Christmas season: 1977, 78, 79, 80! Not much has changed on the show, not even Freddie's sleek mustache could help. But Queen fans don't expect that either; it is enough for them if good, new songs are added. And Queen have plenty of them. The fans (like the musicians themselves) don't see Freddie's macho demeanor as militant - it's a show. And the viewers, listeners and readers don't learn anything about the allies of the king of the queen, who hasn't given any interviews for years. In addition, Bernd Gockel managed to get bass player John Deacon in front of the microphone and he said some really interesting things...
There wouldn't be much to report if -- yes, if it weren't for John Deacon, who allowed himself to be persuaded to give an interview in Berlin and actually let it be known for the first time that a few teeth in the royal crown wobble dangerously from time to time...
The last album as well as the last two singles are the most successful records you have ever made, especially in the USA. Musically, it all sounds much simpler and more straightforward than the pompous arrangements you made three or four years ago. Why? How so? why?
Yes, the songs are a lot less complicated on average than they were a few years ago. This may have something to do with the circumstances of the recording. We've been together for 10 years now and decided to record the album in different phases -- a couple of weeks at a time for two, three tracks. "Crazy Little Thing" was the first number, and although we made very different songs after that, the first recording seems to have had something of a signal effect. Anyway, the whole record is simpler and more straightforward, no doubt about that. Why is that ultimately the case? I have no idea.
Has there ever been a point in the last few years when you said to yourself: We can't go on like this, we have to go back from the over-the-top arrangements to simpler songs -- away with "Mustapha", away with "Bohemian Rhapsody"?
You can't say that in such an exaggerated way. When you're working on new numbers in the studio, you sometimes wonder yourself what influences are there. Especially when -- as with us -- four people write songs individually. It's really difficult to answer what influences are being processed – or whether we're perhaps unconsciously pursuing a certain direction.
Is there such a thing as faction fights or at least differences of opinion...
Oh yeah.
...about the musical direction...
Oh yes.
...within the group...
Oh yes.
...whether you take the complicated or the simple songs...
Oh yeah, oh yeah.
Who is on whose side when opposing views or tastes collide?
Difficult to say. Everyone in the group has different tastes. As a guitarist, Brian is initially interested in music that is strongly influenced by the guitar. Roger is more rock'n'roller, while I'm more into black music. Above all, of course, because the bass plays such a decisive role in black music. And Freddy? You can't really say that about him. Freddie has odd tastes, he takes a little of everything. There is no musical style that you can say Freddie is behind.
Are there groups within the group that feel connected by a similar taste?
To be honest, there are four factions. Everyone has a very distinct and different taste. Of course there are sometimes groups, but the composition is constantly changing. As is well known, in groups where only one man is in charge, there is a danger that the entire band will be pulled in this one direction for better or for worse. Fortunately, that's not the case with Queen.
But at least that's how it was in the early years of the group?
Yes, in the beginning Brian and Freddie were the most important factors. They still write most of the songs, but Roger and I are much more involved with the group now. In fact, Roger now has so much material that he had to make a solo album. He just couldn't fit it into the group anymore.
But is he the only one with solo ambitions?
At least so far. I don't write as many songs as he does, so it's not too frustrating for me that only a part of this material can be used. Freddie could do a solo album because he can be really productive when he wants to.
And why doesn't he want to? Too lazy?
Yes, sometimes, I think so. When we're working on an album, he does it, but in between he likes to let the reins slip a bit.
How do the relationships of the four participants look on a private level. Is it like Pink Floyd, for example, who live in four different places around the world nine months a year and only get together in the studio when absolutely necessary?
No, no, we all live near London and still see each other fairly regularly. I know that some bands have problems if they live geographically too far apart. You have to get together regularly and discuss the problems at hand. We don't actually do anything unless at least three people have the same opinion. It's quite a democratic process.
So something is done, even if the fourth man has serious concerns?
That depends on the level of concern. If the fourth man pulls out all the stops and comes up with real arguments against the joint decision, then an exception is made to the rule. And such situations happen.
After 10 years, don't you feel the urge to completely avoid each other for a few months after a longer tour?
Oh yes, something like this is just necessary. Take the Who, for example, they were also on a dying branch two or three years ago because Pete Townshend was fed up with touring. But then -- also due to Keith Moon's death -- they picked themselves up and got their ship running again. I saw them in LA, they were amazing, they're back in full control of what they're doing! And Pink Floyd -- well, that's an odd group. We're still trying to do an LP and a tour every year and get everywhere, but Floyd does a few gigs in LA, a few in New York, a few in London and now a few in Dortmund -- and then it's a long time coming time nothing. Or take their new album, for example, which...
...which is actually nothing more than Roger's solo album.
Exactly, and that must be a strain on the group. The public doesn't know anything about it, they think Pink Floyd is Pink Floyd. Outsiders usually don't even notice the tensions and shifts that exist within a group. I can imagine that it's not necessarily good for the atmosphere in a group when Nicky Mason, for example, feels that he's only the drummer and has nothing else to call on. Luckily for Queen it's different, although we had a similar problem recently while recording the new LP FLASH GORDON. We all started working together, but in the end it was Brian who finished the record, who decided what songs to put on etc. This is an unusual situation for Queen, which promptly led to disagreements. Brian wanted to credit the German engineer, with whom he had worked closely in Munich, as producer, while we would have preferred to see it as a Queen album together. In the end Brian prevailed, we gave in. But for the public it will still be a normal Queen album. "FLASH GORDON -- Music by Queen." Beyond that, hardly any differentiations are made. I also believe that outsiders have no idea how personal and significant some songs that are created within a group are. To the audience it's a Queen song, even though it's actually a very personal song from one member.
How about the case of "Another One Bites The Dust" for example? How is this song personal and representative of you?
The song came about because I've actually always wanted to do something along the lines of black, disco-oriented music. I managed to get this song on the album as it is. He's not typical of Queen and I don't know if we'll ever do anything like it. Because there were immediately differences of opinion. Our company in America wanted to release the song as a single because it immediately got strong airplay on black radio stations. Roger was keen to stop it because it was too disco-heavy for Queen -- and disco is still a dirty word in some circles. He didn't think it would fit into the overall picture of the group.
Do situations like this happen more often?
They happen. For example, Brian can't relate to a Freddie song -- or vice versa. You don't bang it on the head straight away, but from behind you can already feel how a new song is received by the rest of the groups. "Another One Bites The Dust" is actually just the most recent example. Roger was really against it because he didn't think Queen should become a band that only thrives on hit singles that are also pretty poppy. We want to keep the heaviness that we have as a live group -- there's really no difference about that either.
Maybe then one more question about your show: For example, if you still bring "Bohemian Rhapsody" today, have to bring it -- isn't that ballast for you, which is outdated and old-fashioned?
The biggest problem with the performances is that we try to unobtrusively toss out old material. Of course, "Bohemian Rhapsody" is old hat for us, that's Queen 1975. But it's hard to let go of material that viewers are expecting.
So are you making compromises?
A little, yes. We try to balance old and new as evenly as possible.
Which songs would you rather throw overboard today than tomorrow?
Hm. We're trying to solve that problem by putting some old hits in the form of a medley. Sometimes Brian also says he doesn't want to play his usual solo on the next tour. He's been saying that for a long time, but it's kind of a feature of our show. We're running into a rubber wall. It's the same with "Bohemian Rhapsody", which is also a tough one for us. But finally, you have to take into account that we keep adding new fans who are seeing a Queen show for the first time. Then it can happen that as a long-standing group you have to carry a whole bunch of old hits around with you. But that's a problem all old bands can sing a song about.
Bernd Gockel