Michael Hutchence. Largely forgotten?*

Excuse me. I happen to be a fan of INXS and I've noticed a trend in this thread. It seems that those here who feel like trashing them, seem to know the least about them overall.

At least I know what I'm talking about, in terms of the history of the band being discussed here.

Forgive me for getting my back up just a little bit, but it's always blown my mind here how many members like a lot of mediocre fluff and yet schitt all over a lot of the good stuff.

I get fed up with it overall.

 

I have actually heard those albums from the band's hayday. They were quite popular here at the time and largely inescapable. As I've noted, I don't hate those records. I just don't see them as being as groundbreaking as you appear to - we may just have a different definition of what we consider to be "cutting edge" and that's fine. I myself don't see them as being anything other than a band that had a fair amount of success for a good run and then they just lost favour and faded from the public consciousness as pop bands do. Hell, this is the first time I've actively engaged in conversation about INXS in years... Nothing I've seen or heard here has really convinced me otherwise. You may not concur and again, that's fine. As to INXS being no more mainstream than David Bowie, you may have a valid point if the only three records Bowie ever made were Let's Dance, Tonight and Never Let Me Down. Beyond that.....

In all fairness, I did find their method of attempting to find a replacement for Hutchence to be kinda sketchy and the outcome kinda predictable and that may colour my opinion of the band somewhat. It smacked of a Sunset Boulevard attempt at clinging to the limelight when one might best relinquish one's grip. I can't imagine some of their contemporaries who have been mentioned here like U2 or Simple Minds stooping to that kind of action and it suggests to me that maybe the band was more concerned with fame and the maintenance thereof than with being "cutting edge". I think it also showed that in their eyes, Hutchence was just a removable. Clearly he was not. He was a very solid front man and figurehead. The only parallel I can come up with is STP who also ended up with a vaguely-familiar looking replacement for a charismatic and popular lead vocalist and I understand that he was also a TV show contestant. I saw them a while ago and it was appalling. Maybe the DeLeos and the Farriss Bros. should form a supergroup that I can collectively ignore. Efficient.

D.D.

 

I couldn't help but notice that you do indeed appear to be an INXS fan. Fine by me. I'm not trashing them and have actually been complementary of Hutchence and have tipped my hat to their success so stop that nonsense. And unless someone declared you to be Tastemaker To The Nations while I was at work today, you might be a better ambassador for the bands you enjoy if you'd drop the "what I like is the good stuff and what you like is mediocre
fluff" B.S. It just sounds insecure and it polarizes what could be illuminating discussion. If you really like those bands, you shouldn't really give a damn if others don't like them as much. Or at all.

You're excused.

D.D.

 

INXS was a great band led by a charismatic front man. I can attest to that having seen them in the late ‘80’s. Every one of my music friends liked them. As someone said up thread, they worked their a**** off to get where they were and that wasn’t easy at the time coming from Australia. Respect...

 

In regards to INXS replacing Hutchence (and even STP replacing Weiland), I wouldn't say it was so much an attempt at clinging to the limelight or being concerned with fame, so much as it was just about wanting to continue making music and carrying on the legacy that they built. In both cases the person who died was only but one member of the group. Why should the others have to suffer, or hang it up, or even change their name when they were still the majority of the band, and were very much a part of the group receiving the success they did? I also don't think that's they felt that Michael was a removable that was easily replaceable, either. In INXS' case, they waited a very respectable amount of time before going the route they did to replace Michael and try again. I really do believe it was more of a case of them wanting to continue on making music, and once the grieving period was at a point where they felt like they could give fair go again, they did. Granted, I will give you that the way they went about it was fairly off putting, if not cheesy - but damn, I still watched all of it, and so did many of my friends at the time. Seeing as how the show's producer, Mark Burnett, was also an Aussie, I'm sure that played some big part in making it happen, as well.

 

Probably have to thank Double Jay for that: they played the hell out of 801 Live.

 

"The last time we'll ever play it live. Thank God for that." It's on Stay Young The Deluxe Years.

 

While referring to Michael Hutchence as "only one member of the group" is mathematically accurate, I don't think that really supports your argument that INXS didn't consider him to be a removable. They've gone through singers since his death like Spinal Tap went through drummers. And as to "the grieving period" and spending a "very respectable amount of time before going the route they did to replace Michael ", I seem to recall that J.D. Fortune wasn't even the first Hutchence replacement, was he ? He certainly wasn't the last. Ick factor : high. So much for legacy.

You can deal with the loss of a key band member with some class ( see: Led Zeppelin, Manic Street Preachers, The Tragically Hip ). You can even keep your nucleus intact and get a second chance with a new singer replacing your band's accepted focal point ( see : Creed / Alter Bridge, Marillion with Fish / Marillion with H ). Or you can let your egos and /or financial considerations dictate your path forward and assume that you can lose your beloved front man and still ride the tiger. But sometimes the tiger has other ideas ( see : INXS ).

D.D.

 

My take with INXS post Hutchence was more they wanted to continue, needed something to do and were in a bad spot. Jon Stevens recorded one song with them and J.D. Fortune did the album with them. Ciaran Gribbin did 2 songs with them. Otherwise it was all guest singers for one-off events.

No INXS fans really discuss any of this. I'd say most of us still like to think the band ended when Michael died. Did it "tarnish the legacy?" Yeah I'd say so but I realize they were probably desperate to do something still.

 

Well, you can have that opinion/assumption, but I believe it to be very wrong. Hutchence died in 1997. INXS didn't do any live performances until a year after his death, and even then, they only made a few one-off shows with "guest" vocalists until 2000, three years after his passing. One of those singers was Jon Stevens, formerly the frontman for fellow Aussie rockers Noiseworks. They continued to perform the occasional gigs with him, and actually did decide to name him a member of the band in 2002. However by 2003, he had left the band after only releasing one single with them. It was then another two years until Rockstar:INXS happened, and J.D. Fortune became their new singer. So when I say they waited a respectable amount of time, you can clearly see there were years long gaps between things happening with them trying to replace Michael Hutchence. Sure, they could have just decided to hang it up, like Zeppelin pretty much did after John Bonham died, and there was talk that that might be what would happen. However, they also didn't go the AC/DC route of replacing their dead frontman a mere three months after he died. (And I'm sure when they were weighing their options about which way they should proceed, they likely used AC/DC as a good reason why they shoukd try and continue.) I'm sure this added info won't change your mind, as you just seem dead set on finding any excuse you can not to like the band, or bring them down somehow.

 

I agree.
I think they should have just stayed with Stevens, or started something new altogether.
I don't recognise any post Hutchence Inxs ... it was just a sad decline.
I get the impression that in not really giving themselves time to mourn, they ended up losing the plot completely, and never recovered.

 

Great. Let's get t-shirts made up that say " INXS : MORE CLASS THAN AC/DC BY SEVERAL MONTHS ! " What size do you take ? I'm guessing "X-tra Defensive".

D.D.

 

I had a listen to Welcome To Wherever You Are today.
Yea, great album.
I knew a lot more songs on it that I thought. I think there must have been four or five hits in oz off this album.
On first listen my favourite track was actually the opener Questions. What a good track, and a real nice change for the band.

 

Damn, they were a really good band. Stupid tight rhythm sections, great hooks and riffs and an amazing front man. Once Michael passed it was over no matter how hard they tried.

 

These exchanges between you and I all started because you supported the post of a threadcrapper here who came and went with one stupid post about INXS as a band being less than essential and his avatar is a band called "Boards Of Canada" (and if there was ever a less than essential act...) . I'm not coming off as Mr Know It All here, it's just that some really idiotic stuff has been suggested in this thread. You're not the one I was directing a negative comment to in the first place, so let's leave it at that.

"To each their own" is something I believe in, but too many times I read opinions by people on this forum with what I think is questionable taste in music and sometimes you call them on it when you think they're wrong about something (and there's nothing wrong with doing that)

 

You're Canadian. Where's your sense of irony ? A highly-developed sense of irony and politeness are all we're known for. Did you come from away ?

D.D.

 

Little known fact: they actually asked Mike Patton if he wanted to join the group. He laughed and said no. I couldn't imagine that working at all either. I guess it just shows how desperate they were to put anything together.

 

A long-defunct band from Australia foments Canadian-on-Canadian verbal warfare. I did not see this coming.

 

Nobody does. Politeness and sense of irony. That's it. But we get by....

D.D.

 

I haven’t forgotten him. Great front man, singer and my wife thought he was sexy as hell. Terrific band aside from him as well. Without him though, they were rather lost much like Queen.

 

Oh I don’t know, I could see Mike fronting them and they would be a very different band but still interesting.

 

I recall Mike Patton made a joke about turning up to INXS rehearsals with a noose around his neck. What a lovely guy.

 

Pat Benatar is my favourite singer of all time. She was so freakin talented and enjoyed such great success in Australia - I think it was her most successful territory for sales after the US. I’ve enjoyed all her music since I was a kid but appreciate that she took a break to have a family and never regained her former success. She is a stunner of a singer live and can out sing just about anyone. I agree, it is sad that she is not better remembered and embraced although I have seen and read interviews with a number of younger female singers who have cited her as an influence.

 

Mike Chapman produced her first couple albums, which may explain why she was so popular in Oz. Great voice, but when you don't write your own material your career can run aground at any time. New wave singers like Debbie Harry, Cyndi Lauper and Chrissy Hynde rendered hard-rockers like Benatar obsolete.