the tarnishing of INXS

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
wolfeden said:
The Grateful Dead still tour under a slightly different name, since the passing of Jerry. For awhile they were "The Other Ones", now they're "The Dead", but even they know after all these years, and after other band members have died -- Pigpen, Brent Mydland --, that it's just not the Grateful Dead without him, even after so many years together.

I wish INXS took that same lesson to heart.


Maybe they should be XS now....
 
INXS tarnished itself when Hutchence decided he couldn't get off by the usual means.

I mean who does he think he is? Dalton?
 
I read that the other day, but then read yesterday that he hadn't been booted from the band. Or something. It's confusing, but then again, I don't really care that much.

When I read the original article, it's amazing how quickly I went from "wow, poor guy, that's shitty of INXS" to "... oh, so you blew it by being a big ol' cokehead. Shocking, dude."
 
INXS tarnished itself when Hutchence decided he couldn't get off by the usual means.

I mean who does he think he is? Dalton?

I always speculated that he died because he completely misunderstood the instructions in one of those "How to Last Longer During Sex" manuals.

"Apply(ing) firm steady pressure at the base of the head" is a dangerous instruction when misunderstood.
 
INXS tarnished itself when Hutchence decided he couldn't get off by the usual means.

I mean who does he think he is? Dalton?

I always speculated that he died because he completely misunderstood the instructions in one of those "How to Last Longer During Sex" manuals.

"Apply(ing) firm steady pressure at the base of the head" is a dangerous instruction when misunderstood.


:down:

:shame:
 
I think INXS should do whatever they want with their band. They are still talented, healthy, and young enough to carry on for years to come. It bothers me (actually very little in the grand scheme things) to think that one person's silly/selfish act (be it auto-erotic asphyxiation or suicide) should determine the remaining decades of viable careers and life for others close to them. This stuff about their "legacy" doesn't mean much to me. Enough with the somber and endless funeral processions around the likes of Michael Hutchence, Kurt Cobain, etc. Life has to go on. People have families to support, etc. They can be great (according to whatever your definition of great may be) or they can sell out (whatever that is), but that is up to them. Michael Hutchence (or his legacy) don't get a vote any more. INXS is playing the best hand they can with the crappy cards that Michael Hutchence dealt them.

I am not saying this just to take a contrary position. It genuinely offends me that one person's selfishness (or whatever you want to call it) should be allowed to control so many other innocent lives. Should STP retire forever in order to protect their "legacy" just because Scott Weiland is such a troubled artiste that he will not stop injecting himself with garbage?
 
I think INXS should do whatever they want with their band. They are still talented, healthy, and young enough to carry on for years to come. It bothers me (actually very little in the grand scheme things) to think that one person's silly/selfish act (be it auto-erotic asphyxiation or suicide) should determine the remaining decades of viable careers and life for others close to them. This stuff about their "legacy" doesn't mean much to me. Enough with the somber and endless funeral processions around the likes of Michael Hutchence, Kurt Cobain, etc. Life has to go on. People have families to support, etc. They can be great (according to whatever your definition of great may be) or they can sell out (whatever that is), but that is up to them. Michael Hutchence (or his legacy) don't get a vote any more. INXS is playing the best hand they can with the crappy cards that Michael Hutchence dealt them.

I am not saying this just to take a contrary position. It genuinely offends me that one person's selfishness (or whatever you want to call it) should be allowed to control so many other innocent lives. Should STP retire forever in order to protect their "legacy" just because Scott Weiland is such a troubled artiste that he will not stop injecting himself with garbage?


I understand and can see your point. I had no qualms with them carrying on in some fashion or another, under the moniker INXS is a different question.

My big falling out was how they went about carrying on. It lacked integrity, and that is something that they previously had, even after Hutch's suicide. Going on a contest/reality show and picking the most hackey, Vegas lounge-act, Michael Hutchence wannabe was completely disrespectful to what INXS had been, with or without Michael, up to that point.

And I have to say, no matter how selfish and cowardly Michael's actions were, some things are just indelible: R.E.M. without Bill Berry can still be R.E.M.; R.E.M. without Michael Stipe just wouldn't be R.E.M. Sometimes lead singers completely identify the band and sometimes not. O.M.D. without Andy McClusky probably would've been fine. INXS without Michael Hutchence just isn't INXS.

They could've gone on under a different name, e.g. New Order. Or they could've chosen an appropriate lead singer their own age, with a similar history and experience behind him or her. Instead they chose to pander to the lowest common denominator and do what they did and choose who they did.

That is why they lost all my respect. Not because they chose to carry on.
 
Why are they getting Americans to replace Hutchy?

I agree with Khanada in saying that they should have changed their name. That is all I would've asked for. That is my major gripe about the whole JD Fortune saga (who I thought was a pretty good frontman, and I reckon Afterglow and Pretty Vegas are very cracking tunes).

To sensationalise this new series, they'll probably replace Hutchy with a black person or a female, would garner some extra publicity.
 
hahaha, i laughed when i read this article. inxs got pwned for picking such a jerk. maybe next time they'll pick a replacement using more traditional means or just hang it up and call it a day. i'm thinking the latter might be the better option because as much as i loved inxs, and still love their hutchence-era material, it seems to be a revolving door of lead singers.
 
Haha back to the drawing board! I kinda liked Afterglow although it was a bit too soft rock-ish. lol.

And I don't understand why "Kick" gets the most recognition. I listened to it again recently after ages and ended up skipping some tracks. "Welcome..." is their best album IMO.
 
I guess it's just me. Kick bores me now, especially stuff like New Sensation and Need You Tonight. :yawn: Welcome To Wherever You Are was almost like their Achtung Baby in sound and so much more interesting. :drool:
 
I'm still think, and always will, The Swing and Listen Like Thieves are their best efforts. Those albums are just INXS to me. Those albums have the sound I identify with INXS. Plus, they're just fantastic albums! :up:

Welcome To Wherever You Are is good, but spotty; there's a lot of hit-and-miss on that album.
 
i like their earlier stuff. i'd probably say underneath the colours is my favourite, wif shabooh shoobah in second. for their later stuff, i like x. though they don't have a bad album...other than afterglow (which i've never even listened to and just hate it out of obligation).
 
I'm still think, and always will, The Swing and Listen Like Thieves are their best efforts. Those albums are just INXS to me. Those albums have the sound I identify with INXS. Plus, they're just fantastic albums! :up:

Yes.

I can't fault INXS for wanting to continue after Michael's death, but the Rock star: inxs thing really turned me off.
 
Back
Top Bottom