deep
Blue Crack Addict
peta might care - those animals do not look too well
U2DMfan said:That's possibly why they are trying to cash in on America, more asses to put in the seats, more ears for listening and more pockets for doling out cash for albums and t-shirts etc.
It's clearly a commercial move, I couldn't fathom an argument otherwise, if you have one I'd love to read it.
INXS has been dead here too for years. About all they had left was the integrity of what they had done with Hutch and a pretty damn good back catalog of songs.
Really, the only path I see to relevance would have been to change it up, stir the pot and go at it differently.
Clearly they chose the guy who could mime Hutch the best because it was the path of least resitance and at the same time it's an acknowledgement that people don't think much of them (on a mass scale) without Hutch.
At the end of the day this was the easiest way to gain a spike of popularity in an effort to give them momentum for the future. Look, I am an INXS fan but they are all but over creatively and are basically relegated to 'hits' band. People in America know who they are, they just don't care. Lots of people know who U2 are and don't care either, look at their singles chart success in America over the last several years, abyssmal. It's not unique to U2, it's the apathy of the music buying public. YOu have to have the image to be popular, this is why coveting popularity is such a bastard. It doesn't make good sense, creatively or musically the only thing that fuels it are ego and commercialism.
The only people buying loads of digestable pop fluff and rock pop redundancy are those who digest it and toss it away. The people who aren't music fans with 500 CD's and albums in their collections, these are the people who only buy compilations with the "hits" on them. INXS wants another hit, like a crackhead needs another hit as Chris Rock once said. A total commercial move. This is what is repulsive to some people, that music is not good enough to stand on it's own merits, it insults the listener that they need to be "sold" into thinking somethings good.
U2SavesTheWorld said:The lead singer of INXS is Michael Hutchence.
The lead singer of this new band will be known within the hour.
Earnie Shavers said:
What if, 10 years ago, Neil Finn smoked his way into a coma he never returned from, and then Crowded House decided the best way forward was to go on a tacky US REALITY TV SHOW to replace him?
What if Bono drunkenly decided to see if he actually was God and jumped out the door of the Vertigo plane mid flight? You think U2 would get a wonderous reception should they try and replace him via a shithouse reality tv show? I'd suggest that 99.9% of this site would be repulsed by the idea.
INXS & Michael Hutchence hold a place in Australia similar to the place U2 hold in Ireland or someone like Bruce Springsteen holds in the US. Everyone here kinda respectfully averted their attention and sort of understood while INXS fumbled around with a few truly awful replacement singers, but the reaction here to this show is the end of any respect they had left.
It is MUSIC BUSINESS, but it's one of it's very lowest points.
Angela Harlem said:INXS weren't relevant in 1997 when Hutchence died? According to whom? Americans? Guess what. There's a whole other world outside vaccuous America that an Australian band called INXS lived in, and success did not hang on American or even Australian chart sales, nor concert sales. It has fuck all to do with jack shit.
To anyone suggesting it sounds like What You Need must do themselves an educational favour and look up Iva Davies and Greedy Smith. THAT is who this new singer sounds like; a nice amalgamation of the 2. Funnily enough, both skips.
STING2 said:
The otherside of the equation, concert ticket sales, has seen U2 set the record in Europe for the highest grossing tour ever, despite the fact that U2 only played 32 shows there this summer. In North America, the Rolling Stones are the only artist that can compete with U2 (Paul McCartney is close as well) and their position is starting to slip. Worldwide, U2 has now taking away the Rolling Stones title as the worlds biggest concert drawer.
phanan said:
I would add Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band to that, especially if you are referring to just North America.
U2DMfan said:Well STING, first off let me say when we disagree, it is respectfully, I appreciate what you have to say if it's here or FYM or wherever.
I beleive your response while certainly accurate in that sense, is sort of the apologist manifesto on some subjects. "oh, the singles tank but they don't care about that....."Sure they do. I can provide quotes from the band talking about "hits" and such.
I made the remark over in the other forum about your apology that GReen Day is beating U2's sales "oh, people are buying it because of other reasons other than the music". Forgive me, but that is a crock. What if they think it's better music? Most people outside of a U2 forum DO. It IS entirely possible.
And yes, relative to the industry I agree. That's why I said there is so much apathy these days from the music buying public. A 4/5 million selling album is the same "big hit" that an 8/9 million used to be, more or less.
And in a business sense, I agree with you about the purpose of a single. But I am not totally disassociated with the music aspect, I think the purpose of a single, a lead single especially is to say "this is where we are going" musically. If the shit is good enough, it will sell. The thing about post Sweetest Thing Redux U2 is that they are taking the risks out of the music and calculating. The average target demo, that they are shooting for are apathetic mostly. That's my whole point, they don't care anyways they like stylistic music by younger musicans. Doesn't even have to be good in most cases.
U2 breaking tour records is a yawner. When they tabulate those records by capita, then I might be interested. right now, U2 can charge substantially more, no fucking wonder they are making so much money. Grossings, schmossings, big damn deal is what I say. If I charged a million dollars a head to see me put on an acoustic show, I'd have a better chance to beat U2 that Green Day. I don't downgrade or disparage what U2 are doing, the whole point in this INXS thread is that this supposed target audience is apathetic. Meanwhile other bands are taking rock and roll into the next decade, step by step, while others tread water trying to be relevant by sell, sell, sell. Bullshit, I call.
U2 would sell out an arena tour with NO album to support here in the States. As for taking the mantle away from the Stones, is this the mantle you think they want? The dinosaur legends of rock and roll? Maybe U2 wants to be slightly more progressive than that, as do alot of other fans.
The things I belive in with U2 are hard to express in statistics, sales and concert data. I think the best way a band/musician can make their mark, have relevance and success is to be unignorably brilliant musically.
To bring that back to INXS, I think they have adapted the U2 philosophy, possibly they've both always had it, that relevance can only be validated with sales.
timothius said:
I don't want to fuel a fire, but what dictates relevance then?
I think that chart sales would have a great deal to do with their relevance to the music industry. In 1997 EW didn't even crack the Top 100 albums in sales, which included Australian artists: Savage Garden, Paul Kelly, Human Nature, John Farnham (3 times), 12th Man, Bee Gees (twice), Crowded House, Midnight Oil, Spiderbait, The Seekers, Powderfinger, John Williamson, Jimmy Barnes, The Wiggles, Grinspoon, Regurgitator, Leonardo's Bride, The Whitlams & Tania Kernighan - I would've thought at bare minimum that is a sure sign that their place in Australian music had slipped from the hay-days of Kick -> X. (Full Moon didn't crack the the Top 50 (all that is availbale) and had a similar ratio of Aus artists in it, although it did have a much later release date).
I tend to agree with Earnie on most things, but saying INXS is U2's Australia (or anywhere near it) - is way off, not just chartwise, but in terms of influence and overall standing amongst music enthusiasts.
For my money if any band is "Australia's U2" we are looking in the general direction of Midnight Oil, possibly Cold Chisel or somthing down that vien.
Angela Harlem said:
'Tis ok it's not fuelling a fire. I'm not going to speak about anywhere else but Australia as I dont know anywhere else. Charts and concert sales cannot be a deciding factor in a band's success though. Not here, at least. They contribute, definitely, like many things. But it is not a very accurate way to gauge how successful a band is. Cold Chisel is a prime example. They've dominated the pub rock sccene for decades but do not need constant #1s to be Number One. Touring here is also sketchy. Bands will tour 5 states at the most, and if they're big venues then you're looking at a very finite and drawn out touring. It seems that America experiences concerts on a very regular basis and at multiple venues because there is money in travelling very short distances. We get one city per state and perhaps a handful of shows. Smaller bands will spend perhaps 2 weeks per capital and fit in the Hordern and The Metro for example. And that is the same for each city. Then like any sized band, they'll piss off for another few years and come back when they need to affirm their spot as an important band here. I'm not speaking from sour grapes - we're an expensive audience unfortunately. But success cannot ride on touring. INXSs success certainly neverrelied on their touring and record sales. When Michael Hutchence died, they were still saturated into our music sccene and hadn't really gone anywhere. They were afforded what some bands here do. Midnight Oil now have lost some lustre because Garrett has deflected so much attention away from the music, but they're still bloody popular.
Is this making much sense? Probably not, lol. I can only guess with America, for example, but it seems much more competitve there (moreso than here) and bands have to it differently to here. Perhaps the differences are subtle, but we're so much smaller and will hang on to many who dont constantly remind us of their presence. INXS were one of them.
STING2 said:
I would not add Bruce Springsteen because he was unable to sellout a single stadium show in LA at a mid-range ticket price and had trouble filling arena's in the southern United States. Springsteen can knock out anyone in his home area, which is the 5th largest metropolitan area in the world, New York City. He could also probably rule Philadelphia and then be damn competitive in Boston and Washington DC. Get away from those area's though and his concert drawing power drops of dramatically, based on the results of the last couple of tours.
timothius said:
I'm kind of getting your vibe. Would this analogy be anywhere near the mark?
INXS are similar to Oliva Newton John. Major success overseas, blazed many trails in regards to overseas acting for Aus/NZ actors/actresses and regarded as a bit of an Aussie Icon. Despite all that though her overall drawing power in this country border nil, despite the constant acknowledgement that she is an Australian Icon?
phanan said:
While I agree that U2 beats him in filling more arenas in more areas, he certainly does belong near the top. In 2003, The Rising tour grossed $115.9 million over 47 shows in the U.S. to become at the time the second largest total for any act to earn in one calendar year, behind only the 1994 Rolling Stones tour.
By comparison, on the 1st U.S. leg of the Vertigo tour this year, U2 grossed $48.4 million over 28 shows. Figuring that the average gross per show was at $1.7 million, if you added another 19 shows to that, you'd come up with another $32.3 million, for a total of $80.7 million.
To me, Springsteen is doing just fine in North America.
I don't want to derail the thread, just wanted to comment on that. As for INXS, I will always treasure the music they made, but I'm skeptical about this new venture. If they do indeed go gold or platinum in the U.S., however, you really would have to consider it a success, but whether they would be able to build on that and sustain it is another question entirely. Should be interesting to see how it all plays out.
timothius said:
I tend to agree with Earnie on most things, but saying INXS is U2's Australia (or anywhere near it) - is way off, not just chartwise, but in terms of influence and overall standing amongst music enthusiasts.
For my money if any band is "Australia's U2" we are looking in the general direction of Midnight Oil, possibly Cold Chisel or somthing down that vien.
Earnie Shavers said:
Oh, I wasn't trying to say that INXS were THE definitive Australian band or anything, but that they do (and they do) hold a cultural place within music here that is more than just hits and sales and whatever. They do. Not as much as Midnight Oil or Cold Chisel, correct, but I was just trying to explain why there is a little more feeling towards it in Australia then there would be in the US, where INXS were just another medium sized band who had some hits some time ago. 'The INXS Story' is plastic in the US, but it's platinum here. They would never, ever have gotten away with trying to do that show locally.
phanan said:If you count the entire Vertigo run in North America, you'd have to include the entire Rising run as well, and it started in 2002. Add those dates in and they don't outgross him.
And while I've agreed that U2 has more widespread appeal, there aren't many places where they would do better by a considerable margin. Mostly areas to the south, but that's about it.
But who cares where the shows are, anyway? The bottom line is what counts, and he did quite well with the last full band tour.
Earnie Shavers said:STING, what kind of enjoyment do you get out of listening to music? Are you the kind of guy who rates films based on special effects and stunt sequences, and finally, box office and Oscars?
Angela Harlem said:With all due respect STING, you mention these statistics quite a lot. You then dont acknowledge people saying that in some places, this has little relevance. And I mean instances like INXS carried success through no touring or huge hits but because of their roots. You argue that this is wrong because of some worldwide statistic. It's incorrect, STING.
Angela Harlem said:I dont believe I have misunderstood, but please say if you still think so. In general, and yes this is a generalisation, you seem to have an interest in statistics. You offer a lot of information to the forum on here for album sales and so on, and in general on concert attendance numbers, on any topic really. Moreso in music. It's merely an observation. Now, on INXS, a fre replies/pages back you made a comment about INXS not being so popular or successful here (I cant be bothered finding the post, as I'm sure you remember what you'd said anyway) in their later albums such as Welcome, etc. But this is actually wrong. You posted accurate statistics on album and ticket sales and I dont disagree with that. What I do disagree with is that this was a reflection on how popular they were here in my country during that time. All their albums after X could have gone triple platinum. They could have sold a few hundred each. No one cared then, and no one cares now - it didn't change their popularity. INXS rode on their earlier success for decades in this country.