INXS-Switch

[STING2]

No, STING. You're incorrect. Sorry mate. Very wrong. It was a disaster. Nothing brilliant about it. Music created under such pretence does not last. It shoots to stardom and then dies a horrificly spectacular death. I'm rather sure the Spice Girls sold out venues the size of Wembley back in the day. You live in some world where sales and charts are all that matters. So you'd be the kind who thinks that The Spice Girls, all teen chart music, Britney?, who else is there...I cant even think, all these throwaway pop artists are brilliant. You'd have to, to keep this line of thinking legit - because they sell really well too. When in actuality, it means fuck all in terms of quality. And mate, you're living in some parallel universe if you think the spotlight shining on INXS now is any reflection of some past fame. They've never been known like this.

INXS and U2 are rock bands and signed to major record lables. Selling tickets and albums has been a major goal of both bands since they were in their teens. They attempt to create the best music they can, while at the same time presenting it to as large an audiance as possible.

I've never once stated that sales equals music brilliance. But selling albums and tickets is an important goal for both bands and given the position that INXS were in, their decision to do this has worked out brilliantly in terms of the business side of things. The fact is, the INXS catalog has sold well because of the exposure from the show and the band has soldout all or almost all of its shows in some big places.

All 5 of the origional members of INXS are experienced professionals in terms of being musicians and understanding the music business. They know more about Michael Hutchence, INXS and what is important and right for them, than any of us do. All 5 of them agreed to do this and are going to do the tour with JD. If after all of this they feel JD is not working for the band, they can search for a new lead singer.

You can debate the quality of the music made, forever. Thats subjective and many people will never agree when it comes to that. Just look at the debates in this forum or in other forums that trash POP and praise ATYCLB or the other way around etc.

But the results of the show in terms of INXS sales are facts. The show has had a very positive impact and introduced the band to people who never knew who INXS was. This is a positive thing for the band. They took a risk in continuing as INXS and some people were going to trash them no matter who or how they picked the next singer.

 

[STING2]

every band sells out... i don't really care about that. i have no problem with u2 doing stuff for iPod, or the stones being sponsored by ameriquest... it's just a part of our world now... welcome to capitalism.

but what INXS did is a sell out of the absolute worst variety... not only selling out their australian heritage, but also selling out their late lead singer by replacing him with an american idol style reality show pandering to the 18-24 american audience... all in the name of the all mighty dollar. this was, after all, a competition produced by an american television station with american hosts and "judges," i.e. the once cool but now ever so lame dave navarro.

terrible... an absolute disaster.

How has it been a disaster after the end of the show?

 

[STING2]

So, Sting, do you think it would be acceptable if the remaining members of U2 did their own version of "Rock Star" if - God forbid - something happened to Bono?

Given a similar amount of time and space that INXS has taken, yes. Oh and for those who say that U2 could not or should not continue without one of the members, Edge has already stated that he could still see U2 carrying on.

Of course, U2 would not be in the same position that INXS was faced with in 2005. In fact, the position that U2 would be in would be nearly the opposite. U2 has been the biggest rock band on the planet for nearly 20 years now. INXS was one of several big rock bands back 1988-1989. INXS was big, but not the biggest for a very brief period of time, then saw their popularity plummit rapidly.

The TV show helped bring INXS back into the spotlight in a way that it was unlikely to be ever again. The spotlight has been on U2 constantly for 20 years and will likely continue to be regardless of what happens to the band. Under those circumstance, U2 would probably choose a singer in a more private way as the TV show would not help the band from an exposure point of view and considering the near religious fervor in condemning that type of exposure by a certain percentage of the fan base, it would only hurt the band from a sales perspective.

INXS obviously knew that many of the hardcore fans would find the TV show unacceptable, but many of them would find the fact that they would continue the band at all without Hutchence unacceptable no matter what they did. INXS weighed these factors and determined that given where they were, they were more benefits to doing the show than negatives. They also new many hardcore fans would love seeing the band every week on TV as well as the return to album recording and regular touring.

 

[intedomine]

Whatever the case, I can't help but feel that INXS really broke up 8 years ago after a tragic circumstance in a Sydney hotel room. That was the end of that.

The "INXS" of today, (as much as I love Pretty Vegas), is not the real INXS. It is a band with the remaining 5 members of INXS and a new frontman.

I'd be fine with it if they gave themselves a different name.

 

[Bono's shades]

Oh and for those who say that U2 could not or should not continue without one of the members, Edge has already stated that he could still see U2 carrying on.

Could you post an exact quote from Edge on this, because that's certainly news to me.

As for the rest of your post - I give up. You obviously have no idea what some of us are trying to say because to you music is all about dollar signs and marketing.

 

[STING2]

Could you post an exact quote from Edge on this, because that's certainly news to me.

As for the rest of your post - I give up. You obviously have no idea what some of us are trying to say because to you music is all about dollar signs and marketing.

I'll try to dig up the qoute, I think it was from the ZOO TV tour. Perhaps in Bill Flannigans Book, but I'm not positive about that. I was surprised way back then when I first read it.

I fully understand what is being said and in fact much of it is rather predictable given some people's narrow views about what an artist is allowed or not allowed to do. The TV show does not influence the music that INXS has written over the past few years and has now recorded. The music business side of things is an important apect for these bands or any band for that matter that is signed to a record lable.

I've already stated before that big album sales does not mean great quality music. Some of my favorite artist are not very popular. But in discussing a band like INXS and the TV show, its a mistake to ignore its importance to the band and the positive effect it has had.

 

[indra]

But in discussing a band like INXS and the TV show, its a mistake to ignore its importance to the band and the positive effect it has had.

It might have a positive effect on current album and ticket sales, but it has a negative impact on their reputation. Think about it....many bands that were the big flavour of the month are now thought of as nothing but bad jokes.

So it really depends on what they want -- money or respect.

 

[STING2]

It might have a positive effect on current album and ticket sales, but it has a negative impact on their reputation. Think about it....many bands that were the big flavour of the month are now thought of as nothing but bad jokes.

So it really depends on what they want -- money or respect.

It also has had a positive impact on the sale of older albums as well. INXS Greatest Hits hit #1 on the US Catalog Album chart. As far as their reputation, that depends on who you talk to. A band that has a real poor reputation among the general population is not going to sell well.

 

[indra]

A band that has a real poor reputation among the general population is not going to sell well.

Perhaps. But the general population is stupid.

 

[STING2]

Perhaps. But the general population is stupid.

So then who is "smart"?

 

[indra]

So then who is "smart"?

Me.

 

[DignityPassesBy]

someone mentioned AC/DC before and after Bon Scott died they were never really the same but comparing INXS to AC/DC is wrong because the frontman of AC/DC is Angus and not the singer its all about guitar riffs in AC/DC where as INXS had Michael Hutchence who was the only really member in the spotlight and he was a great singer ... the whole Idol thing is stupid it dosen't produce the most talented stars in producers shit ... all idols careers besides maybe kelly clarkson are dying or dead and now everyone laughs about them ... the same thing will happen to INXS now and it shouldn't because they're great song writers INXS ... and i also have a problem with the singer being American and not Australian ... they're an Australian band

 

[phanan]

Actually, I think the singer is Canadian.

 

[isabelle_guns]

The whole show was a bad idea in general

 

[Down Under]

also have a problem with the singer being American and not Australian ... they're an Australian band [/B]

Totally agree

 

[blueeyedgirl]

Yesterday I was in the car and "Original Sin" came on the radio. I was near the beach and I drove down there with the window down and the radio blaring.

To me, that will always be INXS, Aussie summer days, great music, great lyrics and Michael singing so effortlessly, not some replica INX$ where the lyrics mean nothing, the sound is just watered down R&B and there is some nameless dickhead singing the words, no matter how many stats are thrown around Rainman like. INXS didn't die in November 1997 but they did die in 2005.