forget that fact that the replaced michael and the whole tv show etc, this is a great album and does sound like a great inxs album

i must admit back when they first started the tv show for a new singer i didnt like the idea, but i think its turned out great...

cant wait for the band to visit my town!

GangstaFam said:

I see what you mean. While a band has every right to go out and get a new lead singer... it's not quite the same band is it? How could it be? An entirely new person is introduced and an original member is gone - by death (Hutchence) or by douche (i.e. David Lee Roth). The chemistry IS different.

Not knocking the new INXS CD - I haven't heard it yet. IMO, the new lead singer, JD, isn't as charismatic to me as Michael H. and for me - Michael H, fronted INXS so HE is who I think of when I hear INXS. And I also think David Lee when I hear old Van Halen - and I never got into Sammy Hagar as their lead singer - though I liked Sammy solo.

Ah, well... there's room for everyone, and best of luck to the new INXS - just won't be the same - which I guess is the point - why prentend it is the same?

DiminutiveRocker said:

Was Michael as charismatic on his first album or live shows with the band?? He looked more like a Mick Jagger wanna be for the first few tours and he developed into the rock God. JD is doing his first album and live show with the band and I think he's doing amazing so far.

EverlastingNow said:

i remember people always calling him a Jim Morrison wannabe..It wasnt until he died that he achieved God status...IMHO.

Sorry if I was insensitive to any of the INXS-heads here, I'd just find it awful if Bono was ever replaced as the lead singer of U2, or if someone took Stipey's place in REM. I certainly agree that the rest of the band has the right to carry-on as before, and big ups to them for having a hit. I just wonder if they could've gone about it with a different name, that's all.

Plus, from what I've heard, the lead singer seems to have some of those Hutch-isms (which were probably Jagger-isms before anyway). I don't know quite how I feel about that.

Axchi696 said:

No i totally understand what you are saying, I feel the same way. I have been into INXS since 1982, and always put them ahead of the other bands of their days (Duran, U2, REM). This whole "rockstar" thing bothered me. Mainly because they abandoned the Idea of having Jon Stevens be the lead singer, In fact they did release a single with Stevens called I GET UP. However i cannot put myself in the band members shoes and say they are wrong for going on. Which is why I read the book STORY to STORY a TRUTHFUL story of all the INXS facts from day one till today, then I felt I could listen to the SWITCH CD. I still dont agree with getting a singer through a TV show, and I also think it was POOR judgement to Release the CD on NOVEMBER 29th, so close to the anniversary of Michaels Death, but then again maybe that was more of the healing process, we as outsiders cannot pass judgement on the Band that has Lost their Best Friend of 20 years, Im sure none of us would want to be in their shoes.
[Edited 12/1/05 22:03pm]

GangstaFam said:

Read: AC/DC and AC/DC - that's moving the hell on and rocking again with respect to the previous singer but kicking ass and taking names anyhow. You people and your family=band attitudes. This isn't a divorce, it's not replacing the OLD Darren with a new Darren on Bewitched. But, okay, whatevs. Do you LIKE New Order. Would you insist on hating them if they kept the name Joy Division, ONLY because they kept the name? Are you retarded?