great band...wasnt the same after MH passed away...although I love this rendition of new sensation.

Toofunkyinhere said:

Anyone seen Michael Hutchence's brother?, he looks real similar, always wondered how well he could sing?, his name escapes me....

Michael Hutchence's brother Rhett, a reformed drug addict, sold some of Michael's personal effects on Ebay, much to the dismay of the family. I never heard the band members of INXS mention him.

Identity said:

Toofunkyinhere said:

Anyone seen Michael Hutchence's brother?, he looks real similar, always wondered how well he could sing?, his name escapes me....

Michael Hutchence's brother Rhett, a reformed drug addict, sold some of Michael's personal effects on Ebay, much to the dismay of the family. I never heard the band members of INXS mention him.

Rhett always looked like a drug addict to me... but I wasn't sure if he was or not.

didn't even know they were still around with a replacement singer...

good luck boys

CynicKill said:

wow. it's different from the usual rowdy INXS stuff but it's good.

I'd say re-brand and call yourself something else!

Timmy84 said:

Milty said:

lastdecember said:

But again as fans we always assume they are trying to Replace Michael? How about they are just going out and playing music? We compare they don't, they aren't sitting thinking oh JD is better than Michael, or JD is replacing Michael fans or even non fans just say that's the case. To me we aren't in ther shoes so we can offer our take but read the interview with Jon Farris and I think he pretty much is saying he doesn't care what people think.

Of course, they're replacing him if they're getting a new singer and using the same name INXS. If they wanted to start a new band together with a new name and new songs and maybe do a few INXS covers that would be different and they're not replacing him. If you're going to singing a lot of older songs that people know, you do have to get someone that sounds similiar to the original singer because people want to hear the old records like they remember. So if you keep the same name and sing the old songs, you are by definition replacing the original singer. If they want to just go out and play music, they don't need to use the name INXS. Keeping the same name is all about money and business and branding.

Glindathegood said:

lastdecember said:

But again as fans we always assume they are trying to Replace Michael? How about they are just going out and playing music? We compare they don't, they aren't sitting thinking oh JD is better than Michael, or JD is replacing Michael fans or even non fans just say that's the case. To me we aren't in ther shoes so we can offer our take but read the interview with Jon Farris and I think he pretty much is saying he doesn't care what people think.

Of course, they're replacing him if they're getting a new singer and using the same name INXS. If they wanted to start a new band together with a new name and new songs and maybe do a few INXS covers that would be different and they're not replacing him. If you're going to singing a lot of older songs that people know, you do have to get someone that sounds similiar to the original singer because people want to hear the old records like they remember. So if you keep the same name and sing the old songs, you are by definition replacing the original singer. If they want to just go out and play music, they don't need to use the name INXS. Keeping the same name is all about money and business and branding.

First of all how do we know there motive for going out? Considering that more than half the songs were written by Andrew Farris, its his right to do what he wants. When i say replace, no one can replace a person, and honestly why do they have to change the name, because it bothers us as fans? So if Jon Farris the drummer left or had died than same deal right? You cant apply rules to one member, because in that band yes michael was the attraction but that sound is what put them over not him alone. so if you lose the drummer or the sax player than that same rule gets applied if not than thats another double standard. As far as making money, every artist on earth does things for money we wake up in the morning and go to work, why? same difference, this is their job their life and they shouldnt have to change it because we feel uncomfortable with them doing things different. And if INXS wanted to cash in like its been said, why wait 8 years to record and considered that the band hadnt even had a hit prior to that in 13 years, the "cash in" period was long gone at that point. As for getting a singer that sounds the same, early one when INXS played pop up gigs, not one guy sounded like Michael, Jon Stevens was first NOTHING like Michael terence trent nothing like michael and sucked too, then JD was brought in and Yes he sounded like him but he also was a good singer and frontman and could have and is fronting a band now, and then he was dismissed, gee why if they are trying to cash in do you fire the guy or get rid of the guy, that A.Gave you your first hit in well over a decade, and B gave you a tour that made you more money than the X tour? You'd think proper business men would keep that golden goose, no they killed it and got an irish bono sounding like guy that did a few shows with them and is writing new stuff with Andrew, but the sound is nothing like INXS, so wheres the business in that?

Identity said:

Toofunkyinhere said:

Anyone seen Michael Hutchence's brother?, he looks real similar, always wondered how well he could sing?, his name escapes me....

Michael Hutchence's brother Rhett, a reformed drug addict, sold some of Michael's personal effects on Ebay, much to the dismay of the family. I never heard the band members of INXS mention him.

Actually everyone in Michaels family except his father who passed a few years after Michael, tried to get money from his estate, but he left basically nothing to them, the band was secure financially and his daughter not much else was given out in his will. Which led many to believe that this was NOT a suicide but an accidental death which it was, it was reckless and selfish.

lastdecember said:

Milty said:

wow. it's different from the usual rowdy INXS stuff but it's good.

I'd say re-brand and call yourself something else!

I don't get that at all , first the song is seven years old and the album it's from is exactly like Inxs sound, renaming a band makes no sense sorry everyone always says this and it makes no sebse if that was the case it would have been the Michael Hutchence band.

Well....unless you're a die-hard INXS fan, the average person wouldn't even know who the band was behind MH. If you were to line up MH and band in one photo, the average person would say "oh that's INXS" or "Aren't they from the 80s or somethng?" If you did the same with JD Fortuna and band in another photo, folks would prolly say "who's that?"

So in that sense, I honestly, think it wouldn't matter becuz the band behind MH was and is pretty ordinary looking. MH made that band.

Michael was like the Jim Morrison/Robert Plant of the 1980s and 1990s. Led Zeppelin were unique on its own with all four members but it's like INXS were the Doors. No one paid that much attention to Ray Manzarek, John Densmore and Robby Krieger after Jim's death and the same unfortunately happened to Andrew, Jon and Tim Farriss, Kirk Pengilly and Garry Gary Beers once Michael bit the dust. Like Milty said, only diehards cared about the rest of the band post-Hutchence.

Milty said:

lastdecember said:

Milty said: I don't get that at all , first the song is seven years old and the album it's from is exactly like Inxs sound, renaming a band makes no sense sorry everyone always says this and it makes no sebse if that was the case it would have been the Michael Hutchence band.

Well....unless you're a die-hard INXS fan, the average person wouldn't even know who the band was behind MH. If you were to line up MH and band in one photo, the average person would say "oh that's INXS" or "Aren't they from the 80s or somethng?" If you did the same with JD Fortuna and band in another photo, folks would prolly say "who's that?"

So in that sense, I honestly, think it wouldn't matter becuz the band behind MH was and is pretty ordinary looking. MH made that band.

Well if not a die hard fan than the opinion on a band for 35 years shouldnt even come into play with that person, the last person i would listen too is someone that only heard "the hits" because again all these opinions are based on popularity, and michael was great but that sound made this band JUST AS MUCH, without the sound and writing michael would have nothing to sing, and SORRY to say i loved michael and he's one of the best BUT tracks by himself are not that interesting, and rather bland.

lastdecember said:

Milty said:

Well....unless you're a die-hard INXS fan, the average person wouldn't even know who the band was behind MH. If you were to line up MH and band in one photo, the average person would say "oh that's INXS" or "Aren't they from the 80s or somethng?" If you did the same with JD Fortuna and band in another photo, folks would prolly say "who's that?"

So in that sense, I honestly, think it wouldn't matter becuz the band behind MH was and is pretty ordinary looking. MH made that band.

Well if not a die hard fan than the opinion on a band for 35 years shouldnt even come into play with that person, the last person i would listen too is someone that only heard "the hits" because again all these opinions are based on popularity, and michael was great but that sound made this band JUST AS MUCH, without the sound and writing michael would have nothing to sing, and SORRY to say i loved michael and he's one of the best BUT tracks by himself are not that interesting, and rather bland.

His solo album wasn't so great, but the Max Q album in 1989 was very good.

Mike couldn't do it without INXS, INXS couldn't do without him.

unique said:

they should have stopped 15 years ago and certainly not got a bloke from a reality show to play wih them

hear that queen and genesis?

Timmy84 said:

Michael was like the Jim Morrison/Robert Plant of the 1980s and 1990s. Led Zeppelin were unique on its own with all four members but it's like INXS were the Doors. No one paid that much attention to Ray Manzarek, John Densmore and Robby Krieger after Jim's death and the same unfortunately happened to Andrew, Jon and Tim Farriss, Kirk Pengilly and Garry Gary Beers once Michael bit the dust. Like Milty said, only diehards cared about the rest of the band post-Hutchence.

Well die hards have always been that with this band, mainly because they started out with no one knowing them and build a loyal following then it exploded with KICK, though "What You Need" kicked it off first, but most of their career it was die hards, after X it was done, die hards where the ones that supported them still, while the KICK heads disappeared.

Nick715 said:

lastdecember said:

Well if not a die hard fan than the opinion on a band for 35 years shouldnt even come into play with that person, the last person i would listen too is someone that only heard "the hits" because again all these opinions are based on popularity, and michael was great but that sound made this band JUST AS MUCH, without the sound and writing michael would have nothing to sing, and SORRY to say i loved michael and he's one of the best BUT tracks by himself are not that interesting, and rather bland.

His solo album wasn't so great, but the Max Q album in 1989 was very good.

the problem with the solo album was that it was so late in his career, and alot of it was recorded with sub par musicians. It had some interesting songs, but it also wasnt finished, it was wrapped up after his death but the producers but more than half the album was demos, the best song was the last one, and that was with Bono but only after his death, Bono was never supposed to be on it. Max Q was alright, and also they were a unit before Michael and after too so musically they knew what they were doing. But his solo work is just like other frontmen of great bands, Freddie Mercury, lousy solo albums, Mick Jagger barely decent Solo albums, this is mainly why Simon Lebon or Bono never did a full record out of the bands they are in.