November 12, 2012

Link

INXS has decided to call it a day after 35 years together. According to a report in Perth Now, the band announced at a gig in Perth on Sunday night that they were playing their last concert together.

Drummer Jon Farriss broke the emotional news to the audience during the band’s support slot for Matchbox 20 and admitted “I’m getting teary,” before they launched into one of their biggest hits, "Need You Tonight."

Farriss and his brothers Andrew and Tim formed the band in 1977 with late frontman Michael Hutchence, who was found dead in his hotel room 15 years ago.

Following the untimely death of their lead singer, the band continued with various replacements over the years, including JD Fortune, who was the winner of the reality show Rock Star: INXS in 2005. Fortune was subsequently replaced in September 2011 by Irishman Ciaran Gribbins.

Speaking to the Sydney Morning Herald only last month, Tim Farris said, “We do what we love to do, and that’s play music together. And we haven’t stopped. For us, the knife is never sharp enough; there’s always things we hone.”

The guitarist added, “Other bands could have folded. I am proud of it because we’ve had such an incredible career. We didn’t just stick around Australia; we risked everything and put it out on a limb, and then we ended up huge everywhere in the world.”

INXS has sold over 30 million albums worldwide.

[img:$uid]http://altepeter.com/misc/giftopng.php?image=http://altepeter.com/stuff/imgs/applause.gif[/img:$uid]

well done boys.

You are one of my all time fave groups. Always will be.

MH may be gone but his amazing voice and performances live on.

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?

I agree. They had a great career, but when Michael Hutchence passed away in 1997, it just wasn't the same anymore.

I liked JD Fortune. He was alright till he got fired

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?

THIS!!!!^

Out of respect for the late Michael Hutchence, INXS should have disband on the same year that Michael was gone.

Or better yet, if the band really wanted to have a music career without Michael, the "INXS" name should have been dropped for something else, something like how Joy Division became New Order and how Jefferson Airplane became Jefferson Starship.

Oh man, that's made me sad. It'll be the 15th anniversary of Hutchence's death on the 22nd too. Saw them with that JD Fortune twice, but he wasn't a patch on him. Think the Farriss brothers still had it in them musically, but they needed Michael Hutchence to make the magic happen. Such a shame

Identity said:

... during the band’s support slot for Matchbox 20 ...

Ouch!

TonyVanDam said:

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?

THIS!!!!^

Out of respect for the late Michael Hutchence, INXS should have disband on the same year that Michael was gone.

Or better yet, if the band really wanted to have a music career without Michael, the "INXS" name should have been dropped for something else, something like how Joy Division became New Order and how Jefferson Airplane became Jefferson Starship.

thing is i never understand this logic, i respect all opinions on this but again, its not consistent across the board. Lets take this and apply it to a band like Journey, they had a singer that was their for a few albums, then Steve Perry took his spot, so when that Original guy quit it wasnt Journey anymore technically, should they have QUIT and changed the name? Now people will say that is different because that GUY wasnt Journey Steve Perry is, REALLY? no hes not, he was a replacement after Journey had few albums, but they werent POPULAR so i guess we only apply it when theres popularity involved?

Also its funny but those who mention "replacing" Michael Hutchence never had a problem when Terence Trent was up there, all on this ORG felt that was Ok because they like Terence, though he was a terrible choice. When QUEEN had George Michael doing it everyone was like YES get him, and again they didnt have issue with that.

This subject always bugs people and honestly it bothers me most of all cause most people didnt like INXS till they had hits and then when they didnt they stopped like them. Now i love Michael he was the last great frontman, and one of the best of all time, BUT he wasnt INXS they all were, Andrew Farris who is/was his writing partner and inspiration and the guy who got him in the band, is as much INXS as michael was. Now INXS is just a name, what it was with Michael was different than what it is without him, people need to seperate that. INXS did not just jump and a get a new guy, trust me read INXS's book written by them and there reactions to michaels death and the personal things they went through, it took them 8 years to even record new stuff, and YES doing that record with JD and having JD there was a form of healing they toured the world a few times with JD and early on i had problems with JD but it was this "michael" thing i was blocking it with, and once i read into the bands issues, especially towards the end with Michael, and the fact that his death was a reckless accident, or a suicide depending on who you ask, U cannot fault them for anything they di, that grief they have is endless. Which is why there was MASS confusion when they started to make a new album with JD, Andrew cannot write anymore, he said it, which is part of the reason JD was let go....TWICE, and then this new singer was brought in for a few dates but it again wasnt anything more than one last chance for ANDREW to find a partner.

SO in reality this has more to do with Andrew who is just as much INXS as michael was, stopping things, whether they do stuff on their own time will tell, some members have done some seperate stuff and prodcued other acts, the ONE THING record from last year was a HUGE success for them and had ingited something, but was also further proof that Andrew may just have not been able to create anymore.

Should've done it after November 22, 1997... ironic they announced this ten days until the 15th anniversary of Michael's death.

Timmy84 said:

Should've done it after November 22, 1997... ironic they announced this ten days until the 15th anniversary of Michael's death.

See i dont get that, its easy for us to say what they should have done, when they should have done it, but it was their family member lost, it was their call to make, they lost their "brother" it was their family, we can never know what was going on with them .

lastdecember said:

TonyVanDam said:

THIS!!!!^

Out of respect for the late Michael Hutchence, INXS should have disband on the same year that Michael was gone.

Or better yet, if the band really wanted to have a music career without Michael, the "INXS" name should have been dropped for something else, something like how Joy Division became New Order and how Jefferson Airplane became Jefferson Starship.

thing is i never understand this logic, i respect all opinions on this but again, its not consistent across the board. Lets take this and apply it to a band like Journey, they had a singer that was their for a few albums, then Steve Perry took his spot, so when that Original guy quit it wasnt Journey anymore technically, should they have QUIT and changed the name? Now people will say that is different because that GUY wasnt Journey Steve Perry is, REALLY? no hes not, he was a replacement after Journey had few albums, but they werent POPULAR so i guess we only apply it when theres popularity involved?

Also its funny but those who mention "replacing" Michael Hutchence never had a problem when Terence Trent was up there, all on this ORG felt that was Ok because they like Terence, though he was a terrible choice. When QUEEN had George Michael doing it everyone was like YES get him, and again they didnt have issue with that.

Journey without Steve Perry is like Chicago without Peter Cetera OR Terry Kath. The idea just doesn't cut it for most die-hard fans that can notice when the magic within the team chemistry is gone.

Van Halen is one of a few expections to the rule (and I say "few" very strongly). Even today, plenty of die-hard fans wil still tell you that the band is better with David Lee Roth no matter what because he is the better entertainer, yet Sammy Hagar is the better musican, hence why Van Halen was still sucessful. But almost everyone of those same fans will also mention that Gary Cherroe was a massive mistake that should have been avoided. The magic was just not there. And shame on Eddie Van Halen for believing that his fans were going to get him a pass more than once.

As for Queen, no one is good enough to replace Freddie Mercury at 100%. George Michael and/or Adam Lambert can come close in terms of matching up to Freddie's level of campiness. But there was no way in hell that Paul Rodgers was going to fly as a long-term replacement. The magic was just not there and long time Queen-fans can see that.

At the end of the day, it all come down to magic in the team chemistry. And INXS just could not get that magic from replacement frontmen that they once had with Michael Hutchence.

TonyVanDam said:

lastdecember said:

thing is i never understand this logic, i respect all opinions on this but again, its not consistent across the board. Lets take this and apply it to a band like Journey, they had a singer that was their for a few albums, then Steve Perry took his spot, so when that Original guy quit it wasnt Journey anymore technically, should they have QUIT and changed the name? Now people will say that is different because that GUY wasnt Journey Steve Perry is, REALLY? no hes not, he was a replacement after Journey had few albums, but they werent POPULAR so i guess we only apply it when theres popularity involved?

Also its funny but those who mention "replacing" Michael Hutchence never had a problem when Terence Trent was up there, all on this ORG felt that was Ok because they like Terence, though he was a terrible choice. When QUEEN had George Michael doing it everyone was like YES get him, and again they didnt have issue with that.

Journey without Steve Perry is like Chicago without Peter Cetera OR Terry Kath. The idea just doesn't cut it for most die-hard fans that can notice when the magic within the team chemistry is gone.

Van Halen is one of a few expections to the rule (and I say "few" very strongly). Even today, plenty of die-hard fans wil still tell you that the band is better with David Lee Roth no matter what because he is the better entertainer, yet Sammy Hagar is the better musican, hence why Van Halen was still sucessful. But almost everyone of those same fans will also mention that Gary Cherroe was a massive mistake that should have been avoided. The magic was just not there. And shame on Eddie Van Halen for believing that his fans were going to get him a pass more than once.

As for Queen, no one is good enough to replace Freddie Mercury at 100%. George Michael and/or Adam Lambert can come close in terms of matching up to Freddie's level of campiness. But there was no way in hell that Paul Rodgers was going to fly as a long-term replacement. The magic was just not there and long time Queen-fans can see that.

At the end of the day, it all come down to magic in the team chemistry. And INXS just could not get that magic from replacement frontmen that they once had with Michael Hutchence.

Totally Agree!!!!!!

lastdecember said:

Timmy84 said:

Should've done it after November 22, 1997... ironic they announced this ten days until the 15th anniversary of Michael's death.

See i dont get that, its easy for us to say what they should have done, when they should have done it, but it was their family member lost, it was their call to make, they lost their "brother" it was their family, we can never know what was going on with them .

You mean they couldn't make no money without being INXS? Is that what you're saying. With INXS, they became icons because of Michael Hutchence. Without him, they were just another rock band getting by. Same with Queen. It'll be easier to say "yeah they should've continued" like it's easier to say "they should've broken up" but what's the sense of them continuing? The Doors continued for a while without Jim Morrison before realizing they had to move on. For INXS, they struggled with this for 15 years. I'm convinced they hadn't learned to get over Michael's death and maybe they continued because they felt Michael wanted them to until they realize they couldn't do it without him. It happens.

TonyVanDam said:

lastdecember said:

thing is i never understand this logic, i respect all opinions on this but again, its not consistent across the board. Lets take this and apply it to a band like Journey, they had a singer that was their for a few albums, then Steve Perry took his spot, so when that Original guy quit it wasnt Journey anymore technically, should they have QUIT and changed the name? Now people will say that is different because that GUY wasnt Journey Steve Perry is, REALLY? no hes not, he was a replacement after Journey had few albums, but they werent POPULAR so i guess we only apply it when theres popularity involved?

Also its funny but those who mention "replacing" Michael Hutchence never had a problem when Terence Trent was up there, all on this ORG felt that was Ok because they like Terence, though he was a terrible choice. When QUEEN had George Michael doing it everyone was like YES get him, and again they didnt have issue with that.

Journey without Steve Perry is like Chicago without Peter Cetera OR Terry Kath. The idea just doesn't cut it for most die-hard fans that can notice when the magic within the team chemistry is gone.

Van Halen is one of a few expections to the rule (and I say "few" very strongly). Even today, plenty of die-hard fans wil still tell you that the band is better with David Lee Roth no matter what because he is the better entertainer, yet Sammy Hagar is the better musican, hence why Van Halen was still sucessful. But almost everyone of those same fans will also mention that Gary Cherroe was a massive mistake that should have been avoided. The magic was just not there. And shame on Eddie Van Halen for believing that his fans were going to get him a pass more than once.

As for Queen, no one is good enough to replace Freddie Mercury at 100%. George Michael and/or Adam Lambert can come close in terms of matching up to Freddie's level of campiness. But there was no way in hell that Paul Rodgers was going to fly as a long-term replacement. The magic was just not there and long time Queen-fans can see that.

At the end of the day, it all come down to magic in the team chemistry. And INXS just could not get that magic from replacement frontmen that they once had with Michael Hutchence.

well chemistry is not just the only thing the are fighting, Andrew has issues now with creating, and he was the main force of creation in that unit, so that Unit cannot function, this band is a family, we forget 3 of them are brothers, and all were together from day one on a real tough path, playing gigs in pubs and little shit bars long before America took a listen. They played more gigs as a band that no hits in one year than Rihanna is going to play in her lifetime. But there calling it quits in my opinion isnt for us to judge, i dont think thats ever for us to judge a band who loses someone, i we also forget that either way Michael choose to be reckless and not consider what could happen to his "family" he lost that sight, we shouldnt demonize the band for going in whatever way they wanted too. Family's dont stop because a family member dies, i didnt change my last name when my dad died cause that "name" was gone, i still exist with it and we keep the name. Its their call to make not ours.

As for exceptions to the rule, the fact that there are exceptions mean the rule is not one with meaning.

Timmy84 said:

lastdecember said:

See i dont get that, its easy for us to say what they should have done, when they should have done it, but it was their family member lost, it was their call to make, they lost their "brother" it was their family, we can never know what was going on with them .

You mean they couldn't make no money without being INXS? Is that what you're saying. With INXS, they became icons because of Michael Hutchence. Without him, they were just another rock band getting by. Same with Queen. It'll be easier to say "yeah they should've continued" like it's easier to say "they should've broken up" but what's the sense of them continuing? The Doors continued for a while without Jim Morrison before realizing they had to move on. For INXS, they struggled with this for 15 years. I'm convinced they hadn't learned to get over Michael's death and maybe they continued because they felt Michael wanted them to until they realize they couldn't do it without him. It happens.

money is not the issue, we tend to think it is, but lets remember they were part of a time when MUSIC made alot of money, they werent a dumb band signing shit away like others have done. Inxs signed a huge deal with universal a year prior to Michael dieing, plus the money these guys had from the days when they owned the charts. We forget they are from a different country and had a different mind set, they spent some cash but they also were family men and socked alot of it away. Did they make money after Michael of course they did, and yes with that name, but that name wasnt one, if that was the case call it the michael hutchence band, this band and a few others had a unique sound too we forget, yes michael is close to being one of the best ever, but there sound to me, is the most diverse sounding bands from that era, more than U2 depeche mode and duran duran even. This was a band that put mixes out and on the map, had one of the first remix eps to be released, they were alot of things as a unit, not one member.

Michael was part of a winnning combination but u can apply that to every succesful artist, SHIT Elton John has no fucking career without Bernie Taupin, U2 never makes it without Bono in the Mix, Duran Duran gets nowhere without Simon Lebon, Bon Jovi is nothing without Jon, etc...but u cant just leave out the other members who are equally as strong in there, where is Duran Duran without Nick Rhodes? Where is Bon Jovi without Sambora? Where is U2 without the Edge?

i'm kinda torn on this topic. I think it was said earlier that did "chart success" and by extension popularity play a part in what people call MAGIC? I'm not negating the importance of a charismatic "front man" but I wonder if the chart success and OUR comfort, introduction, familiarity and PREFERENCE for one over the OTHER is at play when we rant so dogmatically? i think there are lots of variables and the one above seems to not get explored much.

datdude said:

i'm kinda torn on this topic. I think it was said earlier that did "chart success" and by extension popularity play a part in what people call MAGIC? I'm not negating the importance of a charismatic "front man" but I wonder if the chart success and OUR comfort, introduction, familiarity and PREFERENCE for one over the OTHER is at play when we rant so dogmatically? i think there are lots of variables and the one above seems to not get explored much.

I think popularity is a huge part to what people are looking at, had INXS never had a hit or became a huge global band this discussion wouldnt be even coming up. When in 2005 INXS brought in JD i dismissed him from being a part, and thought the band was wrong for doing that, but then i read into the band, their issues when Michael died that were never talked about in public, people never heard these things, they look at them as a popular band where the singer died and then the guys replaced him to further their careers as a band. And that belief is totally false, just the mere fact it took them 8 years to walk into a studio together showed this, INXS was from their commercial days when they brought JD in, though the single and album was a success they were long forgotten as band in the 90's they were viewed as 80's and dismissed, despite doing some of their best stuff in the 90's, it went mostly unheard.

And as i said before we cant make this call for them, i will also feel bad for them cause they lost their brother in creativity through reckless actions, but somehow we demonize the guys for wanting to keep something alive, everyone needs to read their book before judging

Last year I bought "INXS Greatest" because of all the songs work plays over and over again everyday, those INXS songs sounded the freshest and never went out of style. Hearing them always made the day better.

Well regardless of how "good they still were", maybe, JUST maybe, they personally got tired of it. Besides most of them are married older men over 50 at this point...

I think it would have served them better by disbanding or at least rebranding themselves after Michael's death. There was a steady stream of fans that lost interest in subsequent albums. I count myself among them.

I literally just bought Kick on cd over the weekend.I remember having it on cassette and loving it.

It still sounds great!

Identity said:

I think it would have served them better by disbanding or at least rebranding themselves after Michael's death. There was a steady stream of fans that lost interest in subsequent albums. I count myself among them.

thats actually not true, first there was only ONE album after Michael nothing else, there were 2 throwaway benefit charity singles done but released only in austrailia. And the ONE album they did do with JD who should have never been let go "either time" "Switch" was their biggest selling album almost 15 years since 1992's "Welcome To Whenever You Are" which was their gem and where U2 got "Achtung Baby". But after that INXS album, "full moon dirty hearts" and their final album (though one of their best) "Eleganty Wasted" barely sold 100,000 copies overall. So INXS had already LOST the craze fans, those were gone after the X album, all that was left was the core fan group and they actually after a bit dug JD. Thats why their two tours were their biggest selling concert tours since X in 1989.

CynicKill said:

Thing is that JD is not a bad frontman, he would have been good had they continued but it got a little silly when they booted him and then all of a sudden did a tribute cd invited him in as a guest, brought him back for another tour started to work on a new album then posted on their website they choose a new singer from ireland and JD was out again, that too me showed that they were having more internal issues than commercial ones, commercially JD gave them 2 hits something they hadnt had in 13 years. SO i cant hate on the guy, he now has his own band FORTUNE with a cd coming out in january 2013 and his interviews he is very smart and speaks no ill of the band only to say it was "a learning experience like no other" and AFTERGLOW which is all about Michael was Andrew Farriss's finest works

Just a quick note though, the band has not said it has quit, just a post from their official site, they have stopped touring as a band, but read on....

INXS ….. THE TOURING ENDS ….. THE MUSIC LIVES ON

Perth, Western Australia, November 11: It ended fittingly where it began 35 years ago, in Perth,
when INXS drummer Jon Farriss declared to a 15,000+ capacity house on the opening weekend of the brand new Perth Arena and the final night of the Matchbox Twenty / INXS Australian tour that from this point INXS would bring down the curtain as a live touring band. In a fitting homage to the band, Matchbox Twenty’s Rob Thomas joined the band (INXS) and vocalist Ciaran Gribbin on stage and performed INXS’s signature closer, Don’t Change, in the band’s encore.

The remaining band members of INXS, Tim, Andrew and Jon Farriss, Kirk Pengilly and Garry Beers
issued this statement.

“We understand that this must come as a blow to everybody, but all things must eventually come to
an end. We have been performing as a band for 35 years, it’s time to step away from the touring
arena.”

“Our music will of course live on and we will always be a part of that.”

“We would like to express our heartfelt thanks to all the friends and family that have supported us
throughout our extensive career. Our lives have been enriched by having you all as a part of the
journey.”

INXS forged their reputation as one of the world’s greatest live bands, relentlessly touring the US,
Europe, South America, and the Far East constantly throughout the 80’s and early 90’s, fuelled by the success of records such as Listen Like Thieves, Kick, X, and Welcome To Wherever You Are.

That hard earned and hard won live reputation took INXS to the very pinnacle of the live world touring
circuit with such memorable performances headlining iconic venues across the world… in the UK
[Wembley Stadium 80,000], the US [Texas Stadium 60,000] and Rio De Janeiro [Rock in Rio 120,000].

But with the high, came a bitter and cruel blow… the loss of their charismatic and irreplaceable front
man Michael Hutchence in November 1997.

“It’s been 35 years for INXS as a live touring band and unbelievably it’s been 15 years ago since we
lost Michael” said Jon Farriss.

“We lived for each other in the trenches and we loved each other. It was the six of us against the
world and then suddenly and inexplicably we were but five. We were lost right at the moment we
were on top.”

The band struggled to deal with the enormity of it all and the easy solution was to just call it a day.
“We never took a soft option, it was the adversity, the challenge and the struggle that forged us into
the live working band we became. And this was as big as it could possibly get when it came to a
challenge” said Andrew Farriss, “and in the end we decided for a whole bunch of reasons to march
forward. To us there was no other option, families always move forward.”

The band’s manager Chris Murphy said, “They believed unconditionally in each other and they
also believed unconditionally in the music. People fade, sometimes way too early… that is
life whether we like it or not. To live to 80 plus is a life well lived. To lose Michael so young was a
tragedy for all of us. But with this band, their legacy, their music was just so damn good, it was
always destined to live beyond all of us.”

The last 3 years has seen a resurgence of INXS with their songs being hammered on radio and a rise in audience numbers with the live show. The song Original Sin, with Rob Thomas on vocals, reached number 1 on the Billboard dance charts.

As Jon Farriss says, “INXS’ touring days could never last forever. We wanted it to end on a high. And it has.”

The band will be making no further comment at this time.
End statement…

Anyone seen Michael Hutchence's brother?, he looks real similar, always wondered how well he could sing?, his name escapes me....Anyway good call, they gave it a good shot after Michael departed, with a fair amount of success. Elegantly Wasted, Welcome to Wherever & Kick will always be some of my favourite albums. Thanks for all the incredible music8-) .

lastdecember said:

Identity said:

I think it would have served them better by disbanding or at least rebranding themselves after Michael's death. There was a steady stream of fans that lost interest in subsequent albums. I count myself among them.

thats actually not true, first there was only ONE album after Michael nothing else, there were 2 throwaway benefit charity singles done but released only in austrailia. And the ONE album they did do with JD who should have never been let go "either time" "Switch" was their biggest selling album almost 15 years since 1992's "Welcome To Whenever You Are" which was their gem and where U2 got "Achtung Baby". But after that INXS album, "full moon dirty hearts" and their final album (though one of their best) "Eleganty Wasted" barely sold 100,000 copies overall. So INXS had already LOST the craze fans, those were gone after the X album, all that was left was the core fan group and they actually after a bit dug JD. Thats why their two tours were their biggest selling concert tours since X in 1989.

Maybe the reason they didn't do more albums after Michael died was because they could see the public wasn't interested in hearing INXS without Michael.

To me, a lot of bands are the whole package. The magic is the whole group, everyone contributes something unique and if you take away one part it's not the same.

So just because people don't want a band with a new singer doesn't mean they think that the other guys in the band are worthless and not a significant part of the musical magic. Those some people probably wouldn't want the singer to replace the other band members with new people either if one of them dies.

Glindathegood said:

lastdecember said:

thats actually not true, first there was only ONE album after Michael nothing else, there were 2 throwaway benefit charity singles done but released only in austrailia. And the ONE album they did do with JD who should have never been let go "either time" "Switch" was their biggest selling album almost 15 years since 1992's "Welcome To Whenever You Are" which was their gem and where U2 got "Achtung Baby". But after that INXS album, "full moon dirty hearts" and their final album (though one of their best) "Eleganty Wasted" barely sold 100,000 copies overall. So INXS had already LOST the craze fans, those were gone after the X album, all that was left was the core fan group and they actually after a bit dug JD. Thats why their two tours were their biggest selling concert tours since X in 1989.

Maybe the reason they didn't do more albums after Michael died was because they could see the public wasn't interested in hearing INXS without Michael.

To me, a lot of bands are the whole package. The magic is the whole group, everyone contributes something unique and if you take away one part it's not the same.

So just because people don't want a band with a new singer doesn't mean they think that the other guys in the band are worthless and not a significant part of the musical magic. Those some people probably wouldn't want the singer to replace the other band members with new people either if one of them dies.

Exactly my point. INXS is a legendary band and they paid their dues. Michael wasn't the only one who made that group but WITH him, he stood out. And once someone like that leaves or dies, it's hard to duplicate it. They tried with other singers but they couldn't match up to Michael and INXS knew that.