Yeah Hutchence, had attitude, no doubt. But you sure you're not projecting things?? (How is he any more arrogant than say Mick Jagger??)
I don't think he is - I'm not a fan of Mick Jagger either - or indeed any person who gives the impression that they think they are "up there" compared to the rest of humanity, and more important; and who routinely treat other people like crap - i.e. I don't like entitlement. And yes, that's a lot of rock stars I don't like for that reason.
But - I don't think that hubris/entitlement/egomania and charisma are inseparable - although the former is often mistaken for the latter, also in politics. So for instance, there's leaders of bands, and of countries, and of businesses, etc, who I think have charisma, but who also are genuinely lovely, considerate people (give or take a few inevitable human flaws). And it's those people I admire (but don't put on a pedestal), and whose work I am prepared to support.
Am I perfect? No. But that doesn't mean I can't use my agency both to change unsavoury aspects of myself, and to allocate my resources, time and energy in the world in ways I consider productive and worthwhile, and not in ways that contribute to social and personal problems, if I can help it.
Charismatic rockstars performing at his level are going to have big egos.
See above. Interviews can be a good litmus. Public behaviour. How they treat people who can't further their own career or personal aspirations - e.g. taxi drivers, hotel staff. Whether they take responsibility for their stuff-ups, or blame others. Sadly the rock'n'roll circus can be very infantilising, and can surround people with yes-men, which is unhelpful for personal growth. Yet some people in rock'n'roll manage to do it!
He was still down to earth. He played small venues after wembley, when he didn't have to.
Yeah, that's nice, but also for him, and there was no financial pressure not to. Intimate venues are often missed by people who end up being stadium acts. But I wouldn't personally classify playing intimate venues as down-to-earthness - and living in Australia, and listening to interviews etc, I don't think he came across very down-to-earth after fame got to his head.
They were a pretty hardworking band , serious about their craft, overall. I think they said they played more gigs than any other Australian band. So they were very well practiced and driven, at least in the 80's.
You will find no argument from me about any of that. I actually think it's a great shame Hutchence didn't stay how he was before he got famous and instead started behaving badly and being rude (and harmful) to people because he could get away with it. A lot of sports stars in Australia do it too. It's part of a discussion in this country re toxic masculinity, which is both an individual problem, and a social problem.
I know in the 90's he was embroiled in Paula Yates stuff, a career downturn. Personal drama. Punching out paparazi. Living in London. Felt he was being vilified by the press. He got knocked out in the street, on tour, in 92 in eastern Europe, apparently suffered some kind of severe concussion that damaged his brain, changed his personality. His band mates said he was not the same after that. I Know a fair bit about the band. (Maybe you know more! begin a native! who lived through it.) Like I said INXS is my favorite Australian musical export. I'd say their best era was mid 80's to early 90's, yes, no argument there.
In many respects, Michael Hutchence made his own bed with the press, and then complained about lying in it - which is not to say I have any admiration for the gutter press either. While the knock on the head might have furthered his deterioration, it was already evident in the late 80s/early 90s, before that happened.
Entitlement and rock stars, sadly, are a bit of a subject. Just recently, INXS's guitarist lost a finger in an accident while sailing on a yacht he hired from an acquaintance. The person who hired the boat to him cautioned him about lack of necessary skill to handle a yacht, but was given the finger about that. And then the guitarist lost a finger, because he was incompetent with the sailing tackle - and in response to that, tried to sue the boat owner for millions of dollars in perceived lost future earnings. I've not followed that court case since, but it made a lot of people rightly livid. Someone with millions in the bank trying to financially destroy a person who was not actually responsible for the guitarist's lack of sailing skills and apparently commonsense, and who'd brushed off a caution about safety.
It's the kind of stuff that discourages me from buying a band's albums. That's a personal thing with me though; and I understand that other people feel differently, and that's OK. No two people are the same, and we all set our boundaries the way it works for us. I'm not into the extremes of cancel culture either - I still listen to the stuff I enjoyed before the band started to disappoint me on a personal conduct level, and my feelings about that are unchanged. I just personally don't want to give more money to an already entitled bunch of rich and famous musicians if I can avoid it. Sort of like not wanting to pour petrol on a fire, or not wanting to buy Russian gas when it goes to fund an egomaniac's war machine. Putin is, of course, a far worse human being than many famous people with power. But it does all have common roots, and that's in hubris/entitlement/egomania etc. Itself a complicated subject and we're only scratching the surface here.
2:35:1 ....nobody even had 16:9 tv's back then... or they was just coming in.
