Pacifier change name back to Shihad

**riffer** · 20th September 2004, 12:10

from www.stuff.co.nz:

Kiwi rock group Pacifier have changed their name again - reverting back to the Shihad moniker with which they started their music career.
In a statement on the band's website signed by all four members, Shihad say they were wrong to change their name.

"The events surrounding the name change and our choice to be known as Pacifier are well documented," the message says.

"As much as we believed in what we were doing, and the reasons for doing it at the time - the truth is we were wrong."

Shihad reportedly changed their name because it too closely resembled "jihad" - the Islamic word for the holy war.

They feared their music would not be played on American radio stations if they did not change their name.

The internet message says the band has been writing music in Australia and New Zealand, and is due to record a new album in Vancouver. They promise to return to New Zealand in November.

===

'on ya guys. Good to see the 'had are back in business.

**Paul in NZ** · 20th September 2004, 12:42

Wot? Does this mean that my horrible children will plague me with more of the same old speaker distorting rubbish under a different name?

They once left one of the friggin 'orrible pacifier things in the CD player, I thought it had developed some sort of hideous mechanical problem.

Those boys need to clean their act up, write some nice songs and hire a good pedal steel guitar player and probably a half decent banjo plucker and they might make something of themselves yet...

Paul N

(Pacified)

**k14** · 20th September 2004, 12:53

Yeah, mostly a formality in most peoples books. 90% of the time they were refered to as shihad anyway. I thought it was a bit weak changing it to pacifier in the first place.

Saw them in concert earlier this year, damn that was awesome.

**vifferman** · 20th September 2004, 12:55

Originally Posted by k14

I thought it was a bit weak changing it to pacifier in the first place.

Yeah, me too. It was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction, in my opinion.

**James Deuce** · 20th September 2004, 12:58

Back, and sadly lacking in credibility.

**riffer** · 20th September 2004, 13:04

Originally Posted by Jim2

Back, and sadly lacking in credibility.

Yeah, I must admit I was a bit non-plussed when I heard they'd changed their name originally.

Guess they've realised the merkin's are too stupid after all.

**Artifice** · 20th September 2004, 13:57

well i think the name change to pacifier was a knee-jerk reaction taking the piss out of the media and Americans. like everybody saying to change the name were a bunch of

needing to be pacified.

**Ghost Lemur** · 20th September 2004, 14:27

Sorry but couldn't care less now. They made it ubandantly clear the type of, sell your grandmothers soul to crack the merican market, group they were when they originally changed it.

Changing it back now... Why bother? Think their going to win a few fans back?

**gav** · 20th September 2004, 15:18

why not just leave it as Pacifier? Whats next, Icehouse changing there name back to Flowers (or was it the other way round?)

**Blakamin** · 20th September 2004, 16:00

Originally Posted by gav

why not just leave it as Pacifier? Whats next, Icehouse changing there name back to Flowers (or was it the other way round?)

thats correct... the album was meant to be "Icehouse" by Flowers... but some DJ stuffed it or something and they became Icehouse... bloody good band live!!

(i can say that, i was a roadie for them)

**Bandito** · 20th September 2004, 16:19

Originally Posted by Blakamin

thats correct... the album was meant to be "Icehouse" by Flowers... but some DJ stuffed it or something and they became Icehouse... bloody good band live!!

(i can say that, i was a roadie for them)

My understanding was that way back in 1981 the then FLOWERS where about to try cracking

the lucrative US market but at the time a there was already a band in the USA called flowers so a name was needed and ICEHOUSE was born from the title of there first and in my opinion best album. But we can always agree they ARE a bloody good live band.

**Blakamin** · 20th September 2004, 16:28

Originally Posted by Bandito

My understanding was that way back in 1981 the then FLOWERS where about to try cracking

the lucrative US market but at the time a there was already a band in the USA called flowers so a name was needed and ICEHOUSE was born from the title of there first and in my opinion best album. But we can always agree they ARE a bloody good live band.

Good point.. i thought t'was a yank DJ that stuffed up but your's makes more sense... i prolly shoulda asked but when i got the job i went "WTF??? NOOooo" coz i didnt like them. then i saw them live... then i was proud to be associated!

**boris** · 20th September 2004, 16:55

they should have called them self ,Infidel Dogs, would have been better than Pacifer.

**Coldkiwi** · 20th September 2004, 17:38

FLowers!? you're kidding me! I know the 80's had a lot of cheesy music but I'm sure they would've flopped chronically trying to break into big markets with a name like 'Flowers'

**Ghost Lemur** · 20th September 2004, 17:45

Originally Posted by Coldkiwi

FLowers!? you're kidding me! I know the 80's had a lot of cheesy music but I'm sure they would've flopped chronically trying to break into big markets with a name like 'Flowers'

Dunno about that, the 80s were a pretty queer decade. Heterosexual men wearing fluro pink, etc.