beautiful Days pictures

[markmono]

[nomorefakereunions]

The 1996 shows weren't very good, to be honest - the last ones after they'd decided to split were fairly much going-through-the-motions with Roskilde as the payoff that gave them some breathing space for whatever happened next.

[bronxzoo]

the 1996 shows were shit, simple as that, i saw them twice at that time, worst i had ever seen them, they were playing smaller venues and ppl were not getting into it

[OVDH]

[wierdsbarandgrill2]

I saw the grahamless poppies, and they were dreadful. Which is not to say that just because Graham is in the band, that hey are good. The last truly brilliant show I saw them do was Phoenix 94. The Oct 94 shows seems a bit ok...March 95, less passion...and 96 were a band running on empty.

As for the name change - I find the comments on that Sky TV interview (sports channel, isnt it?) quite odd.

Q:"so you're 100% allowed to use the name?"
A:"well no ones made a claim yet"

I mean, that doesn't sound good. If your basis upon using a band name is that no one involved will sue you, I'm sure thats not entirely open or honest, IMHO. This supposition about "why hasn't clint sued" is moot - with his current position of writing film scores at $750,000 a pop, I would never expect him to be either i)able to make an open-ended commitment in terms of time and availability to the band and ii) be willing to sacrifice the sort of well paying career most of us would give our eye teeth for. Suing Graham would be a pointless act, simply because i) Clint would not be able to use the name for an active band due to these other commitments and ii)its dependent on the other members (ie Fuzz, Rich, Adam).

So, what do the other members of the band do? Well, I dont know what Adam does. I think Richard works at a music college or is a school teacher. Fuzz is a freelance journo writing for transport magazines. By my reckoning, neither of those jobs are well paying enough to finance a legal action against Graham.

Of course, if I am wrong, I am wrong. but at this point I cannot find anything to support what i am saying is wrong.

To me, PWEi was a band I used to follow around the country. I think I've done 15 or so gigs, from clubs to Festivals, back to Clubs again when i saw them at manchester Rockworld in 96, and then the reformation shows. To use that band name, to book gigs without any communication with the ticket buyign public is to me, an act of bad faith and deceptive.

Cmon - how many of us knew who was in the band when Beautiful Days tickets went on sale???? Seriously - no one.Except those in the business end.

To use the name PWEI when it has no one that was in the band in the 96 shows, is VERY odd. The PWEI Line up - with the addition of drummer fuzz - was stable from 1986 to 1995. a decade and no one leaves, just a drummer gets added. Then they split. To find a line up with one (1) original member, ie 20% of the line up (who quit in 1995), isnt to me, open, or honest, or forthcoming.

From the outside looking in, there was no natural progression of people leaving over a period of time whilst the band continues to tour, record, be active. It just looks like out of the blue, an ex member of the band now has made an album and attached the name of his previous band to it. (See, Axl Rose etc.). By that logic, when Ricky Warwick released his (sic) album in 1997, shouldnt that have been the Almighty? Shouldnt the Elektric Music album be titled kraftwerk? Can Henry Rollins now tour AS Black Flag? Can we now re-release Golden Claw Music as a missing PWEi album?

To me, its not PWEI. PWEI v2.0, maybe, but not PWEI. A democracy of one isn't a democracy, and lets be under no illusion it is.

And what annoys me is the underhand way its been done, a lack of transparency, and its come across as deceptive, obscuring the truth of whats happened.

Of course, shoudl clint, adam, rich, and fuzz release a statement staying how they cannot carry on and have relinquished the reigns, then that to me, will be acceptable. No such consent has been given. Taking something without owners consent, or misusing an existing band name...thats bad practice.

Now, If you don;t mind, I'm off to see Kiss, starring Peter Criss. Same difference!

[wierdsbarandgrill2]

I see some people have states that the other members have wished him luck on facebook. Well, Im not friends with the members of PWEI on FB - to me, thats entirely at their discretion - so if there's the proof, screenprints please? if they dont mind?

[kwvp]

Adam: "..I was mostly excited to find some way of helping promote interest in Graham's new PWEI project because I really want it to work for him."

'Featured artist PWEI', Cherry Red Records My Favourite Flavour, Issue 22 - 2011

[nomorefakereunions]

That's a bit more like it! Is there a link to the interview?

[wierdsbarandgrill2]

It's a valid question, me thinks - why does information like this drib out piecemeal, unreported, and bit by bit? Seriously - something clear would quell any doubters.

And there are MANY doubters. I know of a few who don't consider this PWEI, given the way its been done...

[matt]

OK, I wasn't going to get drawn into this shit, but do these sound like the words of a bitter ex-bandmate desperate to sue?:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/28241357@N08/6251522186/

Now shut the f*ck up...