I've just finished listening to that Damien Rice album ( O ) and while he's good, he's no Tom McRae. Why do the media always pick up on a slightly worse artist who comes out a few years after the superior one? That sentence makes very little sense, but I can't think of any way of re-wording it better; I'll just give examples in the hope that that will explain it. Nirvana admit to being a cheap imitation of The Pixies, but Nirvana get all the press. And that's the only example that springs to mind, but I'm sure others will follow. Probably.
(8) Damien Rice - Volcanos
(t) Helen
Evidently not.
I got that Damien Rice album for Christmas. I thought he was ok, but the album is soooo annoying!
Evidently not? Walleys blog brings the true stupidity of that comment to light.
Nirvana themselves said they just ripped off The Pixies. The Pixies rule!
oh yeah i forgot you liked the pixies
See?
I thought it was ace when it turned out Tom McCrae was lying about his name and his age. 'Just Like Blood' is good but it requires more listens to see it's genius tthan 'O'
seeing mr rice in feb.. can't wait!
This is a website by Mark Walley. If you want to find out more or get in touch, that'd be nice.
Getting around this website can be a tad confusing. If you're looking to explore the better stuff of what I've written then this navigation should help you. If you're after a specific post then searching or looking through the archives chronologically may help.
This site tries its best to be accessible for everyone. Atom, and RSS feeds are available. All content licensed through a creative commons licence. I may have stolen ideas off you when you weren't looking, but it was almost certainly an accident. As with all claims of originality and ownership Psalm 24 v1 applies.
edd
surely nirvana are better than the pixies?