Body/Head
No Waves

We all know that Matador would release a record of silk-épil recordings, various brands, if Kim Gordon ran the silk-épil under her armpits while interspersing with small moans.

Then they would sell it to us at ten cents per gram which comes to eighteen dollars, and anyway, records by the kilo don't really cost that much, actually they cost on average a cent compared to the lousy smoke from Goodyear that we buy in bites in the square. If the market were regulated by laws and proportions regarding the actual value of things, music would really suck. Then sometimes music really sucks anyway and the point wasn’t no-drugs-buy-records, more like: friend, let’s not complain that records cost a lot. It’s not true. Saffron is expensive, music is cheap or free, smoke is really too much.
But the crux of the argument is that in the music market the price isn't proportional to the quality of the product, whereas it is in the smoke market: if you want to buy good stuff to listen to, you pay the same or less than for listening to crap; if you want to smoke good stuff, you pay more, even a lot more, than that crap rubber.

But then, bro, does it mean that music is better than smoking! No. It means the music market is absurd. But it is also a socialist oasis.

For instance, my friend Scanzy, a university mate of mine who really likes Andrea Scanzi, says that the phenomenon of increased access to music, on the part of those who produce it, has generated a sort of devaluation, loss of credibility, loss of interest from the public. I’m telling you this much better than how he explained it to me, like when sports journalists report Totti's interviews in written form and get him to say things like “increased,” “a sort of” and “at the current state of affairs.”
He says that, at the current state of affairs, it's impossible for artists to have the authority, social relevance, iconicity, and creative drive they had in the Sixties/Seventies, when everything was better.

Sorry, friend Scanzy, if I responded by burping that you can't historicize the present. Actually, on devaluation you were also right, and the market shows us so. But if you see it as a negative thing, you come across as a small-time reactionary. Keep going like that and maybe one day you'll have a blog on Fatto Quotidiano.

Music is devalued and we will still continue to buy all the Matador stuff because, you know, the Sonic Youth phase; but maybe even if it were just for that kind of ironically informed musical machismo that's trendy now, like my life dream is a blowjob from Kim Gordon, which is an attitude that always works because you come across as cultured, masculine, and with the style of someone who distances themselves from the critical rants on music and approaches everything with a low profile, charmingly sly, nationally-popularly winking.

We will continue to pick up these nonsensical records of three live-recorded free-form pieces, with distorted guitars, feedback, jack games going in and out, a random harmonica, Kim Gordon randomly vocalizing.

Above all, we will continue to get them because we pay little or nothing and sometimes they turn out to be crap, but it can happen that they are very good. Not like smoke.
Good or crap, we will listen to them anyway while we wash the dishes, we will learn things, we will go to concerts where between on and off stage there will be twenty of us, all the same. And if none of us ends up with our face plastered on the wall with a stencil, or the Swedish Academy doesn’t give us the award or such, well it’s okay.