ajejebrazorf

(So, I'm quoting myself now, not out of narcissism, but at least I remembered where to fish) "The relationship between the Signifier and the Signified is similar to the relationship between the front and the back of a sheet of paper; they are in no way divisible, but they are different and distinct. To every Signified corresponds a Signifier and vice versa. Specifically, the Signifier is, we can say, the phonetic or graphic medium that conveys the Signified of the word in question." This is to say that the symbol itself, whether a swastika or hammer and sickle, doesn’t affect me one way or the other. I’m interested in how it is used; the context and purpose are important. In the case of the CCCP, I find the use of the symbol justified by what Ferretti wrote (justifications traceable in the post made by Kosmo): I wouldn’t even speak of bad taste because bad taste is always unconscious. Let alone of sycophancy: I’ve already mentioned barbed wire, right? The fact that many people perceive the CCCP superficially and incorrectly cannot be attributed to Ferretti in any way: one cannot put a disclaimer on a record that says "beware of difficult concepts: not recommended for those lacking irony and critical sense"; a provocation loses its value if one declares at the outset that it is a provocation, worse than explaining jokes (any reference to events or persons is entirely intentional). I add and reiterate, as has already been said, that Nazism and Communism cannot be equated because, while the massacres are certainly attributable to the people who acted under both ideologies (of course, talking about ideology in relation to Nazism makes me smile; what are the ideas beyond immense egocentrism? I am really curious), it must be said that Communism originated from very noble purposes, as utopian as you might want, but certainly far from the gulags where it ultimately led. I believe that facts, actions, and motivations are more important than symbols: this is why I was critical of certain metal (not of Cannibal Corpse, who make me laugh with gusto and to whom I can only attribute bad taste, or an MTV buffoon like Marilyn Manson who makes chickens laugh): certain metal groups indeed engage in a certain type of propaganda, and then we end up with the incredibly obtuse "bestie di satana" causing chaos in the name of who knows what. And I don’t feel like censoring even Burzum and company: censorship should come from my own brain, not from a censor who furthermore censors Pasolini or brings Zappa to court only to leave around truly censurable things. As for the word "negro," just to share my thoughts on the subject: I may have the sensitivity of an elephant, but politically correct wordings sometimes make me smile rather than disturb me. I ask candidly: does a blind person really find it indelicate to be called blind instead of visually impaired? Alright, there is a derogatory connotation to the word "negro," but it hasn’t always been so (continuously used by Argan, one of our greatest art critics, and by Polillo, a great jazz historian, for example), and I would definitely prefer it over "nero" and "di colore" (but what does “di colore” even mean?), at least I immediately understand what is being referred to; I would rather be called by a word like “negro” than “caucasian” (but speak as you eat) or “white.” I jokingly brought this up now to say that the word "negritude" had nothing discriminatory about it, and I’m surprised that you and Kosmo didn’t understand that. Okay, I’m done. However, the idea of Ferretti showing up at your place for dinner with the CCCP record instead of a nice bottle of wine made me laugh: I wouldn’t have let him up either :D

I read in the book dedicated to them (the one from Stampa Alternativa), which I went to dig up from the back of my library, that:... "CCCP is the acronym in Cyrillic characters for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which is not an easy or light name to carry these days in these places, but it is ours. A year ago, when we decided to use this name, we were driven only by the desire to bring a bit of balance to an increasingly and solely pro-American Europe. Let it be clear, the discourse is never political, except by consequence; it is aesthetic and ethical. We are pro-Soviet not because we are leftist, if we ever were, but because we are connected to human experience by interests not encompassed within the American empire, and so gradually, sometimes with disappointment and always unpredictably, as only genuinely lived experiences can be, we have allowed ourselves to be fascinated by the Soviet empire. (...) The Soviet empire concerns us (instead), it is also our history, our culture, our relationship with the world. LOYAL TO THE LINE because the line no longer exists and the game is open..." --- ... "Pro-Soviet because it confuses ideas and forces us to think, but also for purely musical reasons: we detest rock, we can’t stand its emptiness, its omnipotence, its being the music of stupid youth, of the unfashionable young, of the rebellious young, of the youth. We can’t stand disco, funk, rap, the colored lights, the smoke, the glitters of sequins, the decoy mirrors, always a bit new, always the same. We can’t stand the waves no-waves and this mania of classifying, cataloging, dividing, uniting, which serves not music but to give a voice to the ignorant and a bit of fame to the critics and journalists who invent them. We can’t stand jazz, reggae, blues because we have no blackness to re-evaluate, no new Zion to build; we are white cultured Europeans, we have historical responsibilities, we accept the guilt, but this is not our music, it is the music of others; we appreciate it if it comes from those who can and must create it, but otherwise, no. We make modern European music, open to Arabic and Asian influences because these are the two cultures close to us, because European culture clashes with and meets these two civilizations always, because this is our cultural and physical background, hence we create pro-Soviet punk... etc." -- I am a bit fussy; when something itches me (in this case, your Bogus quote), I go deep. For the sake of the record, I felt it was right to post the full text on "blackness." And I won’t make comments; IT'S BETTER. (post by kosmo, just to give you at least an idea of what has been said about the cover, wait for the second post)

In my opinion, approaching Ayler with such premises would lead you to a rude awakening; if you expect technique, you're better off elsewhere. He was so beloved that he died because someone shot him in the back, no one knows who, no one knows why. The Flemish painters have a lot to do with the type of photographic painting by Ingres: here you go.

This instead is the most famous of Goya's black paintings, Saturn. I don't feel like searching for them all, think that he had them at home, a cheerful little place. here you go.

How's it going with the legos? :D

Yes, by now to answer you I would have to say "specchio riflesso senza ritorno":D

but no, but no, and then you punish me too for not being crazy about the wallz...the nonsense is fine if it’s one every thousand or if it's every sixty, we’re not here to calculate the fixed residue of water! For me, it’s fun, it makes me laugh, just like fegatofegatofegato spappolato makes me laugh, to quote a little song you like without great ambitions: but to say that it’s even written poorly, no, whether you like it or it makes you vomit (the second one I mentioned) it’s not that I’ll shave your flower bed, even in doing nonsense there's Ferretti style :)

I’m not surprised that Caz, with whom I miraculously agree on everything, doesn’t agree on this album: is it just the fact that he hasn’t listened to it? :D It’s clear that you won’t die if you don’t listen to it, Caz, and I still respect you even though you enjoy being a pain in the ass for free from time to time. I also believe it’s a great album (for me, the crown for the best rock album goes to "live in punkow" anyway), and I don’t see easy comparisons. The fact that the most pronounced disagreements here come from a Sardo and a Siciliano (the one from Palermo, not the other), are good examples of stubbornness (I’m half-blood dderoma, maybe that’s it), as well as good examples of people who haven’t listened to this album (Caz, if you tell me again that you’ve listened to it, I’ll interrogate you) :D

I'm not surprised that Caz, with whom I miraculously agree on everything except for this album, is in disagreement: is it just because he hasn't listened to it? :D It's clear that you won't die if you don't listen to it, Caz, and I still respect you even though you enjoy being a pain in the ass for free every now and then. I also believe it's a great album (for me, the best rock album goes to "live in punkow," anyway), and I don't see any easy comparisons. The fact that the most pronounced disagreements here came from a Sardinian and a Sicilian makes me think; great examples of stubbornness, not to mention great examples of people who haven't listened to this album (Caz, if you tell me again that you've listened to it, I'm going to interrogate you) :D

For Caz: "Mi ami" is a very minor track, a small "diversion," but you judge Zappa by "tengo una minchia tanta"? Then let me also share this copy-paste: Perhaps not everyone knows that the lyrics of the song "Mi ami?" have a significant "intellectual" substratum! The text starts from an essay by ROLAND BARTHES from 1972 entitled "Fragments of a Love Discourse." I only read the essay a few years ago, and while reading the titles of the various chapters of the book, I noticed that Giovanni Lindo used the same words... "elective affinity...orphan of the future...caress the dream...with two fingers of barber...heavy atmosphere...praise of tension...absolute tranquility...on the delicate point...this is not a replica...easy light...tactical move..." I had the chance to personally ask Ferretti, backstage at a CSI concert, if the literary reference was indeed that... he confirmed everything.

Dear Enea, when I made a mistake writing a sentence: where it said "I've come to the idea that you consider a lot of modern art pure sensationalism (and I agree to some extent), but that's not the case," just replace "but that's not the case" with "I believe that is true only in part," or something like that to soften the meaning; I'm not exactly the type to hold absolute truths. As for modern art, which I know very marginally, just think if I dare to have such definitive opinions... I won't comment on Fontana's cuts, but I suspect they smell of a scam (especially since there are thousands of them; I'm gifting one of Fontana's spatial concepts made by me to my cousin who gets on my nerves and is about to get married). However, I see the merde d'artiste as a beautiful provocation (I didn't say masterpiece, but a beautiful provocation, like Duchamp's urinal or any other ready-made). Anyway, when I referred to modern art, I meant after Cezanne, just to avoid any gross errors, eheh. That said, I try to re-enter the CCCP issue through indirect means and returning from the tangent from which we started, by mentioning a painter I love very much and know well: Goya. The best of Goya's production, in my opinion, is in the black paintings of "the Quinta del Sordo," the countryside house where he secluded himself in old age: they are coarse and grainy paintings, and maybe you know "Saturn Devouring His Son": four crude brushstrokes in cross, but of incredible power. There are painters from that period with monstrous technique (Ingres, for example) who with this technique certainly haven't reached the same levels as this cycle of paintings. Now, this horrible digression to explain the reason for punk, with its brutality and apparent (often not apparent, it's true) roughness, which often conveys more than many twists and turns of chords and arrangements and ensembles of thirty people. You might say that Goya knew how to paint, but it was just an example. There are great painters and great musicians who had very poor technical preparation and produced exceptional works: I absolutely do not share the idea that you have to prove you’ve studied; come on, a little independence of judgment! I’m madly in love with Albert Ayler (he played at Coltrane's funeral), who had a miserable technique, played with a plastic saxophone, and everyone mocked him (as much as and more than the others in free jazz). If someone tells me Ayler sucks, that he didn't know what he was doing and should have studied more, I remain absolutely sure of his value (I prefer him to Coltrane, that says it all). Credentials smell to me of insecurity in judgment, of "oh, he studied, so he’s someone to listen to."

Enè, thanks for the dedication, I’m moved. Don’t provoke me with Malgioglio; I’m sensitive about these things, especially his hairstyle which is worthy of the sagrada familia for architectural audacity. Anyway, I (I) went to read Nyman's review. I got the impression that you consider a lot of modern art pure sensationalism (and I partially agree), but that’s not the case. As Bogus used to say, the idea of beauty has changed, and especially the idea that a work of art must simply convey beauty; it can also be pure critical reflection (in music, John Cage says nothing?). That said, the music of the CCCP doesn't push the conceptual boundaries that far, but there’s definitely the expressionist ugly, which was then a romantic ideal of beauty. For me, Caz, one cannot ignore the period in which a work is born: as "pleasant" as it may be, today it's quite pointless to reproduce the Renaissance ideal of beauty in painting, or Caravaggio's different one. There’s a background to consider, with cycles and recycles, but I'm a big jerk and a progressive; history moves on. If The Wall were released today, it would suck even for you.