holdencaulfield

The fact is that musicians, before being musicians, are people, and I am convinced that Agnelli is a very unsociable person, regardless of whether he is cocky or not. In the end, if you are a musician, your duty is to play well, not to pretend to be happy talking and smiling at strangers. He has always said this, and in his own way, it's something I respect. It's not always necessary to eliminate the space between the stage and the ground.

Yesyesyes, logic probe. But it's precisely because I see excitement around that it pisses me off that we're here in 10 celebrating it. I went to Tagofest, the "first independent festival of independent labels". Do you know how many of us there were? About a hundred...

Ugh, in the end I'm going to have to listen to this damn CD...

I believe that saying there is a distinction between art and entertainment music is a nice pat on the back for all of us. Essentially, it's like saying: "a) there are two groups and we can't do anything to change that (the consolation of inaction) b) luckily, we are in the right group! Wow, we sure are cool!" The distinction between artforafew-craftforothers is a completely twentieth-century and/or medieval concept. Who went to see Shakespeare in his time? I know centuries have passed, but it’s just to demonstrate that this sharp division isn’t necessarily endemic to the concept of art. I repeat, even if just 40 years ago things were much better. I think of Hendrix, Dylan, Joplin, and a thousand others... The fact is, we are probably going through a generation of "avant-gardes" like in the 1920s, and as is well known, avant-gardes by definition distance themselves as much as possible from the "common folk" to land in the delightful realms of Art for Art's sake. I hope a Sartre with a guitar comes along soon to tell them all to fuck off (or better yet, to bring them back down to earth).

Secondly, a brief aside on the lesser or greater "marketability" or "radio-friendliness": it’s a dog chasing its tail. Who decides what is radio-friendly? Taking the example of Baustelle, is "Arriva lo yè-yè" perhaps less catchy than Meneguzzi or Antonacci? Is "Se Mi Scrivi" by Perturbazione perhaps less summery than Paola & Chiara? It’s the radios and TVs that decide WHAT is radio-friendly and therefore worthy of being broadcast because it will please the listeners (and this, undoubtedly, is quite a tautology). If Radio 105 had the guts to broadcast Tosca on repeat, you’d see in no time the clubs pumping out a remixed version. The same goes for if Coca Cola chose a track by A short apnea for an advertisement. Radio-friendliness/marketability is a very flimsy concept: it is directly proportional to the number of times you listen to a track.
The only way to change the system (or rather the TWO systems, "commercial" on one side and "indie" on the other) is to merge: Afterhours performing at the MTV day can only be a blessing, as can Planet Funk dominating in clubs. Yet we are the first to point fingers at the "sellouts." Have we perhaps forgotten the public crucifixion of Godano after "La canzone che scrivo per te"? He barely performs it live anymore…
I apologize for the length; I hope I’ve explained myself (I doubt it, though)…

No, but really, I just don’t agree. Everyone listened to De André. De Gregori too. Guccini as well. It was light music, popular music. Not different from this. It has nothing to do with patrons; it’s that Western society (not just Italian) is becoming lazy. The vital times are tightening, and there’s not much desire left to wring our brains. I think of that nonsense I hear on everyone’s lips: music is the soundtrack of our lives. As if to say: it’s just background noise, on which the main things, which are still OTHER, take place. Meanwhile, we throw ashes on our heads as members of an elite that increasingly wants to remain such, saying things like (sorry for quoting you) “true art, experimentation, poetry are by definition reserved for a niche audience.” Art is communication above all, and if it doesn’t communicate with people, there’s a problem.

Haha.. I don't follow the forum, sorry. In fact, I don't really follow the website much either, and I'm sorry about that. It's just that I don't have a lot of time... When I can, I write, though.

Totally, for sure: artistic choices (like that melting pot of languages that is Armstrong by Scisma, or the Radiodervish, or others) make sense. The important thing is that there is a conscious and thoughtful choice behind it. Not just singing in English because "it doesn't work in Italian." Or worse, "because English is more beautiful." Or even worse, "because Italian doesn't work with rock" (just look at the Marlene Kuntz...). I'll leave aside those who say "but Italian isn't exportable abroad" because they don't deserve consideration.
I repeat: if it has an "artistic" function, it’s absolutely right to experiment with languages; if one simply resorts to other languages out of discomfort with their own (and perhaps to mask unmemorable lyrics), it doesn’t seem fair to me.

I don’t understand the story of the “other language.” I think it's very foolish to write in languages that aren’t your own. It shows a tacky fascination with foreign cultures and/or a lack of conviction in what you can express with words. If Cesare Cremonini has something to give to music (although I still doubt it), he can do so by singing in Italian. Just the other day, I was angrily noting how a very high percentage of Italian indie bands (even the best ones) get stuck in English. I believe it's somewhat a symbol of not being fully emancipated from their own models, of having little faith in music that can be dignifiedly Italian without being “canzonetta.” I hope things change.
P.S.: it’s curious to note how there’s always the “well, look at that!” syndrome. As soon as someone who makes a lot of money comes out with music that is certainly not idiotic, people are shocked to the point of exaggeration: skilled craftsmen suddenly become artists. And to think, as Logic Probe says, that there are one, a hundred, a thousand forgotten Chimentis.

The Guns N' Roses are a bunch of wannabes.