[reply]
The Prodigy.
Now there is a band that should have stopped a while ago.[/reply]
Dude, the new one rocks.
guys, mechanical animals has some good songs on it.
his other stuff… ehhh. but mechanical is a good record.
[reply][reply]
The Prodigy.
Now there is a band that should have stopped a while ago.[/reply]
Dude, the new one rocks.[/reply]
Heard bits of it when it came out and hated what it. That ‘Omen’ song is pure crap in my opinion. Granted there could be decent tracks that I haven’t heard but I’m not too pushed about giving it a try. There were some cool songs on Gilted and FotL but what I’ve heard of their recent stuff, it just sounds too Brit pop rave for me. And for the gap they have between albums they could do a lot better. Could challenge themselves more.
i’ve only ever heard MM’s Sweet Dreams, Beautiful People, and that Vampire one from a year or two ago. Ehh I like some of his visuals if he does borrow a bit much from other people (Alice/Ogre), I think its a case of the whole standing on the shoulders of giants thing. Having grown up with bands like Alien Sex Fiend, Skinny Puppy, and to some extent Samhain/the Misfits the whole horror/goth slant was nothing new. I guess it was that and the die-hard fans which turned me off to ever seriously checking out his music.
Manson’s new music video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWU5cdjXr9Q
Most of you know my feelings on Manson. At their peak, the band was the total package. Great music, great lyrics, really amazing videos, imagery and artwork. The music took too much of a backseat over the years and it became more a solo act/cult of personality around Manson himself and consequently less interesting. This new album is going to be good I think compared to the past 2, but I doubt the band could achieve another ‘Holy Wood’.
Most of the people who don’t like him or think he was some Alice Cooper I think are underestimating the impact he made on America in his heyday. You would only understand if you knew about Evangelicals in the Bible Belt and how fucked a portion of our country actually was. And please he has shown himself to be more of a chameleon David Bowie type than boring old Alice Cooper. At least give him that.
I think the other thing is that people thought he ruined goth or industrial or sold out their scene. He’s a fucking rock star. He knew how to market himself and had brilliant themes and imagery. I’ll take that over the obscure misunderstood genius starving artist bullshit. I like theatricality and camp, and I think musicians should have stage presence and be into what they do.
People like Justin Broadrick are good musicians but have absolutely no talent for marketing themselves or coming up with good imagery. And his lyrics are far worse than Manson’s, but that doesn’t bother you because they are properly vague. Ogre can spout a stream of consciousness nonsense about the environment and vivisection and he’s brilliant but Manson actually says something about mainstream society and he’s just trying to shock soccer moms. All of these people are flawed. You only pick on Manson because he was successful and a household name so you were subjected to it. He’s a pop act yes. But he was the most entertaining one.
Well I’ll be the first to admit that while I am pretty unfamiliar with the actual music of Marilyn Manson, I can admire the guy for his savvy business and design sense. His interview in Bowling For Columbine was the point where I thought well maybe there is more to this guy than a simple shock-rocker. I think you are right voidhead, Bowie is probably a better comparison than Alice.
Well I’ll be the first to admit that while I am pretty unfamiliar with the actual music of Marilyn Manson, I can admire the guy for his savvy business and design sense. His interview in Bowling For Columbine was the point where I thought well maybe there is more to this guy than a simple shock-rocker. I think you are right voidhead, Bowie is probably a better comparison than Alice.
Well if you are interested in hearing more of his music, I would check out ‘Holy Wood’, which is basically his response to Columbine and his most intellectual work lyrically and thematically.
When people compare him to Alice Cooper I laugh. Rob Zombie is hands down the Alice Cooper of our generation. It takes a fool to deny that statement
I don’t deny that the band isn’t amazing these days–and it seems Manson has mostly lost it with all the drugs and alcohol–but the heyday was quite spectacular.
This new album is going to be good I think compared to the past 2, but I doubt the band could achieve another ‘Holy Wood’.
What is the fascination with “holy wood?” IMO that is the worst of the 3 mainstream Albums by him. Mechanical Animals #1 Antichrist Superstar#2 and Holywood #3 and then Portrait to round out #4 (portrait is too genreric Rock for me). Don’t get me wrong Holywood has it’s gems but they are few and far between and it is clearly superior to Eat Me Drink me. Golden Age is pretty forgetable as well. (So much so that I actually forgot about it until I was proof reading!)
You would only understand if you knew about Evangelicals in the Bible Belt and how fucked a portion of our country actually was
Still is
I think the other thing is that people thought he ruined goth or industrial or sold out their scene. He’s a fucking rock star. He knew how to market himself and had brilliant themes and imagery.
I definitely like his imagery. Very cool in a commercial way. His themes are not bad. I still think the Antichrist super star album were songs inspired by the Movie SALO.
People like Justin Broadrick are good musicians but have absolutely no talent for marketing themselves or coming up with good imagery. And his lyrics are far worse than Manson’s, but that doesn’t bother you because they are properly vague.
I think Broaderick doesn’t care to market himself, as far as good Imagery, his imagery is beautiful!!! Look at his CD inserts and the music itself is overflowing with imagery!
Ogre can spout a stream of consciousness nonsense about the environment and vivisection and he’s brilliant but Manson actually says something about mainstream society and he’s just trying to shock soccer moms. All of these people are flawed. You only pick on Manson because he was successful and a household name so you were subjected to it. He’s a pop act yes. But he was the most entertaining one.
You’re probably right on all of these points but it’s manson’s delivery (I think) that turns most on this forum off to him. I guess in short there is not enough Humble (actually not any) in Manson’s persona.
Late,
grmpysmrf
Bowie is a musician who reinvented himself with every 2-3 albums. Manson is a musician who stretched out of his box for Mechanical Animals, and then released 4 more albums all promising a “return to form” that would “sound like Antichrist Superstar.” Your mileage may vary on how good those albums were, but I think it’s hard to argue that he was really pushing his envelope with any of them.
Manson wanted to be like Bowie, but didn’t have the balls.
[reply]
[reply]
The Prodigy.
Now there is a band that should have stopped a while ago.[/reply]
Dude, the new one rocks.
Agreed I like the first two tunes & I’m not a fan.
for the manson fan looking to go deeper into his meaing on some shit check out this site
http://www.nachtkabarett.com/Grotesque
Most of the people who don’t like him or think he was some Alice Cooper I think are underestimating the impact he made on America in his heyday.
Yeah - but he made said ‘impact’ by aping the likes of Alice Cooper. There is very little that isn’t ho-hum about the guy.
So he made an impact. Whoop-de-fucken-do. Britney Spears made an impact. Bon Jovi made an impact. And by all accounts this Lady GaGa is making an impact right about now. Do we need to start admiring these types for the degree of celebrity they can conjure up? I think not. I prefer to let the music do the talking. Which is why I find Manson so wishy washy and so lamentable. He annoys me like almost no other. I’d compare him to a scenario where a Hollywood conglomerate takes a really good idea from a credible source and turns it into a REALLY bad film. To me that’s Manson in a nutshell.
You would only understand if you knew about Evangelicals in the Bible Belt and how fucked a portion of our country actually was.
Oh please. You’re telling us that we will never ‘get’ Manson’s ugly schtick unless we’ve witnessed Evangelicals in the Bible Belt. Elvis Presley outraged Evangelicals in the Bible Belt. Remember a band called ‘The Beatles’? Well, way before the likes of you were even born, Evangelicals in the Bible Belt were burning their records in reaction to a carelessly placed misquote regarding said band being ‘Bigger Than Jesus’. Pissing off religous types is like shooting fish in a barrel. It’s like taunting the fat kid at school for a laugh. It’s funny for about ten seconds and then it’s just sad.
I think the other thing is that people thought he ruined goth or industrial or sold out their scene. He’s a fucking rock star. He knew how to market himself and had brilliant themes and imagery.
Well, he does know how to market himself. He’s a darn fine marketer. If I was head honcho over a Pepsi inc I’d send my best and brightest over to Manson’s house to lure his ass over.
Yes, he’s good at marketing products to children.
I’ll take that over the obscure misunderstood genius starving artist bullshit.
Why? Are you saying that image is more important to you? That unless what an artist is selling is trussed up with a fancy bow and wrapping paper then you aren’t interested?
Fine. Whatever. Personally I like my art with a little less shallowness and a little more substance. I admire creativity and spend quite a bit of time scouring magazines, the internet and record stores searcing for creativity and originality - and not something that I’ve seen and heard a million times before.
People like Justin Broadrick are good musicians but have absolutely no talent for marketing themselves or coming up with good imagery.
What the fuck are you talking about? What kind of circles do you mix in? Broderick has become the fucken POSTER BOY for the scene he represents. He’s everywhere (everywhere that matters that is) and he’s done it without the help of major label saturation. He doesn’t need to pose on the front cover of fucken Rolling Stone / Spin / Vanity Fair magazine pulling ‘wacky’ faces and dressed up a goth male Christina Aguilera. He doesn’t do the ‘Hollywood’ thing. He isn’t ‘Hollywood’ and doesn’t necessarily need to feel idolised by Timmy Mallrat and Sammy Suburbs. Maybe money isn’t the most important thing in his life. Who knows? Who cares? I’m sure he doesn’t.
And his lyrics are far worse than Manson’s, but that doesn’t bother you because they are properly vague.
Well that’s neither here nor there. If you don’t like his lyrics and think they’re ‘vague’ then fine. I don’t know. I’ve said enough about Broderick. I don’t idolise the guy and I think the majority of his career is spotty at best. But comparing him to Marilyn Manson is just…it’s like comparing Fellini to Michael (Pearl Harbour, Armageddon etc) Bay.
Ogre can spout a stream of consciousness nonsense about the environment and vivisection and he’s brilliant but Manson actually says something about mainstream society and he’s just trying to shock soccer moms.
Manson successfully manages to dumb down everything he he touches. There’s not an ounce of belivability in the words or the music. It’s hollow, empty and it’s plastic. Hammy heavy metal chest beating, slogan shouting and teen baiting nonsensensical cabaret.
As I said, the soccer moms and religious freaky deaky types are reaching for their bibles and their guns…everybody else is yawning.
You only pick on Manson because he was successful and a household name so you were subjected to it. He’s a pop act yes. But he was the most entertaining one.
I disagree. I’m gonna go with Madonna circa 1985 - 1990 as the most exciting pop act. Any chick who grabs their crotch and fiddles with a crucifix in front of 10,000 screaming kiddies is ok by me.
Peligro makes some fair points there. I think the people who are interested in Manson because of his image are generally not worth listening to. Not saying that to you Voidhead but the focus on image, which Manson is very bound up in, should only complement his musical talents. And just how talented is Manson himself anyway? Argubaly his best work has involved Twiggy and Reznor, so apart from his lyrics what does he contribute? I ask this out of curiosity.
And what do Manson fans make of Slipknot, who are very similar to MM in that they have a gimmick and incite all sorts of backlash from religious types. Are their Manson fans who dislike Slipknot?
Anyway, maybe it’s just a subjective thing but I never cared for the image of MM or his lyrics, but Antichrist was a v.good album and other albums have their moments. I believe it’s possible to enjoy Manson (at least the stuff from mid to late 90s) without having to care for “the image”.
I don’t believe being able to brand yourself and make a load of $s from it merits respect from a musical point of view, maybe marketing but not music. It’s simple to create brands and peddle them to a target, it’s not simple to create fine music that lasts.
edit: I loathe that stinking carcass that calls herself Madonna. Yuck! Has she ever been good looking or talented? No.
Manson is just that, a marketing machine. He is pedalling heavy metal rebellion to bored teens and disaffected loners. There will always be a ‘Marilyn Manson’ figurehead in the rock music genre just like there will be a long line of Britneys and Christinas and J Lo’s as the decades roll on. That’s neither bad nor good, just a fact - you can choose to ignore it or get swept up in the moment and ride the wave while it lasts.
Personally I can’t stand Manson - his music is derivative and his lyrics are woeful - but I’d fight to the death to uphold his right to get up on a stage and dress the way he does and say the things he chooses to say.
As for Broadrick, well, to say that the guy has no idea how to market himself is a fairly misguided statement. The guy is everywhere in art-music circles. Can’t open up a Wire magazine or log on to an indie metal forum without seeing his face and his product plastered all over the place. He has a rabid underground following and is almost something of a cult hero amongst the Sunn O))) / Boris / Isis crowd. Not saying I love the guy or anything but he is a pretty established artist (the guy more or less invented grindcore as a teenager for crissakes!!!). Would be surprised if he was starving for his art - although he may have done in those early formative years. Probably one of the most celebrated indie performers at the moment.
And as for Broadrick ever appearing on the front cover of Rolling Stone (a la Manson)…I shudder at the very thought.
Peligro makes some fair points there. I think the people who are interested in Manson because of his image are generally not worth listening to. Not saying that to you Voidhead but the focus on image, which Manson is very bound up in, should only complement his musical talents. And just how talented is Manson himself anyway? Argubaly his best work has involved Twiggy and Reznor, so apart from his lyrics what does he contribute? I ask this out of curiosity.
And what do Manson fans make of Slipknot, who are very similar to MM in that they have a gimmick and incite all sorts of backlash from religious types. Are their Manson fans who dislike Slipknot?
Anyway, maybe it’s just a subjective thing but I never cared for the image of MM or his lyrics, but Antichrist was a v.good album and other albums have their moments. I believe it’s possible to enjoy Manson (at least the stuff from mid to late 90s) without having to care for “the image”.
I don’t believe being able to brand yourself and make a load of $s from it merits respect from a musical point of view, maybe marketing but not music. It’s simple to create brands and peddle them to a target, it’s not simple to create fine music that lasts.
Well Manson played drums early on in a side project called Mrs. Scabtree that he was in with Twiggy before Twiggy joined the band. He’s played rhythm guitar on some shit live, but not regularly. If you check the liner notes he does do some of the instrumentation on most of the albums. Usually random shit like a theremin or pan flute, sometimes keyboard etc.
As far as you liking ‘Antichrist’, he wrote and played guitar on the song “Minute of Decay” if that means anything…
His talent isn’t necessarily playing instruments but more creating the powerful visual aesthetic, symbolism and concepts that surround everything the band does and of course singing.
As far as Slipknot, to me as a Manson fan there is a world of difference between the two. Slipknot is all drop D nu metal riffs from what I’ve heard. Manson is more varied musically. Slipknot could never achieve a full on glam rock sound nor would their fans accept it.
I find Manson’s message, imagery and symbolism to be more involved than Slipknot’s. Numerology, Androgyny, Occult and Masonic references, references to literature, to The Beatles, to art films like SALO, in depth references to The Bible (specifically Revelations), the list goes on.
And about brand and marketing being less important than the music itself, yes I agree…the music has to last or hold up on its own. And some of Manson’s music (especially lately) is not going to do that. The image is not going to save it, nor do I want it to be just about image. And that disappoints me as a fan.
But I think you guys are underestimating the artistry that goes into constructing the elaborate images that Manson does. Look at the beautiful tarot cards he created for ‘Holy Wood’, where each band members is dressed to be one of the characters.
The hair and makeup he has designed. The fashions he has worn over time. These are industries unto themselves and yes maybe they are too “gay” for you guys or too “feminine” but they are talents in their own right. I like the combination of music and fashion, music and image.
I’m not into pop. I like shit like Merzbow and all this underground stuff as you all know. I don’t need to talk about my credibility as a fan of underground music. I respect these guys as musicians but at the same time, their utter lack of imagery is frankly boring to me.
When I see John Wiese perform a laptop noise set onstage, yes the Noise is great and I get it. It’s just about the music. I respect that. There is no performance whatsoever. Fine. I will close my eyes and enjoy the music.
With Manson it is about both for me. I like the total package.
Manson is just that, a marketing machine. He is pedalling heavy metal rebellion to bored teens and disaffected loners. There will always be a ‘Marilyn Manson’ figurehead in the rock music genre just like there will be a long line of Britneys and Christinas and J Lo’s as the decades roll on.
Personally I can’t stand Manson - his music is derivative and his lyrics are woeful - but I’d fight to the death to uphold his right to get up on a stage and dress the way he does and say the things he chooses to say.
And as for Broadrick ever appearing on the front cover of Rolling Stone (a la Manson)…I shudder at the very thought.
Dude you are living in the fucking nineties. Manson doesn’t sell shit anymore, and Rolling Stone wouldn’t touch him as far as a front cover. He appears in the smoking section and gets an album review nowadays, that’s it.
In fact, the only way he could sell shit is to do exactly what you accuse him of doing. Try to replicate the heaviness of ‘Antichrist Superstar’. And he has done the exact opposite, exploring the more glam rock side of his sound and exploring more personal themes lyrically when the demands of his fans would dictate the exact opposite.
Almost all music is a derivative of something. Why is Manson’s so derivative in particular? I think he has evolved his own sound from a patchwork of influences:
Glam Rock, Industrial Metal, Goth Rock, Heavy Metal, Punk
To create something fairly unique sounding, albeit not “revolutionary”. But what the fuck is innovative now?
I like Sunn 0))). I think Boris is shit. I thought Boris/Merzbow was alright. I thought Jesu’s ‘Conqueror’ was shit. I really like Wolf Eyes new album and I think its fresh and sounds like a great condensation of everything they’ve done up until now. Are those artists innovative? I think they are. But sometimes I want something more immediate. And since everything under the sun has been done I fail to see how Manson is particularly derivative at this point.
And what the fuck does Christina Aguilera have to do with anything? She is a great singer. Is her voice supposed to be chopped up and glitched over distorted avant garde IDM music with wierd time signatures generated by a digital abacus in order for her to be worthwhile as a musician?
Is everything supposed to be like Harry Pussy for it to command any kind of respect?
I will happily listen to Marilyn Manson and Swans back to back. They provide different things for me as a listener.
Well Manson played drums early on in a side project called Mrs. Scabtree that he was in with Twiggy before Twiggy joined the band. He’s played rhythm guitar on some shit live, but not regularly. If you check the liner notes he does do some of the instrumentation on most of the albums. Usually random shit like a theremin or pan flute, sometimes keyboard etc.
As far as you liking ‘Antichrist’, he wrote and played guitar on the song “Minute of Decay” if that means anything…
Right, cheers.
On a completely unrelated topic I just saw this and thought it was funny:
Is there seriously a 2 page discussion or argument (I dont know what it is) about Manson… on Prongs.org?!
MANSON?! I mean really who gives a shit
Metallica - last album cut and paste job
Iggy Pop - corporate rebel
aerosmith- dont even write there own songs
Deep Purple - average albums