You were responsible for shepherding industrial music into the mainstream. How do you feel about that influence? There’s been a lot of good stuff and a lot of shit.
Yeah, I mean, I never sat down and said, here’s the game plan: My mission is to take industrial music and make it something that works its way into Hot Topic. It came down to what I was inspired by and how I felt like I was part of the scene, certainly as a fan of the Wax Trax stuff and Ministry and Skinny Puppy and all the classics. And that was the music that I related to on a number of levels — I liked the sound of it, I like the way it was made, I liked the message, which seemed fresh at the time. I hadn’t heard anything like that. It was as powerful as metal without all the silly metal stuff I understood or got into. But equally silly in its own way, for sure, especially looking back now. And when I started making music, I thought I was making music kind of in that genre because I loved it, but it started to come out like pop songs, with choruses and hooks and a lyrical element that I don’t think had been in that type of music before. It wasn’t any kind of master plan, but it just worked out in a way that… When you start to create, you draw from your influences and synthesize them into something else. It just worked out that the media kind of labeled us as industrial, and that pissed off a lot of the purists, quote-unquote industrial people, and I’ve always said, hey, man, point the finger at them; I’m not wearing a T-shirt that says Call Me Industrial. But at the same time, there’s been a lot of effect from that cause that went down. You see, Skinny Puppy died because they got a big record contract and then imploded, and they got offered that contract because, when we got big, record labels, in their infinite wisdom, [said], OK, who sounds like these guys? Get Skinny Puppy, get Ministry, get Front 242. And a lot of those guys are used to having a budget of $50,000 to do a record; now they have several million and buy a lot of drugs and that’s the end.
Get Skinny Puppy, get Ministry, get Front 242. And a lot of those guys are used to having a budget of $50,000 to do a record; now they have several million and buy a lot of drugs and that’s the end.
Doesn’t this happen to a lot of bands? This isn’t specific to these Industrial acts. Hendrix, Nirvana immediately come to mind. Bands like Depeche Mode and Metallica have had extremely close calls to ruining it all over drugs and drink. Even Trent had his own addictions.
And his mission was to get into Hot Topic. People don’t market something like Marilyn Manson for no reason. He knew high school kids would buy into it more (who else would buy shirts like “I am the Anti-Christ”, or whatever?!)
Nothing wrong with doing that: business is business, but don’t deny it.
I just read a news byte in Rolling Stone (hey, it was a gift) that Manson is coming out with his own fragrance and a make-up line. Not even he is buying into his own scary-spooky image. Boo!
1002
[reply]Get Skinny Puppy, get Ministry, get Front 242. And a lot of those guys are used to having a budget of $50,000 to do a record; now they have several million and buy a lot of drugs and that’s the end.
Doesn’t this happen to a lot of bands? This isn’t specific to these Industrial acts. Hendrix, Nirvana immediately come to mind. Bands like Depeche Mode and Metallica have had extremely close calls to ruining it all over drugs and drink. Even Trent had his own addictions.
And his mission was to get into Hot Topic. People don’t market something like Marilyn Manson for no reason. He knew high school kids would buy into it more (who else would buy shirts like “I am the Anti-Christ”, or whatever?!)
Nothing wrong with doing that: business is business, but don’t deny it.[/reply]
Here we go again…
As far as I know, there is no shirt that says “I am the anti-christ”. But that would make you happy, wouldn’t it? Because then we could all laugh at how fake Manson is, and how Trent “ruined” industrial with his verses and choruses. It’s not like the average Skinny Puppy or Ministry song has the same basic formula as a pop song is it…
That’s not a bridge, it’s a…musical experiment…right…
It is clear that people in this “scene” continue to grossly misunderstand Marilyn Manson…his message, his ENORMOUS impact in pop culture (I cannot emphasize this enough), and his intentions.
I don’t even want to go into this bullshit, but it just bothers me when intelligent people dismiss it as this kind of immature teeny bop market scheme.
As much as I may prefer Ministry over Marilyn Manson, it is clear that Manson’s lyrics are FAR superior to Jourgensen’s, for one thing. Wait, stop…don’t flame…don’t flame…
They totally are.
Jourgensen makes valid some attempts at social commentary (“N.W.O.”, “Land of Rape and Honey”, “We Believe”, most of the crap on HOTM) which are pretty poignant, but ultimately have this kind of childish, “WE’RE GETTING SCREWED BY THE MAN!!!” type of confused liberal message that can never effect real social change.
Manson doesn’t attempt social commentary. He IS social commentary, and he HAS effected social change and challenged the government.
As an artist he is far more successful than Ministry. Musically, Ministry mops the floor with him.
But even that statement isn’t entirely true. Compare Antichrist Superstar or Mechanical Animals to Houses of the Mole…honestly and without your biases (i.e. forget that Manson “ruined goth” for you ok?)…can you REALLY say that Houses of the Mole is better, or even close to either of these albums in terms of originality and overall quality?? …really? …really?
Keep in mind this does not apply to any other Ministry album. But if you’re gonna sit here and dismiss Manson because of his image and the way he has marketed himself without really taking the critical distance to view his art without a bias, then who’s the idiot? The guy who engineered the most effective marketing campaign in musical history, or the listener who, like many of his Christian protestors, too k all the hype and nonsense seriously without looking further to see what’s really going on with this band?
I don’t even want to go into this bullshit, but it just bothers me when intelligent people dismiss it as this kind of immature teeny bop market scheme.
I knew I was going to get a reply on the Manson thing…
Not dismissing him. I have seen him twice and have the first 3-4 albums. I think Jeordie is a good musician, as were other musicians who backed Manson.
I was simply saying that Trent was marketing Manson, that’s all. I think it sort of backfired on Trent, and he felt “used” but that’s another matter.
Even Reznor bashes him in “Starfuckers” or whatever:
“my god comes in a wrapper of cellophane
my god pouts on the cover of the magazine
my god’s a shallow little bitch trying to make the scene”
…
My point was that Reznor shouldn’t deny this, as he has always done.
As much as I may prefer Ministry over Marilyn Manson, it is clear that Manson’s lyrics are FAR superior to Jourgensen’s, for one thing. Wait, stop…don’t flame…don’t flame…
When I listen to Anti-Christ Superstar, the lyrics never impressed me, but that’s just me. I mean there was nothing unique about it. Maybe I had heard it all before. I was more interested in what Manson had to say in interviews, than the lyrics on his album anyhow. Same with Alice Cooper…
You compare Manson to Ministry, but let me ask you this: do you think Manson would have existed today like he does, if it weren’t for bands like Ministry and Skinny Puppy? One of the influential albums for Manson was Pailhead’s. Manson even hints at “borrowing” elements of Ogre in his book, and even got Ogilvie to produce/engineer an album.
Manson doesn’t attempt social commentary. He IS social commentary, and he HAS effected social change and challenged the government.
There’s a difference: Jourgensen didn’t set out to piss off Christians, join the Church of Satan, etc. But when Al wanted more people to vote, for example, he helped out organizations that did all this. Jourgensen, not Manson, was on Air America Radio, CNN, the Republicans hate list, prior to last year’s elections.
Manson and Jourgensen had two different objectives when it came to this. To me, I think Manson used a lot of these attacks he did, to pump up album sales. But I don’t really see a comparison with the two musicians, to be honest.
Manson was more into social commentary and Jourgensen was into more political stuff. I see more similarities with Manson and Eminem (as both tackled the same issues), than Manson and Jourgensen. Case in point: Eminem stands up for Manson in a song and Manson was featured in that music video.
Both, however, did criticize organized religion but also in different styles. Jourgensen didn’t use it as a statement that Ministry primarily stood for. Manson did.
But how are you crediting all that to Manson? Alice Cooper did that ages ago, as did Bowie, etc. It’s “shock rock”. Manson didn’t do anything original and groundbreaking really.
Even his stage theatrics were nothing new: pissing on the crowd/himself, getting the crowd to spit on him, cutting himself up, walking on stilts, acting like a zombie when singing, smashing up instruments, acting all pissed off, masturbating on stage, etc, etc… Nothing original. Which is fine. But don’t act as if it is original.
The guy who engineered the most effective marketing campaign in musical history…
But that’s my point. I said that Trent marketed Manson as such and shouldn’t deny it. Yes, he did bring Manson to Hot Topic. Yes, he did make Manson reachable to hundreds of thousands of “disconnected” kids in high school. It was genius. And that’s cool: business is good when it sells. Other acts soon followed along the same vein but couldn’t execute as well as the Reznor/Manson camp did. Probably because, as Manson did, they didn’t use the Christian community to double album sales 
I don’t think it was the most effective marketing campaign in musical history, though. Try hip hop.
but is trent really the ONLY person involved in marketing for interscope?
but is trent really the ONLY person involved in marketing for interscope?
He and Malm were for nothing records. Interscope gave them total control.
Interscope is amazing in that it tried different things, against the norm. Which is something for a major label. I think one of the best marketing geniuses on Interscope is Dr. Dre’s camp. They bought out Tupac, Eminem, Snoop, etc. Pure genius. Dr. Dre can retire just on what Eminem alone did, but he won’t and shouldn’t: he’s an amazing producer. He knows all this too:
“Well, hell, me and Snoop, we dipping again
Kept my ear to the streets, signed Eminem
He’s triple platinum, doing 50 a week
Still, I stay close to the heat
And even when I was close to defeat, I rose to my feet”
I think, and I don’t have numbers to show right now, but Tupac sold more than Nirvana did.
My only regret with nothing records, is that I wish he did the same for bands like PIG, Coil, etc, as he did for Manson. Granted, not all of it was within Trent’s control, but with a major label’s backing and lots of money, anything should be possible.
true. ipecac is probably my favorite label at the moment.
but anyway
malm was very slick
Hmmm I think what I meant is that Manson himself was responsible for the marketing of Marilyn Manson…not Trent. I think in that respect Trent WAS used. Manson clearly knew what he was doing, and definately took advantage of people to do it.
I thought it was brilliant to use the Christian and conservatives frantic fears against them. Using their own stupid little housewife activist networks to get all the little scurrying mommies to go on TV and warn Americans how much a threat Manson was.
And I don’t think Manson uses religious imagery to make money…he does it because he is genuinely obsessed with religion. No one who is intimately familiar with the band can deny this. He is completrly familiar with the Bible and is able to hurt Christians more effectively by exploiting real fears through specific imagery.
(example: In one of the videos for Holywood he is seen emerging from water with metal teeth. this is an explicit fulfillment of the prophecy of the third and final beast rising out of the water with metal teeth)
Lesser bands DID attempt to incite Christians to increase album sales, but they were unsuccessful because they didn’t have the intimate familiarity with Christianity that Manson did to strike real fear.
(example: Slipknot with their pentagram symbols)
I’m fully aware that Manson owes a HEAVY debt to not onyl Alice Cooper and Bowie, but also a lot of industrialites like Genesis P. Orridge, Nivek Ogre, and of course Uncle Al.
But i think Manson is original because his message is real. He’s no Cooper, playing on superstitious bullshit and then going and playing golf on the weekends. Like I said, he is intimately familiar with the Christian religion and the fears he exploits and imagery he invokes are a lot more specific and important. He hates the Chuch just like I do…the endless bowing and humble actions…the endless praising and thanking God…attributing every individual accomplishment to some higher power…Manson hates the way the Church makes people so fucking humble they can’t take pride in their own acheivements.
Manson is also original in the sense that he revealed just how fragile Christian faith really is. I mean all these religious leaders are trying to have him banned because they think one little concert is going to change their kids forever and turn them into Satanists. That shows just how fragile their faith is if it can be broken by one man.
I mean what more can Manson do to seem original? Pretty much everything’s been done on stage as far as I can tell, except maybe full on suicide which would be interest for Manson to do and would definately cement his status. I mean, look what suicide did for Nirvana…turned them into the “voice of a generation” and undoubtedly the most overrated band in history.
Anton LeVey was an idol to Manson, and I don’t think joining the Church of Satan was some kind of put on—he really did embrace its selfish philosophies, which is why Trent and co. hate him so much. He totally used them to get what he wanted.
If anything, Trent is the hypocrite poser in this regard…he makes plenty of nihilistic claims and embraces Nietzchian ideology, but then complains like a little bitch when Manson is “insincere” in Starfuckers Inc. I mean, what kind of pussy nihilist expects people to be “sincere”???
As for hip-hop…fuck it. Yeah their marketing campaign may be more successful, because that’s because the majority of hip-hop fans are fucking idiots. “sex, drugs, women, violence, masculinity” is really their whole message. and this glamorized “Gangsta” lifestyle which is so hollow and pointless, demeaning to women and fueling negative stereotypes of what it is to be a man. I don’t support this message, because this is genuinely a bad message, not like Manson’s where it’s a social critique and self-empowering.
This gangsta shit is purely negative, and totally fucking stupid. And the best is when they always have that track about how they’ll “never forget where they came from” and how black peopel have it so hard in the ghetto blah blah blah. and how we need more wellfair cause kids are starving on the street etc. etc. Just a bunch of whiney Democrat bullshit with nothing intelligent to say.
I don’t support the marketing of all this nonsense with its hollow message. If you’re going to do a song about how hard life is in the ghetto, then you can’t turn around and do another song about how rich you are and bling bling, which is basically reinforcing the same old consumer ideas.
The rappers aren’t heroes for the ghettos, they are just another part of the problem, unconsciously reinforincg the “white man’s” message of material goods and financial status that we embrace world wide. These idiots have done nothing to alleviate the black man’s social and economic plight…they have only made it worse.
Fuck hip-hop, Tupac and all the other morons who claim to be helping their people and then supporting this idea that masculinity means killing people and being “hard”.
Maybe the first rappers and the underground dudes have a different message, but the mainstream is pretty lacking in substance.
As for Al Jourgensen being more “political” and Manson being more “social”, I agree. Manson’s political views are disorganized and uninformed at best.
But Manson is much better as a social critic than Jourgensen is as a political critic because Manson critiques things intelligently. He hits Amricans where it hurts the most and exposes their weaknesses. Also, Manson has actually effected real social change.
Jourgensen, meanwhile, just bitches and moans endlessly about how we’re being “stripped of our liberties” and claims he’s going to move to Canada. He never suggests an alternative, which Manson does in spades. I mean, i respected the whole Punkvoter thing and all that, but he was just pressing kids to vote Democrat, not really encouraging them to think for themselves, and just plain vote, even if it’s a Republican vote.
To me, Jourgensen just comes across as another whiney bitchy liberal who can’t articulate his views fully and just complains without suggesting an alternative. Everyone’s a critic, but it takes balls and intelligence to suggest a real alternative to whateevr is being criticized. Kerry couldn’t do it, and neither could Jourgensen, so all that bitching was really just pointless wasn’t it?
This is what makes him inferior to Manson as an artist in my mind.
I thought it was brilliant to use the Christian and conservatives frantic fears against them. Using their own stupid little housewife activist networks to get all the little scurrying mommies to go on TV and warn Americans how much a threat Manson was.
Yeah, but soon they’ll get ‘used’ to Marilyn Manson and start their own personal wars against some other up and coming two-bit rubber johnnies who use ‘scare-tactics’ to fatten their wallets.
Anyway, what the fuck has Manson achieved that a zillion other potato head rock stars dimwits haven’t already done in the past forty odd years? You flame Ministry for their childishness, when acts like Marilyn Manson have never been anything BUT childish. Of course the mommies are going run screaming from the tv sets when Marilyn Manson rear their collective ugly heads. You act like this is some kind of neo-revelatory act. It isn’t.
Are you old enough to remember the moral backlash against KISS??
Although I could care less. Personally, I listen to Whitehouse. And acts like Whitehouse make Manson look like a bunch pre-schoolers in Halloween get-up. But does that mean shit?? Not particularly. I don’t wear it like a badge, I don’t feel the need to ‘frighten’ the moral majority in my neighbourhood with my allegiance to these sonic terrorists and hence I really fail to see the point of yr little Manson vs Jourgenson tirade.
But for my two cents worth (and look out folks I’m actually rootin’ for Jourgenson on this one) at least Ministry were threatening once upon a time. At least they came off (albeit briefly) as a musical act ho used political rantings in an effective and sonically interesting manner. But Manson??? Pffft! I can’t remember a time when Ministry looked like something you’d cut out from the back of a cereal box.
Manson on the other hand…his tin pot teen rebellion thingy comes off as so laughably insipid and so watered down for the ‘masses’ it’s a wonder they don’t give this guy his own comedy hour on cable. I know I’d watch it. Maybe.
And I don’t think Manson uses religious imagery to make money…he does it because he is genuinely obsessed with religion.
Big deal does this lend weight to his credentials. Nope!
No one who is intimately familiar with the band can deny this. He is completrly familiar with the Bible and is able to hurt Christians more effectively by exploiting real fears through specific imagery.
Y’know, for someone who writes so much, you actually say very little.
Manson hates the way the Church makes people so fucking humble they can’t take pride in their own acheivements.
Agreed. But you don’t need to dress up like Edward Scissorhands to remonstrate with this. Really.
Gandhi made people think for themselves and take pride in their stance against the fascist governing parties and I don’t believe he ever even made an album!
To me, Jourgensen just comes across as another whiney bitchy liberal who can’t articulate his views fully and just complains without suggesting an alternative.
Yeah, and for all his ‘bitching and moaning’ he has actually achieved fuck all. Except that he and Michael Moore are bestest buddies now.
Jougenson’s approach is kinda like - think for yourselves kids! Oh, and remember to vote Democrat.
when acts like Marilyn Manson have never been anything BUT childish. Of course the mommies are going run screaming from the tv sets when Marilyn Manson rear their collective ugly heads. You act like this is some kind of neo-revelatory act. It isn’t.
Peligro’s right on this. When I saw Manson, he ripped parts of the Bible up. Genius? No. Hypocritical? Yes. By doing so, I thought Manson had become the extreme person that he was once against, but from the other end of the spectrum. It made him look stupid and less-tolerant, the same points he used against his so-called “enemies”. I played this up to shock and not enlightenment, which I thought he first started out to do.
And it wasn’t a revolution. Certainly not. Most people who would pay attention to him were from the age group of 13-20, and they didn’t have a clue anyhow. They followed and listened like sheep. Now, though, everything’s back to normal. He didn’t create a permanent dent in the way society thinks, such as philosophers or politicans have done so.
You (voidhead), as someone who seems against the idea of Christianity, didn’t need Manson to confirm these thoughts you had. I am sure you have read much more enlightening papers on this, through philosophers.
But i think Manson is original because his message is real.
But he wasn’t original in this. Christianity has been around for centuries; Manson hasn’t. He wasn’t the first to criticize Christianity. Many had done so before, and in a much more tolerant and educated manner (such as Bertrand Russell in his book, “Why I am Not a Christian”).
I’d rather listen to what Russell has to say than some guy in platform shoes and a thong ripping up the Bible, shouting “We love hate. We hate love” to a bunch of teenage kids, while urinating on himself.
Manson is also original in the sense that he revealed just how fragile Christian faith really is. I mean all these religious leaders are trying to have him banned because they think one little concert is going to change their kids forever and turn them into Satanists. That shows just how fragile their faith is if it can be broken by one man.
Some generalization. I don’t think the majority of Christians were out there doing this. I think it was the soccer mom types. You didn’t hear of the Pope denouncing Manson just as the Pope condemned wars and killing. You make it sound like he did some damage to the Church and made Christians re-evaluate where they stood. He didn’t. He simply freaked out some people with nothing much to do, who blamed videogames and Manson for teen killings, and who were overly-protective of their children. Hip hop did the same thing and even to a bigger extent (ie. Supreme Court rulings). At the end of the day, very few took him seriously, including his close “friends”.
On the topic of the Church of Satan - I read their book and it seemed to focus more on magic than anything, but anyhow… I found that, just like with most religions, many followers of this Church were hypocritical. Manson included. Manson was against organized religion. How else would you define the Church of Satan? It has a Bible, a Church and leaders. This, to me, was the most ironic thing when I read the book.
And where is he now? The right wing were sick of putting up with him and eventually ignored him. This, essentially, killed the Manson shock buzz and I haven’t heard from him in anything major for the past few years (well, besides from being sued for fucking with a security guard at a concert).
His autobiography wasn’t exactly thought-provoking either. It was mostly filled with stories of how he used to urinate on groupies backstage.
For the record, I detest Manson and all his cartoon caricature ‘raise your fist and yell’ styled antics. He is as plastic and as disposable as the Britneys and Mariahs of this world. He has achieved nothing more than grow rich off the backs of ignorant, impressionable teens longing for a sense of belonging.
He claims to be an individual when he’s really just another media whore - another face to sell a magazine. He claims to inpire individuality, although one look at his cloned audience of worshippers would probably tell you something different.
And when was the last time a Marilyn Manson song actually stuck in your head for longer than thirty seconds? I’ve actually listened to Golden Age Of Grotesque (I have younger, more impressionable friends) on a number of occassions and found it to be completely lacking in originality or structure and the lyrics gave new meaning to the term ‘banal’.
I do believe there’s even a song on there called ‘Zigity ziggity ragga ragga dolly dolly pow wow’ or something, which Manson (completely irony free of course) chants ad nauseum throughout the entire…um…song. Really, I am not making this up.
Hey, if you can’t let the music do the talking, may as well build a myth around yourself and watch the money roll right in!
Who would’ve thought Manson would be the cause of the most interesting thread in a while?
I just remembered someone throwing a bible at me in '95 at a Manson concert…I picked it up and said “Do you even know what’s in this thing?” I kept it with me the rest of the night…love your neighbor, my ass!
It’s true that stuff like Manson may no longer be relevant (if it ever was), but it was mighty fun when I was 15. That does seem to be who it was marketed for, and if your only goal in life is to be a rock star, that’s the audience you shoot for.
[reply]
But that’s my point. I said that Trent marketed Manson as such and shouldn’t deny it. Yes, he did bring Manson to Hot Topic. Yes, he did make Manson reachable to hundreds of thousands of “disconnected” kids in high school. It was genius. And that’s cool: business is good when it sells. Other acts soon followed along the same vein but couldn’t execute as well as the Reznor/Manson camp did. Probably because, as Manson did, they didn’t use the Christian community to double album sales
I don’t think it was the most effective marketing campaign in musical history, though. Try hip hop.
Uh, I don’t think he’s talking about Manson at all. I believe he was referring to his own career, specifically the early days. In '88-'89 when writing and recording “Pretty Hate Machine” Hot Topic didn’t exist and Brian Warner was in his late teens, pissing around in Ohio or Florida or someplace. Trent was just combining his industrial influences on the one hand with his older synth-pop/new wave influences on the other. I suspect he was probably looking for a Front 242 or Nitzer Ebb level of fame, and was surprised to reach full-fledged pop-star fame.
As for Manson as a marketing gimmick, well maybe he had that in mind, maybe he didn’t. You’d have to ask him that, and to my knowledge no one has. My guess is that certainly Manson himself knew he had a million-dollar idea, but that Trent may have just been signing a buddy to his label (see also Prick).
Guys, Manson was to late 90s Metal what Madonna was to mid 80s Pop. Seriously, the careers are exactly the same. Both had mall loser kids dressing like them, both had music videos that incited religous debate (Like A Prayer and The Beautiful People), and both did EVERYTHING possible to shock and awe their respective audience (and captive audiences for that matter). But regardless, you cannot deny the impact both had on the pop culture of their times.
I think in the article Reznor is refering to his career with “working its way into Hot Topic” as not being a goal. I think someone else hit the nail on the head with Reznor wanting to achieve a Front 242 or Nitzer Ebb level of success. I don’t think Pop stardom was his intention, even though it was the end result, and the world is a better place for it.
Was it his idea to market Manson? I don’t think so. At the time Manson was signed to Nothing, Trent was on the old ‘H’ and more than likely out of his mind. Manson had all the resources of NIN during the 94-96 (TDS Era) and used them to his full advantage. Opening for NIN. Using Trent’s studio in New Orleans. EASY Access to Mtv’s audience, they would get down on their knees for anything NIN related that they could exploit. Manson was the in the right place at the right time. I am SURE it was Manson’s goal to get to rock star status, like Alice Cooper and Ozzy Osbourne. Let’s not forget Trent had a business partner involved in Nothing that milked the studio for every dime. Is it any wonder Trent doesn’t talk to either Manson or his old business partner nowadays? Remember, Trent was AWFUL with finances and sued his old buddy for several millions of assets. Drugs are a helluva thing, and a bigger bitch when said druggie gets clean. They start making political records and finding out just who screwed who.
Once again, I don’t think Reznor had any intention of using Manson to make money. He signed his friends to his label. Meatbeat Manifesto, Coil, and 12 Rounds to name just a few. Malm more than likely knew that those artists were not marketable, but in Manson he found a cash cow, thus I think we should know WHO is responsible for making Manson what he is.
But whatever. Trent still makes good music and has one of the best shows around. Manson lost his best musican to APC and NIN. Once again, its amazing what happens when musicans get away from bad influences and realize: “Just what the fuck am I doing wearing a dress?” Speaking of Mr. White, here is a great qoute:
“It was important to [Manson] to be on the cover of every magazine, to get all the attention; that’s why it was called Marilyn Manson,” White said. " … It wasn’t really important to me, what’s important is playing music to people. In the long run everyone knows who did what. The music lasts forever, the celebrity – it dies out eventually."