Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Marilyn Manson

Rate this topic


Lagroht
 Share

Recommended Posts

Don't disrespect me again.

Haha, ok. I listened to We're From America again, and it's actually pretty funny. My problem with Manson qua lyricist is not what he says so much as how he says it. The purpose of poetry is to say things in ways that use metaphor, suggestion, and imagery--NOT directly.

For example, let's go back in time to Mechanical Animals and take a close look at "User Friendly." The melody, beat, and verses are badass, but the main chorus?

I'm not in love, but I'm gonna fuck you til somebody better comes along.

Really, Manson? Really? I rarely see that track to the end: having the same bland line pounded into my head again and again quickly grates on my nerves. Another example of this bad habit--which he seems to have inherited from Trent Reznor--would be the main chorus of "The Red Carpet Grave." There are more out there, but that's just off the top of my head.

Getting back to High End of Low: I really liked "Four Rusted Horses" and will probably put it on my hypnotic playlist. Thus far I feel only so-so about the album as a whole, but some of the songs have potential to grow on me. That's what happened with a number of the songs on Eat Me, Drink Me, Golden Age...well, ok, most of the albums had songs that I always skipped at first, only to rediscover and truly enjoy later.

-The last three tracks ("I have to look up just to see hell," "Into the Fire," and untitled) were beautiful and would make great background music for a movie.

-The instrumentation on "Wow" was pretty cool. It made me think of a twisted funhouse, for some reason. The lyrics seemed a little on the childish side, though.

-I really didn't get "I wanna kill you like they do in the movies." It just seemed to meander. From the length of the song (and all the hype Manson was giving it) I was expecting a buildup to an intense climax, not a dissonant fizzle.

Initial impressions. Will listen to again later during long trips on the open road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm not just saying this. The fact is when the same thing is repeated too much it has a tendency to put one to sleep. It's like the difference between drawing a cartoon and doing a full blown painting. I can listen to happy birthday for a verse or two, but, hey, it starts to get boring very fast.

First, it's not so much that they are classical composers, because most music in any genre is mediocre. I'd much rather listen to a good Pink Floyd song than a mediocre classical composer. What I'm looking at are the best in each genre, and for that the very best musicians were the classical composers. They produced the best sounds. The technical proficiency is the means to the sound, but to handle level of complexity and produce brilliant sound over a long piece is unbelievably difficult.

Mozart, had he known rock, or funk, or jazz, he would have been able to do it, and he would likely have been the best at it. The kind of knowledge and brilliance he had would have allowed him to go in directions undreamed of by other musicians. And, remember, he had no recording device or electronic synthesizer to make sounds.

Mozart could write their work, but they couldn’t write Mozart’s work.

"funk" with "groove" okay, that’s great. I mean, I enjoy that too, although it's never going to do more for me than metal or hard rock, if you want to go down that road.

And, btw, even the best rock groups are the more innovative ones, who add more cleverness to their songs. The Rolling Stones were superb musicians within their genre, for instance.

Thales, I'm familiar with all your arguments, and have found them wanting, so I'm happy to just register my dissent. You can seek out what you consider the best, by all means, but what's best for you might now be what's best for me. Viva la difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem with Manson qua lyricist is not what he says so much as how he says it. The purpose of poetry is to say things in ways that use metaphor, suggestion, and imagery--NOT directly.

That's a good observation. I really like that part of it, opens it up for more interpretations, universalizes, adds elements of timelessness to it like literature can, words whether written, spoken, sung can do - but also confusions, or not able to clearily pinpoint the exact meaning behind some of it - misinterpreting him, or what he's trying to say with it, which is more important in thesv last two albums especially, since they are personal in that sense. earlier music is easier to understand.

Thus far I feel only so-so about the album as a whole, but some of the songs have potential to grow on me. That's what happened with a number of the songs on Eat Me, Drink Me, Golden Age...well, ok, most of the albums had songs that I always skipped at first, only to rediscover and truly enjoy later.

I did that especially with Mechanical Animals.

-The instrumentation on "Wow" was pretty cool. It made me think of a twisted funhouse, for some reason. The lyrics seemed a little on the childish side, though.

This is one song that annoys me too much to click on anymore to listen to. It's the "Wow-wow-wow-wow-wow..." part that is annoying and produces that grating effect that you mentioned before, on me in this one.

Initial impressions. Will listen to again later during long trips on the open road.

Thank you for sharing your initial impressions. I probably will end up, like I usually do, listening to it over and over, till I get sick of hearing it, then return to it later. I even sound like him when I sing along. Only singer I sound most like. Also when you return to songs after a while or play them on iTunes, then in your car, you notice all kinds of different things musicaly about the songs that you didn't hear before. I know I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Music tastes differ due to different value systems. I enjoy metal and some occasional classical. Some agree some do not. It depends on personal experiences and tastes.

It is near impossible to argue which taste is better accept in rare cases where one type of music is near universally appreciable or absolutely terrible.

You guys could argue on technical aspects of music; i.e. lyrics, technical prowess, etc. but on what taste is better you both are probably wasting your time. I would say be less heated about and not try to prove whose musical taste is more correct or try and insinuate that the other could never understand your tastes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I probably will end up, like I usually do, listening to it over and over, till I get sick of hearing it, then return to it later. I even sound like him when I sing along. Only singer I sound most like.

Huh. Well, I did notice "Disposable Teens" on a karaoke list somewhere (if you don't mind publicly repeating said phrase ad nauseum, especially with the high, pinched part at the end.) Oh, and "Tainted Love" is a great one for getting the gothically-inclined chicks out on the dance floor in a bar that otherwise features off-key renditions of pop country-frat songs.

Also when you return to songs after a while or play them on iTunes, then in your car, you notice all kinds of different things musicaly about the songs that you didn't hear before. I know I do.

Absolutely. I was doing pushups and crunches in my room one day with my music on shuffle all, when "Vodevil" came on. I was, like, "Hey, it's a new Manson song!", and then I was, like, "Wait...how did a new Manson song sneak onto my hard drive?", and then I was, like, "Sweet! Rediscovery!", as the effect was the exact same as a new song's *actually* having been released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and "Tainted Love" is a great one for getting the gothically-inclined chicks out on the dance floor in a bar that otherwise features off-key renditions of pop country-frat songs.

I don't go to bars or clubs (or concerts) so I havvn't experienced anything like that, but I really enjoyed the video to that one due it its creative parody, mixing of Goth/jock/hip-hop/party scenes. I don't like many of his videos, but that one I do, at least the beginning. This original song, as well as Sweet Dreams did not interest me (or Personal Jesus) until he did them.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely. I was doing pushups and crunches in my room one day with my music on shuffle all, when "Vodevil" came on. I was, like, "Hey, it's a new Manson song!", and then I was, like, "Wait...how did a new Manson song sneak onto my hard drive?", and then I was, like, "Sweet! Rediscovery!", as the effect was the exact same as a new song's *actually* having been released.

Since I listen to most music in the car, followed by on headphones at work, occasionally I am in for a pleasant surprise when I use the home stereo, which is just shy of audiophile quality and will get there once I have a living room and can use my B&W 808s again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys could argue on technical aspects of music; i.e. lyrics, technical prowess, etc. but on what taste is better you both are probably wasting your time. I would say be less heated about and not try to prove whose musical taste is more correct or try and insinuate that the other could never understand your tastes.

Thanks for the mediation, necessitated in part by my initial omission of the "facetious" smiley or equivalent indication of jest. However, I think IA and I are cool now. There's always that delightfully subjectivist quote from the Romantic Manifesto. Oh, and this:

internet_argument.png

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go come on someone's face. This is America, after all. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are small melodic sequences, but it doesn't hold together as a piece of music. To be blunt, it's awful. I mean, if you are listening to it for technical reasons, then that is a whole different matter. You are finding value in it not as music, but as a component of music.

Well, that is why I would like to hear your definition of “melody”. The video shows the song separated into sections, but the original version certainly holds together as a piece of music. What is to find value in a song as music? I think it is impossible to appreciate a song for a component divorced from its means. I need you to be more specific on that. I am finding value in it for its complexity, because that is my purpose in this particular case. Just as you may find value in a song for its rhythm, I am finding it for some other aspect of the music. You won’t find a song that integrates all of your purposes and mixes every aspect of every genre into one, unless it’s some kind of mongrel piece of music with no consistency at all. Some of these are opposites, and that is why you need to define your context in order to make any evaluations. I find value in this song as music, serving to the purpose I’m seeking.

For some reason I can't get it to play on any of my players, but it's okay if melodies repeat, so long as there is variation in the way it is played. Repetitive melody would be a standard requirement of any piece anyway. I'm really referring to clever variations as a song is played. These can hold your interest and send you through different emotional states.

I’m sorry. You may try it here if you like. You said that a song demands more cleverness if it is longer. Well, I’m showing you that this isn’t the case. You will find little variation in this song, and that the music is also pretty much the same throughout the piece. However, I’m not aiming for complexity or clever variations here. What do you mean by “clever”? This is a very simple piece of music, and still I find it to be very interesting and captivating.

Edited by Howard Roark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the mediation[...] However, I think IA and I are cool now.

Yes, completely cool now.

But I think fountainhead777 comment, most of it was probably directed towards another discussion in the thread, that I wasn't following much that was off the topic of MM and about music or something.

On the topic of rediscovering songs that you might have thought that it was a new one, "Suicide is Painless" off of Grotesque. I haven't heard much of that album in years. I might have lost it (the cd that is) during my divorce at the time, I think (proabaly during my eviction from my house by a certain kind of court order and all the events at the time, I grabbed what I wanted from the house, left everything else to her, which I wasn't going to take, nor fought later for.)

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I think fountainhead777 comment, most of it was probably directed towards another discussion in the thread, that I wasn't following much that was off the topic of MM and about music or something.

Oh, right. Which reminds me: could you guys--Thales, Roark, etc.--please take your fight outside? Not that it's any of my bidness [ducks incoming beer bottle], but I'm sure the mods will appreciate it, as your discussion appears to be more about general aesthetic theory and less (or not at all) about the specific artist MM. Or just reread pp. 55-6 of Romantic Manifesto and then duck out, as I often do when discussions about music reach the point of "unsalvageable."

Getting back to my discussion with IA (and anyone else who cares to follow): here is some detailed explanation regarding my opinion on "We're From America." You are correct to point out that Manson is using this piece to expose hypocricies in the current right-wing-Christian culture of our country. The problem is that it isn't a "song" so much as a list of accusations simply spouted in series, with the eponymous phrase thrown in for rhythm. Let's lay them out and take a closer look. "We're from America," therefore:

1) We eat our young

2) It's where Jesus was born

3) They let you come on their faces (<--"Hey! Look! I made a funny! Guys? Guys? ...)

4) We don't believe in credibility, because we're fucking incredible ("Ooh! Wasn't that clever of me!")

5) I wanna be a martyr, I don't wanna be a victim

6) Be a killer with a god, so they call me a hero. [Ok, he gets props for this one, but...um...hasn't he said all this before? Wasn't this the fundamental motivating theme behind Holywood?]

7) God is an excuse [oh, in case they didn't hear me...Ima say this seven times]

8) We don't like to kill our unborn/we need them to grow up and fight our wars [yeah, I'll give him props for this one, no strings attached.]

9) We believe in everything we say, and we say it because we believe it [ok, it actually makes sense to repeat this one. More genuine props.]

10) etc.

So the song is bouncy and fun. The content and layout of the lyrics doesn't meet with my approval (e.g. reminds me of the crap one hears in System of a Down and the general decline in quality of modern "metal"), and that's why I thought it was a poor choice for the "debut" song--the one he made available for free download a month before the album's release. But I think I've said enough for now. I'll just skip it when it comes on (unless I'm in a weird mood/altered state) and move on with my life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's lay them out and take a closer look. "We're from America," therefore:

8) We don't like to kill our unborn/we need them to grow up and fight our wars [yeah, I'll give him props for this one, no strings attached.

One time not long ago, I was looking at Poland's political parties, and one had a poster "Fascism? We're Worse!" and I think I was looking into their political platform, and noticed why in hell would they be against abortion? Oh, now I see, it clicked when I heard those lyrics. That's that kind of nationalism for you and reminds me just a bit of this:

Further, I'm proud to be an American, not because I am native to this land, or because I believe "my country, right or wrong," a nationalist attitude typical in Europe. Instead, I'm proud because I choose to remain here and live by the original, fundamental ideals that built this great nation: love of freedom and the pursuit of one's own goals and happiness. In this land, I'm free to be a self-made individual, just like the great, productive Americans mentioned above.

Being Irish is part of who I am, but it plays no role in my basic identity. I define myself by the values and goals I've chosen to pursue and have achieved, not by conforming to the traditions of my ethnic ancestry, nor by the achievements of people who simply share my race.

Yet America, the land of individualism, is being further balkanized by race, a phenomenon that often begins when children are taught to identify themselves primarily with their race. Unchecked by individualism, this idea eventually leads to such abominations as calls for slave reparations, in which the people to receive these handouts weren't enslaved, nor have the people punished to pay the reparations ever enslaved anyone. In reality, no individual is a victim or victimizer by virtue of their racial ancestors.

It's high time Americans shed their false "pride" in their ethnicity, and pursue universal values beneficial to all individuals, no matter their race. Identifying primarily with your physical genetics, and the eventual varied divisions, wars and mass killings this tribalism ultimately generates, is nothing to be proud of.

From this article capmag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Upon furthering and updating my knowledge of MM, he's got a tattoo of a Tursaansydän on the inside of his upper arm, which can be seen a littlv bit on the new albums artwork, but I am mentioning this because, it's got a swastika in it, and also while I'm at it, he has "WOW" on one of his wrists now too. All his ink is on this link, more:

15:

Manson revealed in a May 2009 interview with Noisecreep that he received another tattoo, which reads "15", behind his ear, describing it as "the new number of the beast."[1]

etc.

Manson also revealed in the May 2009 interview with Noisecreep that he had "etc." tattooed on one of his wrists. He explained, "I've seen on the news, stories about death, rape, murder and they tack on the 'et cetera.,' which shocks and amuses me. Such terrible things have become mundane and reduced people to 'etc.,'. I got 'et cetera' tattooed on my wrist. If I cut my wrist, I would cut through 'etc.,' which is triply ironic."[1]

Also, in an interview (3rd one w/Heirophant) he has this to say about his personality:

If I believed in psychiatry, I think I would be best defined as a borderline personality. I don’t believe in psychiatry, but psychology is something I spent most of last year studying when I was writing about Lewis Carroll. It’s a sad situation that I don’t have an answer for, but maybe I should be thankful. If I wasn’t forced to be alone, I would not have faced the fact that I was running away from my own personality and fears.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that is why I would like to hear your definition of “melody”.

A melody is a relative sequence of notes that sounds pleasing to the ears, as contrasted with noise. I say relative, because you can move the sequence around the scale and you can change some notes along the way to move away from the primary sequence. How far away you can move from it and keep a quality sound is something I can't say.

The video shows the song separated into sections, but the original version certainly holds together as a piece of music. What is to find value in a song as music? I think it is impossible to appreciate a song for a component divorced from its means.

Are you referring to esthetics, i.e. something for inspiration or enjoyment, or are you talking about some other kind of purpose?

I need you to be more specific on that. I am finding value in it for its complexity, because that is my purpose in this particular case. Just as you may find value in a song for its rhythm, I am finding it for some other aspect of the music.

It seems to me that if you are not listening to it for its esthetic value, then that changes everything. Let me ask you a more specific question, what precisely do you hear in that piece that you like?

I’m sorry. You may try it here if you like. You said that a song demands more cleverness if it is longer. Well, I’m showing you that this isn’t the case. You will find little variation in this song, and that the music is also pretty much the same throughout the piece. However, I’m not aiming for complexity or clever variations here. What do you mean by “clever”? This is a very simple piece of music, and still I find it to be very interesting and captivating.

Okay, now keep in mind that I consider a work with a melody to be music. The discussion in this case is over quality. If something is too repetitive for too long it becomes less interesting. I know you aren't convinced by this, but imagine a painter paints a brilliant painting on a one-foot-square canvas. It's amazing to look at, and you are captivated by it. Now say the painter creates 50 copies of that same painting and places one canvas after the other in sequence. Are you going to want to look at every canvas? Now, by way of contrast, imagine that instead of doing that the painter paints a scene that is 50 canvases long, and every different part of the scene holds something new. That would be more likely to hold your interest, especially if there is some theme in the painting you like. I think a work of music is similar in this regard.

To reference Mozart's Turkish March, if he would have used the same phrasing as he does the first 16 measures or so and kept repeating them, the piece would have lost its level of effectiveness beyond those 16 measures.

Cleverness is hard to pin down, but what I mean is something neat that you didn't expect that works within the framework of the piece. A big example would be the ability to change keys. The knowledge of how to do that came in the classical period, and it was a very clever innovation that made for better music. But, cleverness can be the way timbers are mixed together, the way harmonies are interspersed, the way timing is changed, etc. I mean, it's just like innovation in any field in that way. The sky is the limit. I'm amazed at the sheer number of sounds that sound good in music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A melody is a relative sequence of notes that sounds pleasing to the ears, as contrasted with noise. I say relative, because you can move the sequence around the scale and you can change some notes along the way to move away from the primary sequence. How far away you can move from it and keep a quality sound is something I can't say.

I am not convinced by your definition. Whose ears? Well, I would say the song I showed you before is full of melody. Those sequences of notes sound great to my ears, as contrasted with noise. I think this conversation belongs to a whole different topic. I hope the moderators do something about it.

Are you referring to esthetics, i.e. something for inspiration or enjoyment, or are you talking about some other kind of purpose?

I am referring to esthetics.

It seems to me that if you are not listening to it for its esthetic value, then that changes everything. Let me ask you a more specific question, what precisely do you hear in that piece that you like?

I like the structure of the song and the way it is presented. It has a very unique sound, which makes it refreshing and new. I like the harmony and the way all instruments blend together. The execution is precise and flawless, which is one of the highest priorities in this genre. No matter how many times I listen to it, there is still something new to discover. I would compare this song to a Rubik’s cube, because it demands you to stay focused in order to follow the structure. I get excitement and astonishment from it, so I can say I do enjoy it emotionally. Everything is so cleverly put together and performed with such precision, that I can’t help but marvel at the ability and theoretical knowledge that was put into this song. But more importantly, it inspires me. This song encourages me to push myself as a musician. I did enjoy this piece and appreciated it in almost the same way I do now, even before having any understanding of music theory. So I would say some formal training is necessary if you want to know what is going on, but that is not an impediment for you to enjoy the great work. This song was a medley, by the way.

Okay, now keep in mind that I consider a work with a melody to be music. The discussion in this case is over quality. If something is too repetitive for too long it becomes less interesting. I know you aren't convinced by this, but imagine a painter paints a brilliant painting on a one-foot-square canvas. It's amazing to look at, and you are captivated by it. Now say the painter creates 50 copies of that same painting and places one canvas after the other in sequence. Are you going to want to look at every canvas? Now, by way of contrast, imagine that instead of doing that the painter paints a scene that is 50 canvases long, and every different part of the scene holds something new. That would be more likely to hold your interest, especially if there is some theme in the painting you like. I think a work of music is similar in this regard.

To reference Mozart's Turkish March, if he would have used the same phrasing as he does the first 16 measures or so and kept repeating them, the piece would have lost its level of effectiveness beyond those 16 measures.

Well, I just showed you an example of what would be an exception to that. What do you think of it? Did you listen to the whole song? I do get what you are saying, but Mozart’s music demands a much more different approach. The song I showed you is processed in a different way. It is layered and derived from different textures, and has its elements arranged in order to keep them minimal. Any complexity is in the production. Mozart’s music is entirely sourced and perceived from an acoustic instrument with a single sharp sound. It has also a greater number of notes per bar, which makes it easier to notice and to be annoyed by these repetitions. I don’t find them unpleasant in the song I showed you at all. I feel how they evolve and envelope the space. You know? Like just let the sound breath and fill the room. It’s totally different. Well, I think these examples speak for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not convinced by your definition. Whose ears? Well, I would say the song I showed you before is full of melody. Those sequences of notes sound great to my ears, as contrasted with noise. I think this conversation belongs to a whole different topic. I hope the moderators do something about it.

I am referring to esthetics.

I like the structure of the song and the way it is presented. It has a very unique sound, which makes it refreshing and new. I like the harmony and the way all instruments blend together. The execution is precise and flawless, which is one of the highest priorities in this genre. No matter how many times I listen to it, there is still something new to discover. I would compare this song to a Rubik’s cube, because it demands you to stay focused in order to follow the structure. I get excitement and astonishment from it, so I can say I do enjoy it emotionally. Everything is so cleverly put together and performed with such precision, that I can’t help but marvel at the ability and theoretical knowledge that was put into this song. But more importantly, it inspires me. This song encourages me to push myself as a musician. I did enjoy this piece and appreciated it in almost the same way I do now, even before having any understanding of music theory. So I would say some formal training is necessary if you want to know what is going on, but that is not an impediment for you to enjoy the great work. This song was a medley, by the way.

Well, I just showed you an example of what would be an exception to that. What do you think of it? Did you listen to the whole song? I do get what you are saying, but Mozart’s music demands a much more different approach. The song I showed you is processed in a different way. It is layered and derived from different textures, and has its elements arranged in order to keep them minimal. Any complexity is in the production. Mozart’s music is entirely sourced and perceived from an acoustic instrument with a single sharp sound. It has also a greater number of notes per bar, which makes it easier to notice and to be annoyed by these repetitions. I don’t find them unpleasant in the song I showed you at all. I feel how they evolve and envelope the space. You know? Like just let the sound breath and fill the room. It’s totally different. Well, I think these examples speak for themselves.

Sorry for the late reply. Yes, I heard the whole thing. To be straight up honest with you, I didn't like it. I got a little enjoyment from it for a few minutes, but then that faded away to noise. Since we are off topic I'll just make a few quick points. If we are not seeing eye-to-eye on the particular pieces you cite, then I think that is interesting in and of itself. I also find it interesting that the two pieces you like are very different from each other. I'll listen to the first one you link to a few more times to see if I can get anything from it musically.

Did you see the song by My Bloody Valentine I linked to? This one:

I don't like it, but I do hear within it definite harmonic elements and melody. The way I break this song down is that there is a "wall of sound" (noise) produced by the electric guitar, and within that wall of sound is a girl singing a slow melody. Still, I'm astonished at the glowing reviews by youtube listeners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I read Mansons biography The Long Hard Road Out of Hell, and it really helped me connect with his perspective on a much deeper level, after having already been a fan of his music for over a decade. I recommend the book to anyone interested in his body of work.

http://www.amazon.com/Long-Hard-Road-Out-Hell/dp/0060987464

As a child brought up in a southern baptist home, his brand of rebellion appealed to me.

His ability to point out the ironic and the contradictory intrigued me.

The passion he infused in his music seemed genuine and brutally honest.

The gruesomeness with which he presented his work is the constant reminder of how he views the things he criticises.

I wrote a semiotics piece years ago linking together Marilyn Manson, The Founding Fathers of the United States, and an article Peikoff wrote Religion vs. America... which when boiled down the central theme was "The fight for the right ideas begins with the destruction of Christianity in America." Its not well written, as I was a freshman in college, but I could dig it up if anyone is interested about how I integrated all of that.

I've enjoyed every album he's made except "Eat me, Drink me" although I haven't really given that album a chance. I also didn't know about "The High End of Low" so I'll be stopping after work to pick that up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read Mansons biography The Long Hard Road Out of Hell, and it really helped me connect with his perspective on a much deeper level, after having already been a fan of his music for over a decade. I recommend the book to anyone interested in his body of work.

http://www.amazon.com/Long-Hard-Road-Out-Hell/dp/0060987464

I read that many many years ago, and have forgotten nearly all of it.

I've enjoyed every album he's made except "Eat me, Drink me" although I haven't really given that album a chance. I also didn't know about "The High End of Low" so I'll be stopping after work to pick that up.

I still have been listening to the new album in my car all the time. The lyrics with the figurative language incorporated into it, is astounding to me at times, the things he says the way that he does. This is my favorite album, because of that. The man is a creative genious as I have said, also I think he's writing a novel too, excerpt of which can be found on his site I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Before I think I mentioned the new symbolism in the new cd, seems like symbology is a big thing with Manson, each album I think has it's own, and this last one interests me, perhaps I should go to the official forum see what others say about it, some of the people there are like MM scholars! it seems, but anyways, beside the symbol of the dollar sign in the Armagoddamnmotherfuckingeddon song which the colors and the way it's done, Nazi imagery and swastika colors, this one is interesting that I found on a key chain, the way the dollar signs form an internal swastika:

http://marilynmanson.shop.bravadousa.com/P...amp;pc=BGAMMM24

Anyone know more about the imagery, symbology used?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone know more about the imagery, symbology used?

Well, crossed S's from the National Socialist party's SS formed their swastika. Trying to say the US dollar or the USA is socialist?

The flag picture looks like the backdrop for the opening of the movie Patton.

I can only speculate. One would have to have an answer from the artist to know about the images.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, crossed S's from the National Socialist party's SS formed their swastika.

I didn't know that, that is interesting, if true, because that's exactly what is happening with the dollar symbols. i don't thinkk he's going at the angle that America is socialist, or anything like that, it has more to do with the "almighty dollar" , but I haven't figured out exact connections here. In a song he talks about:

Remember when I took you to the top of the hill

we had our knives drawn

were sharp as we were in love

If God crossed us

we'd take all his drugs

burn his money

his house down

and wait for the fire to spread

He's associated drugs and various other things with God, "beauty is the new fascism", maybe money here is what dictators are for other countries, or something. Worshipping the almighty dollar, money and power, money makes right? like with funding for political parties or something, Objectivism also is critisized by being cult like, dogmatic, many are familiar with the charges, but perhaps all that has something to do with this symbology as well. I can't figure it our exactly. I'm just rambling a bit. But I'm going to figure it out more, because it interests me. If certain kinds of capitalists ever got really imperialistic, I could see these symbols being used in a way the Nazi's used theirs - subordinating everyone under the rule of objective law by force, because they think that they are morally right in their actions. Subordinating is the key word. I have often thought that paying an agency or institution to protect, like a government, in laissez-faire society, is like a body guard writ large, self-defense writ large, and that might, the defensive might, MAKES right. It's really intersting right now for me to look at nature, to look at reality, the way that it is.

Edited by intellectualammo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...