Marilyn Manson

[halo eighteen]

Hmmph, so he dusted off If I Was Your Vampire last night?

[elevenism]

So Manson gonna appear in a miniseries adaptation of The Stand, by Stephen King.

https://comicbook.com/horror/2019/07...-stephen-king/

People are thinking he might play Randall Flagg/The Man in Black.

I wonder if he could pull that off.

[WorzelG]

So Manson gonna appear in a miniseries adaptation of The Stand, by Stephen King.

https://comicbook.com/horror/2019/07...-stephen-king/

People are thinking he might play Randall Flagg/The Man in Black.

I wonder if he could pull that off.

Trash Can Man?

[Helpmeiaminhell (is now in hell)]

Wasn't Born Villain supposed to be like Antichrist Superstar? Wasn't Heaven Upside Down supposed to be like Antichrist Superstar? And those 2 albums are shitbombs. Manson is starting to sound like Chino from the Deftones, who before every single Deftones album comes out, does a press release saying the new album "sounds like White Pony"

[ItsChrisRoss]

He's pissed off all his friends who cared about him and his work enough to tell him the truth and wore out all the decent musicians who used to work with him. Add in the alcohol (which I think is the bigger problem for him now than other drugs) and no wonder it's gotten so bad.

I got bored one night a while back and reread a bunch of articles from the Fragile era, several of which mentioned Trent's displeasure with Manson at the time. I know that was forever ago and doesn't matter anymore, but it got me thinking about the whole thing again. As I've gotten older I've started to value trust in friendships a lot more, and if one of my friends wrote a book using details from my life to color their story and build their image, I would have been absolutely miserable and deeply hurt. If he's done it to Trent, the one who gave him a chance and fought like hell for his career when nobody else wanted to, then you know he's done the same or worse to others.

Manson's music was my childhood and a large part of my development, so it frustrates me enough to watch his music tank in quality. But I could at least appease myself with the good work he had done and the person I thought he was for a long time.

Now? I'm bracing myself for Manson's very public "metoo" moment. It's already brewing online, but hasn't quite blown up to the level of mainstream awareness because Evan and Esme haven't officially named him as their abusers. But while it's certainly possible that they aren't talking about Manson, the timeline and context that Manson himself has offered in interviews looks real bad. I hope it's not true, but I'm not going to be surprised at all if this blows up bigtime in the next few years.

I know people dream of a Reznor collab with Manson again, but while the 16 year old in me would love that, the adult in me hopes it never happens. Maybe that's harsh and rude to say, but I wouldn't touch that guy with a ten foot pole unless this somehow gets cleared up and Manson is totally vindicated in some way. But for now, it doesn't look good at all.

This. So much about this post hits the nail on the head. I've always respected Manson as an artist. Have a bunch of albums, seen him three times live. Each time I've seen him live, its gotten worse and worse. First time was back in I think 2015 or something with the Smashing Pumpkins and he killed it! Second time was when he had a broken leg and alternated songs standing and sitting, and the third time was the Twins of Evil tour last year and I was bored during his set.

I think everything you've mentioned is accurate. I've been bracing for his MeToo moment for sometime now as well. I still cant wrap my head around Evan dating, and being engaged to the guy. I'm chalking it up to her just being young at the time and trying to find herself. But like you said, timelines do sync up, and I wouldn't be surprised if she named him as one of her abusers. If that's the case, I will be disappointed. I know the guy has demons, but I've also read he is very smart as well. My hopes are that it is not him and that she got more positive out of her time with him than negative.

What do we do after learning that an artist that we've loved for so long has done some despicable things? Do we stop listening? Reading? Watching? This was the case for me with Brand New, when it came out that Jesse Lacey did some unfavorable things years ago and people had started to come forward. It almost kind of tarnishes it for a lot of people because we look up to these artists for creating incredible works that we ourselves could never create.

[eachpassingphase]

This. So much about this post hits the nail on the head. I've always respected Manson as an artist. Have a bunch of albums, seen him three times live. Each time I've seen him live, its gotten worse and worse. First time was back in I think 2015 or something with the Smashing Pumpkins and he killed it! Second time was when he had a broken leg and alternated songs standing and sitting, and the third time was the Twins of Evil tour last year and I was bored during his set.

I think everything you've mentioned is accurate. I've been bracing for his MeToo moment for sometime now as well. I still cant wrap my head around Evan dating, and being engaged to the guy. I'm chalking it up to her just being young at the time and trying to find herself. But like you said, timelines do sync up, and I wouldn't be surprised if she named him as one of her abusers. If that's the case, I will be disappointed. I know the guy has demons, but I've also read he is very smart as well. My hopes are that it is not him and that she got more positive out of her time with him than negative.

What do we do after learning that an artist that we've loved for so long has done some despicable things? Do we stop listening? Reading? Watching? This was the case for me with Brand New, when it came out that Jesse Lacey did some unfavorable things years ago and people had started to come forward. It almost kind of tarnishes it for a lot of people because we look up to these artists for creating incredible works that we ourselves could never create.

It's tricky, because where do you draw the line in the sand for "cancelling" somebody? Do you refuse to ever listen to their songs again in any capacity? What actions would an artist commit that would force you to throw out your merch? Is it good enough to just withdraw public support from an artist when they are revealed to be a shit human being while still enjoying their previous work quietly? What if the artist wasn't really the problem, but somebody else involved with the creation of their work (the producer, the engineer, the record label that put up money for their work) that turned out to be a monster? What do we do with all the art of older painters, musicians and writers who owned slaves and despised women and more?

Where do you draw the line between enjoying art for its own merits, and being a thoughtful, conscious consumer and human being who doesn't want to give someone who is hateful any additional influence or money? I don't have a hard and fast answer for that, so where I've landed is this: if either of these two women name him (and there is plenty of contextual evidence to support their claims if they do) then I will believe them and stop giving him additional money in the form of merchandise, tickets or buying new records (which let's be honest: I haven't done that much since like 2004). I still own his earlier work, and it doesn't hurt him or help hypothetical victims at all to throw them out. He already has my money.

That might be a cop-out stance, or it might be too hard-line of a stance: but I don't have a better answer. I understand that others won't draw their line in the sand in the same place I will. As long as people don't make excuses for him or attack the women making these claims, that would be good enough for me to not judge them for wherever their line is.

Anyway, sorry for the thread drift. This has just been on my mind a lot lately.

[ItsChrisRoss]

It's tricky, because where do you draw the line in the sand for "cancelling" somebody? Do you refuse to ever listen to their songs again in any capacity? What actions would an artist commit that would force you to throw out your merch? Is it good enough to just withdraw public support from an artist when they are revealed to be a shit human being while still enjoying their previous work quietly? What if the artist wasn't really the problem, but somebody else involved with the creation of their work (the producer, the engineer, the record label that put up money for their work) that turned out to be a monster? What do we do with all the art of older painters, musicians and writers who owned slaves and despised women and more?

Where do you draw the line between enjoying art for its own merits, and being a thoughtful, conscious consumer and human being who doesn't want to give someone who is hateful any additional influence or money? I don't have a hard and fast answer for that, so where I've landed is this: if either of these two women name him (and there is plenty of contextual evidence to support their claims if they do) then I will believe them and stop giving him additional money in the form of merchandise, tickets or buying new records (which let's be honest: I haven't done that much since like 2004). I still own his earlier work, and it doesn't hurt him or help hypothetical victims at all to throw them out. He already has my money.

That might be a cop-out stance, or it might be too hard-line of a stance: but I don't have a better answer. I understand that others won't draw their line in the sand in the same place I will. As long as people don't make excuses for him or attack the women making these claims, that would be good enough for me to not judge them for wherever their line is.

Anyway, sorry for the thread drift. This has just been on my mind a lot lately.

I dig your opinion and insights. Couldn’t have said it better myself. It’s a much more difficult thing to answer, and there are many facets as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sonic_discord]

Most people seem to "cancel" the artist in question COMPLETELY (and often hastily and without confirmation of the accused's guilt in the matter). Michael Jackson is a good recent example, as many radio stations now refuse to play any of his music and his Simpsons episode has also been pulled from all streaming platforms in the wake of the Leaving Neverland documentary. If you choose to continue to enjoy their art, you almost have to do so in secret because most people will associate continued enjoyment of said artist's art as support of the kind of behavior they engaged in (or were accused of being engaged in). I guess it depends on the severity of the crime(s) in question and whether you can personally reconcile the two and separate the artist from the art. It's not always so black and white.

[eachpassingphase]

Most people seem to "cancel" the artist in question COMPLETELY (and often hastily and without confirmation of the accused's guilt in the matter). Michael Jackson is a good recent example, as many radio stations now refuse to play any of his music and his Simpsons episode has also been pulled from all streaming platforms in the wake of the Leaving Neverland documentary. If you choose to continue to enjoy their art, you almost have to do so in secret because most people will associate continued enjoyment of said artist's art as support of the kind of behavior they engaged in (or were accused of being engaged in). I guess it depends on the severity of the crime(s) in question and whether you can personally reconcile the two and separate the artist from the art. It's not always so black and white.

I think another big element of it is "is pushing the issue going help ensure justice will be done?" In the case of somebody like, for example, R Kelly, public outcry is deeply necessary to ensuring victims receive justice. He's dodged punishment before and his fans are very obsessive and will defend him no matter how much evidence they are provided. This is an area in which "cancel culture" has actually done a lot of positive work. A lot of people had no idea the depths of his behavior until the past year, and that's because the public wouldn't let it be swept under the rug again.

Then you have cases like Connor Oberst who was publicly tarred and feathered over an anonymous comment left on a blog. He was vindicated in court, his accuser recanted and admitted she lied. He showed a lot of restraint and humility during the process, but admits that it hurt his career and personal life.

I think the best we can do is to be quick to believe women, quick to demand justice on their behalf but slow to administer that justice ourselves. Sometimes it becomes necessary, in R Kelly's case i'm not sure anything would have been done if social media fury hadn't been picking up steam over the years.

Then there was the whole 4chan thread where alt-right shitheads discussed throwing out anonymous accusations against male celebrities that they thought were too liberal or friendly towards feminists in an effort to discredit celebrities who didn't share their views. There's something particularly vile about that mindset: "let's take malicious advantage of cancel culture to cancel celebrities who hate rape so that we can continue discrediting more rape victims because we don't actually believe rape is a big deal." Knowing that this is now a political weapon makes it more complicated.

The truth is, when somebody commits a crime as dehumanizing as sexual assault, it has an effect that ripples outward and makes us all a little less human as a society. Either we become so detached from the accusation that we deny the humanity of victims, or we become so incensed and enraged that we deny our own humanity and potential to make mistakes in how we handle an accusation. This is why sexual assault is everyone's problem, and everyone holds responsibility in putting a stop to it as best as we can and ensuring victims receive justice.

But how to do that effectively and wisely?
I have no fucking idea.

In the end when it relates to Manson, these two women have not named him. Maybe they will one day, maybe they will name someone else or no one at all. So perhaps it's unhelpful to speculate about it until then. I dunno. It's just heavy and it sucks and I hope they are getting whatever help they need to deal with their trauma, regardless of who is responsible.

[theimage13]

Where do you draw the line between enjoying art for its own merits, and being a thoughtful, conscious consumer and human being who doesn't want to give someone who is hateful any additional influence or money? I don't have a hard and fast answer for that

I do: as soon as I see any credible evidence that the artist is a horrible piece of shit, they don't get any of my money. If I already own any of their merch, I'm not wearing it any more because I don't want to advertise for them. If I've already bought the music, I'm not going to stop listening to it in private - unless, that is, it suddenly becomes obvious that a song or a movie or whatever isn't so much fictitious as it is a window into sociopathic and felonious behavior.

But here's a neat little tip: if you want to go the "boycott" route, you can still pick up used CDs if you feel a moral obligation to buy the music you like, but don't want to actually put any money in the creator's filthy hands.

[Helpmeiaminhell (is now in hell)]

Nick Cave was asked that question about Morrissey recently and had an interesting response. He says he is able to separate the music from the artist themselves. So even if he doesn't like the artist personally or agree with their behavior, he doesn't let it interfere with how he feels about the music. His reason being that once the music is out in the public, it belongs to the listener as opposed to the artist. I guess thats what Michael Jackson fans do. I know plenty of girls who still love his music even though they agree the dude was fucked......I am totally different. I can't like an artists music if I know they are fuckheads. Its why I stopped listening to the Pumpkins a decade ago and never looked back. Its why I could care less about a new Tool record even though 2005 me would have been jacking off all over a new Tool record.

[ItsChrisRoss]

Nick Cave was asked that question about Morrissey recently and had an interesting response. He says he is able to separate the music from the artist themselves. So even if he doesn't like the artist personally or agree with their behavior, he doesn't let it interfere with how he feels about the music. His reason being that once the music is out in the public, it belongs to the listener as opposed to the artist. I guess thats what Michael Jackson fans do. I know plenty of girls who still love his music even though they agree the dude was fucked......I am totally different. I can't like an artists music if I know they are fuckheads. Its why I stopped listening to the Pumpkins a decade ago and never looked back. Its why I could care less about a new Tool record even though 2005 me would have been jacking off all over a new Tool record.

I love the Pumpkins and still listen. But I think there’s quite a difference in not supporting an artist because of their political views as opposed to not supporting an artist because they abused women physically, mentally and emotionally. As I stated earlier, I really hope it’s not Manson. Love this discussion but I don’t think your example is comparable. I still listen to Morrissey because I don’t care about his political views. However, if it came out that any artist I loved or listened to abused women in any form, I just simply can’t separate that from the art. And I’d never listen to MJ because he was a creep. If someone plays Thriller during Halloween I won’t ask them to turn it off, but I sure won’t be listening to MJ on my own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[theimage13]

Nick Cave was asked that question about Morrissey recently and had an interesting response. He says he is able to separate the music from the artist themselves. So even if he doesn't like the artist personally or agree with their behavior, he doesn't let it interfere with how he feels about the music. His reason being that once the music is out in the public, it belongs to the listener as opposed to the artist. I guess thats what Michael Jackson fans do. I know plenty of girls who still love his music even though they agree the dude was fucked......I am totally different. I can't like an artists music if I know they are fuckheads. Its why I stopped listening to the Pumpkins a decade ago and never looked back. Its why I could care less about a new Tool record even though 2005 me would have been jacking off all over a new Tool record.

Yeah, that's a total cop-out answer. Is he saying all art belongs to the public once it's released? Would he proudly hang up one of Hitler's paintings because he thought it looked pretty? If not, then his answer isn't about the art being public, it's about his personal definition of "how bad is too bad" when it comes to an artist's behavior, and he's saying that he's got a high tolerance.

And I'm gonna drift a bit here and be a dick....couldn't care less. Sorry, that one just bugs me for some reason.

[Demogorgon]

I've used this example before, and it still holds true: I used to be a Lostprophets fan. All the way up until the details of his seriously awful behavior that got him jailed. I thought to myself, initially, that, "oh, well, i'm not going to buy any of their shit anymore, but, i still like the music so i'll probably still listen." Only... i didn't listen. It wasn't even a conscious choice. I'd be scrolling through my music library, i'd see their stuff come up, and think sure, i'll put that on. But i'd hesitate. I'd sit, and i'd look at it, and then i'd skip it. No conscious thought, just a skip. It's been years now and i still don't listen. Some people are just so truly awful that it doesn't matter how good their art was. What they've done creeps into your psyche and you just can't stomach to hear them sing or speak or whatever anymore. I feel like that kind of decision is personal for each individual, but when a musician becomes a monster, that crosses my lines.

[ItsChrisRoss]

I've used this example before, and it still holds true: I used to be a Lostprophets fan. All the way up until the details of his seriously awful behavior that got him jailed. I thought to myself, initially, that, "oh, well, i'm not going to buy any of their shit anymore, but, i still like the music so i'll probably still listen." Only... i didn't listen. It wasn't even a conscious choice. I'd be scrolling through my music library, i'd see their stuff come up, and think sure, i'll put that on. But i'd hesitate. I'd sit, and i'd look at it, and then i'd skip it. No conscious thought, just a skip. It's been years now and i still don't listen. Some people are just so truly awful that it doesn't matter how good their art was. What they've done creeps into your psyche and you just can't stomach to hear them sing or speak or whatever anymore. I feel like that kind of decision is personal for each individual, but when a musician becomes a monster, that crosses my lines.

Perfectly stated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[october_midnight]

I've used this example before, and it still holds true: I used to be a Lostprophets fan. All the way up until the details of his seriously awful behavior that got him jailed. I thought to myself, initially, that, "oh, well, i'm not going to buy any of their shit anymore, but, i still like the music so i'll probably still listen." Only... i didn't listen. It wasn't even a conscious choice. I'd be scrolling through my music library, i'd see their stuff come up, and think sure, i'll put that on. But i'd hesitate. I'd sit, and i'd look at it, and then i'd skip it. No conscious thought, just a skip. It's been years now and i still don't listen. Some people are just so truly awful that it doesn't matter how good their art was. What they've done creeps into your psyche and you just can't stomach to hear them sing or speak or whatever anymore. I feel like that kind of decision is personal for each individual, but when a musician becomes a monster, that crosses my lines.

Agreed. In the age of hyperspeed social media I've noticed that people like you here (and me) have sort of become the target of the 'how dare you?' crowd. Personally, I'm of the age and mindset that I don't give a shit what anyone does in the situation, but it's almost flipped and become the taboo to be on the side of 'nope, can't do it anymore.' Well, I'm with you...there's so much content out there these days, be it music, shows, movies, you name it...that if someone I really enjoy turns out being a giant pile of garbage? Oh well... fuck them forever!

[zecho]

Yeah, that's a total cop-out answer. Is he saying all art belongs to the public once it's released? Would he proudly hang up one of Hitler's paintings because he thought it looked pretty? If not, then his answer isn't about the art being public, it's about his personal definition of "how bad is too bad" when it comes to an artist's behavior, and he's saying that he's got a high tolerance.

I listen to and genuinely enjoy Look at Your Game, Girl by Charles Manson. It's a good song, and I enjoy it because it's good. The fact that the guy who wrote it was pure evil doesn't affect my enjoyment of it at all. I would happily listen to it publicly and not feel ashamed that I like it. Some people look at things differently than you do, and may mean exactly what they say when they say that they separate the art from the artist.

[rampface]

I've used this example before, and it still holds true: I used to be a Lostprophets fan. All the way up until the details of his seriously awful behavior that got him jailed. I thought to myself, initially, that, "oh, well, i'm not going to buy any of their shit anymore, but, i still like the music so i'll probably still listen." Only... i didn't listen. It wasn't even a conscious choice. I'd be scrolling through my music library, i'd see their stuff come up, and think sure, i'll put that on. But i'd hesitate. I'd sit, and i'd look at it, and then i'd skip it. No conscious thought, just a skip. It's been years now and i still don't listen. Some people are just so truly awful that it doesn't matter how good their art was. What they've done creeps into your psyche and you just can't stomach to hear them sing or speak or whatever anymore. I feel like that kind of decision is personal for each individual, but when a musician becomes a monster, that crosses my lines.

I mostly side with separating the art from the creator unless it's extreme circumstances. I've never listened to Lost Prophets but jesus fucking christ how could ANYONE after knowing that story. Those extreme type of situations are unforgivable and that art should be wiped from existence.

[theimage13]

I mostly side with separating the art from the creator unless it's extreme circumstances. I've never listened to Lost Prophets but jesus fucking christ how could ANYONE after knowing that story. Those extreme type of situations are unforgivable and that art should be wiped from existence.

I have no idea what anyone is talking about with LP (never even fucking heard of them), but I assume you'd lump "art created by serial killers" into the extreme circumstances category, yes?

I listen to and genuinely enjoy Look at Your Game, Girl by Charles Manson. It's a good song, and I enjoy it because it's good. The fact that the guy who wrote it was pure evil doesn't affect my enjoyment of it at all. I would happily listen to it publicly and not feel ashamed that I like it. Some people look at things differently than you do, and may mean exactly what they say when they say that they separate the art from the artist.

I guess I can't do that as easily. If somebody wronged me personally (and I mean raped me or something, not just called me a doody head), I would never want anything to do with them ever again, and that includes consuming anything they created. I extend that same attitude towards people who have wronged someone else in the same manner.

[halo eighteen]

I have no idea what anyone is talking about with LP (never even fucking heard of them), but I assume you'd lump "art created by serial killers" into the extreme circumstances category, yes?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-25108439 A guy who literally raped children.

I do think this is interesting to talk about the value of art, even if by a serial killer - since the whole history of MM was basically created from the juxtaposition of society's fascination with both celebrities and killers.

[elevenism]

This is an interesting subject. Byron committed incest. Flaubert apparently had sex with underage male prostitutes. Lovecraft, Eliot, Wagner: all racists. But society has forgiven them, to a degree, I guess?
as I've mentioned before, Peter Steele tried to get my sixteen year old girlfriend backstage with him, after people tried bringing her drinks "from the band." I didn't even think about her age at the time so much as that she was my girlfriend, and, that story is more fucked up now that I'm older. I still listen to Type O. And what about Bowie and Jimmy Page?

In some cases I can separate the art from the artist, I guess.

Edit: @theimage13 , the singer of Lostprophets raped an actual baby, among other things, so, yeah, it's an extreme example :/ that's certainly a case where I CAN'T make the separation.

[WorzelG]

I have no idea what anyone is talking about with LP (never even fucking heard of them), but I assume you'd lump "art created by serial killers" into the extreme circumstances category, yes?



I guess I can't do that as easily. If somebody wronged me personally (and I mean raped me or something, not just called me a doody head), I would never want anything to do with them ever again, and that includes consuming anything they created. I extend that same attitude towards people who have wronged someone else in the same manner.

Ilan Rubin was the drummer for Lost Prophets before he got the NIN gig. They gave him a funny leaving letter made up of NIN lyrics

[WorzelG]

So Manson gonna appear in a miniseries adaptation of The Stand, by Stephen King.

https://comicbook.com/horror/2019/07...-stephen-king/

People are thinking he might play Randall Flagg/The Man in Black.

I wonder if he could pull that off.

Was just talking about this with my husband who is a big Stephen King fan and was aghast at the possibility of MM being Flagg. He suggested he could play a character from the book called Rat Man (who was black in the book) who dressed as a pirate and was considered too creepy to sleep with by the woman who shagged Flagg. Possibility? I don’t think the character was included in the previous mini series


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[elevenism]

Was just talking about this with my husband who is a big Stephen King fan and was aghast at the possibility of MM being Flagg. He suggested he could play a character from the book called Rat Man (who was black in the book) who dressed as a pirate and was considered too creepy to sleep with by the woman who shagged Flagg. Possibility? I don’t think the character was included in the previous mini series


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Rat Man was actually in the miniseries i think.

There are a a LOT of characters in that book- around thirty with names if i remember correctly. Maybe MM plays a small role. Also, maybe they are going to do something interesting and cast against his perceived type. OR, hell, idk- Maybe he plays The Man in Black and turns in a great performance.
Stranger things have happened.
But, it would have made more sense 20 years ago, you know?

[fillow]

Manson's acting is terrible so the smaller the role - the better.

[theimage13]

Manson's acting is terrible so the smaller the role - the better.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Space Suicide]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I liked him on Tim and Eric haha.

[deadwinterskies]

Brian's best acting performance.

[BRoswell]

I'll add this to the list.

[MrLobster]

Encoding my MM CDs; Portrait -> Eat Me...Drink Me

So many CD-singles... so many...