Marilyn Manson, what happened?

nyarlothothep

12 years ago he was the personification of Satan, the inverse to all conventional values, a living embodiment of mockery of the hypocrisy of mainstream society. Not only that his music had a ferocity that few have rivalled imo, like the Fight Song and Rock is Dead. His live album recorded at his peak sounded great. And even up until 8 years ago he sounded good with The Golden Age of the Grotesque although he was running out of steam a little bit. But now he's just sounded like a shadow of his former self, completely burnt out and tired. Live he's a disaster as far as the live shows I've seen are concerned. He's out of tune, his screaming is random and he can't sustain it, he doesn't even sing the lyrics properly and doesn't seem to care anymore. There's a version of Rock is Dead with Twiggy on lead guitar (he' messes it up entirely). Its painfully bad to listen to. So my question about all of this is what the fck happened that someone whose performances were so energetic and angry, whose records were savage attacks on the moral and political pillars of society and the mainstream in general, managed to become like this in the space of less than 8 years?

Mental Mickey

nyarlothothep wrote: »

12 years ago he was the personification of Satan, the inverse to all conventional values, a living embodiment of mockery of the hypocrisy of mainstream society. Not only that his music had a ferocity that few have rivalled imo, like the Fight Song and Rock is Dead. His live album recorded at his peak sounded great. And even up until 8 years ago he sounded good with The Golden Age of the Grotesque although he was running out of steam a little bit. But now he's just sounded like a shadow of his former self, completely burnt out and tired. Live he's a disaster as far as the live shows I've seen are concerned. He's out of tune, his screaming is random and he can't sustain it, he doesn't even sing the lyrics properly and doesn't seem to care anymore. There's a version of Rock is Dead with Twiggy on lead guitar (he' messes it up entirely). Its painfully bad to listen to. So my question about all of this is what the fck happened that someone whose performances were so energetic and angry, whose records were savage attacks on the moral and political pillars of society and the mainstream in general, managed to become like this in the space of less than 8 years?

Money. Success. Drugs. Accepted by the mainstream now. Shock value has disappeared.

nyarlothothep

Mental Mickey wrote: »

Money. Success. Drugs. Accepted by the mainstream now. Shock value has disappeared.

Money, yeah perhaps but it doesn't have to dull the edge of his music/lyrics. Acceptance by the mainstream? No, I don't he was, I think he made an impression on the mainstream, if was accepted he'd still be in the mainstream but he's a cult act at this stage. Shock value? See when I was a teenager he was the scariest most dangerous artist in my musical universe but that was just due to the visual side and stories about his touring antics. But when I listened to his music, I wasn't shocked, I was mostly in agreement with everything he said, I was thinking fck yeah, he's hit the nail on the head again. Maybe it was shocking to some people who had this view of the world mired in denial of the obvious abuses and double standards within it but for me he was articulately expressing what needed to be said.

viadah

The level of controversy couldn't be sustained, which was, regardless of anyone's opinion of the music, the biggest selling point. Once that interest waned, and the public lost interest as a result, all that should have been left was the music, but in all honesty he thrived on the publicity and hype. I think once that attention was gone he just lost interest himself, which let him then indulge the most dangerous aspect of musical artists - their 'artistic' side.

RonMexico

He was only ever really considered dangerous by those under the age of 18 and over 65.

nyarlothothep

viadah wrote: »

The level of controversy couldn't be sustained, which was, regardless of anyone's opinion of the music, the biggest selling point. Once that interest waned, and the public lost interest as a result, all that should have been left was the music, but in all honesty he thrived on the publicity and hype. I think once that attention was gone he just lost interest himself, which let him then indulge the most dangerous aspect of musical artists - their 'artistic' side.

What I found with his albums is that he'd have maybe 4-6 good songs out of 12/18 bland ones. But those songs were imo really good, 3-4 minutes of pure fury, which still makes me want to punch the air. So for example the first 4 tracks off Holywood in addition to Burning Flag fall into this category. But then rest of his songs sound a bit bleh. But they still had an energy which is completely lacking post Golden Age of the Grotesque.

Motley Crue

A lot of the Satanic notion associated with Manson came from (to a large degree) the fact that the gunmen in the Columbine Disaster of 1999 were fans of his music. People latched onto that and talked about how his album covers were obscene and how he was the devil incarnate. He gave a really good interview in Michael Moore's film about that event, and gun control on a more general level in the US, called Bowling for Columbine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYApo2d8o_A

Parents general hatred of Mason in this instance was caused by ignorance through their collective grief and they needed someone to blame so the media was happy to blame Heavy Metal sub culture and South Park, but it was a disgrace that Manson should have to cancel five of his dates on a US tour that year (which he did so voluntarily out of respect to those killed) because it almost seemed as if Manson was accepting he was part of the problem

I think these days there have been bands emerging from labels like Earrache and Metal Blade and Reprise who just cross the line every single day in terms of image or what you can or cannot say. They do it to get themselves noticed whereas Manson didn't really need any help in that regard.

And while it's true that bands have gotten a lot worse in terms of shocking imagery in the last 10 years (at least thanks to the advances of Multimedia images/quality that can be printed on booklets and inlays) we can't forget that there were bands like Cannibal Corpse around in 1999 too with songs like

Ripped Entrails of a Virgin's ****

and these could have been a lot more shocking then Mr Manson and his Eurthymic's covers

To a large degree I think the, if you like, acceptance of Manson in the mainstream has a lot to do with the Internet growing and introducing us to whole new sub culture's that just seem far more shocking, violent and/or relevant then Manson. In 2000 the Internet was still a new phenomena (I didn't get my IE connection until that year and even then it was dial up for a few years). Fast IE speeds now mean you can see, do, hear, find, explore and create more online then you ever could dream of 12 years ago - and back then we felt the Internet had already outdone what we first experienced in the mid 90s - and with 3G it's an entirely new ballgame.

So, yes, Manson is sort of irrelevant...but only because he was the first to cross a line that has moved several miles now

RayCon

Meh ... the shock rock of that generation. Ho hum.

Nolanger

Muse ripped off his sound and won awards.

Mushy

Nolanger wrote: »

Muse ripped off his sound and won awards.

Of course they did

His songs were alright at best. Seen him live twice, they were both shockers.

Motley Crue

You remember the whole problem caused with Manson performing live at the EMA awards in Dublin in 1999? There were people talking about what a disgrace it was and how this used to be a Catholic country etc etc and MTV were actually pressured into putting him on last...so that if people were that shocked they wouldn't cut the feed...

I mean, at one point, I was even led to believe that Slipknot had been banned from ever playing in Ireland. Well, they supported Metallica in 2004, and I don't remember anything ever happening that evening except we wanted more Slipknot and less Metallica.

Manson's performance in Dublin was controversial in 1999 because the American's were making such a fuss over him already. For many media pundits Columbine was just an excuse to slate artists like him and take the focus away from more important issues - like how a former President or Prime Minister had gotten away with adultery or swindling money or dropping bombs etc

The fact is that these days Manson has just become a little less pivotal because we've seen him do it all before, 12 years before....

God almighty, I think Ronan Keating is scarier....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_KvWLPozMc

nyarlothothep

That was a funny performance. The crowd were lame though.

RonMexico

I've always found the whole Metal=Lucifer=Shocking thing to be hilarious, all the way back to the days of Black Sabbath.

The only people who were up in arms about it were bible bashing Americans/Catholic Ireland and their flock of brainwashed sheep.

Personally I think the whole shock element is music is just complete contrived nonsense.

Dimebag/Lennon getting shot was shocking. Singing about crucifying virgins = look at me/lets drive up record sales/teenagers will love this/how are we going to top what that other band said

I suppose it is not just limited to metal either. Same thing goes on in rap/hip-hop/ action movies/horror movies

Meh.

devildriver

I have no great fondness or hatred for MM but just listening to that EMA video it's amazing how dated his music sounds now.

nyarlothothep

Dated against what? Todays music is going to be dated, everything is part of its time, talking about dated is pointless and solipsistic, it just reflects a sense of cultural superiority to what's gone before which is unjustified because the fads of the present moment are going to be criticized in the future in exactly the same way and will that be justified either? No way! There is no end point in history, no peak of cultural perfection where someone can stand on high to judge things. Actually imo that song above is preferable to 99% of the indie rock sh1te thats masquerading as rock and factory line metal crap like Avenged Sevenfold or Disturbed.

Anyway people are missing the point of the original post. I'm not interested in the shock element. This is what I was talking about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw1RQp3AJmE

Compared to this, there is much more energy and attitude in this perfomance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iJDtAqHO-s

Likewise with his music, in 2001 we had the Fight Song, which was unadulterated energizing ferocity. Now we have Armaggedon which just sounds ass.

Now normally artists go into decline either because they get bored with what they're doing or run out of ideas but the decline in Manson's music was sharp.

jack presley

He was always a bit of a twat and his music wouldn't be something I'd usually be into but Mechanical Animals is a pretty good album

SilverScreen

nyarlothothep wrote: »

12 years ago he was the personification of Satan, the inverse to all conventional values, a living embodiment of mockery of the hypocrisy of mainstream society. Not only that his music had a ferocity that few have rivalled imo, like the Fight Song and Rock is Dead. His live album recorded at his peak sounded great. And even up until 8 years ago he sounded good with The Golden Age of the Grotesque although he was running out of steam a little bit. But now he's just sounded like a shadow of his former self, completely burnt out and tired. Live he's a disaster as far as the live shows I've seen are concerned. He's out of tune, his screaming is random and he can't sustain it, he doesn't even sing the lyrics properly and doesn't seem to care anymore. There's a version of Rock is Dead with Twiggy on lead guitar (he' messes it up entirely). Its painfully bad to listen to. So my question about all of this is what the fck happened that someone whose performances were so energetic and angry, whose records were savage attacks on the moral and political pillars of society and the mainstream in general, managed to become like this in the space of less than 8 years?

You have to take into account that a lot of the success of Marilyn Manson was down to major-label marketing of him towards disaffected kids in the 90's rather than musical substance. When a major label gets bored of you or is no longer able to market you to a changing set of music listeners then they are going to spit you back out into the cold and you no longer have the money or production team behind you to create the music you want. Yes he is getting old now and is well past his prime, but he was a good example of limited talent being boosted by strong marketing. He never really had any real ideas because his music just mined the nihilism of 80's industrial and punk and repackaged them for a mainstream audience. His time has been well and truly up for years now.

S.M.B.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iJDtAqHO-s

I will always regret not having the opportunity to see Manson on this tour.

Antichrist Superstar doesn't seem in any way dated to me at all. Still a classic.

As for the decline, I think he was truly of his time. He embodied the Zeitgeist. Society/Culture moved on and he became less relevant. Artistically, the output didn't live up to his previous work.

In fairness, I don't think someone taking on that mantle can sustain it over the long term.

Might give the new album a listen when it comes out but I fully expect not to like it.

nyarlothothep

Zero1986 wrote: »

You have to take into account that a lot of the success of Marilyn Manson was down to major-label marketing of him towards disaffected kids in the 90's rather than musical substance. When a major label gets bored of you or is no longer able to market you to a changing set of music listeners then they are going to spit you back out into the cold and you no longer have the money or production team behind you to create the music you want. Yes he is getting old now and is well past his prime, but he was a good example of limited talent being boosted by strong marketing. He never really had any real ideas because his music just mined the nihilism of 80's industrial and punk and repackaged them for a mainstream audience. His time has been well and truly up for years now.

I'm not that knowledgeable about goth/industrial subcultures, I listen to a lot of NIN, listened to the Cure, but haven't checked out all the imagery/aesthetic associated with the 80s stuff. I would say that lyrically he's pretty good, as a co-ordinator of music, like say Lou Reed who has a similar lack of direct performance related musical ability, he knows what he wants and joins it up together well into a good experience. John 5 and Twiggy wrote the music irc and there is talent in the songwriting. Maybe not on the same level of depth as NIN who produced them, but they're well constructed songs, the atmosphere is good. For example Beautiful People, the riff is instantly recognisable, sure its simple but its the combination of the riff and the tritone and the overall production and atmosphere of menace which makes it for me, how many bands can write a song that makes such an impression, the song doesn't have to be uber complicated or demonstrative of musical ability to achieve this? A band like the Sex Pistols wrote simple songs but they worked. I personally don't like punk or simple songs in general but if a song "works" so to speak I don't care how innovative or technically amazing it is. The lyrics are also good, "the beautiful people, its all relative to the size of your steeple." He's basically mocking (for me anyway) the logic of power, people who would think themselves to be ubersmenches, implying its just a primitive p1ssing contest. I don't think Marilyn Manson was untalented at all, in fact relative to 90% of music himself and his band were pretty talented. Don't really care if he had huge marketing behind him either, its the music which I'm only concerned with. As I said before though, for me he would have say 4-6 songs which rocked and then a lot of filler, Mechanical Animals sits well together as an album however but even writing 4-6 songs per album that kick so much ass as they did is noteworthy. And I'm not even much of a fan of Manson, I just like a few songs by him. The thing I'm amazed by is that he was still on form in 2003 but then in 2008, in the space of 5 years he totally deflated.

S.M.B. wrote:

In fairness, I don't think someone taking on that mantle can sustain it over the long term.

I think this may be the reason in his epic fall from grace, I say epic because in just 5 years he went from force of nature to flatulence/Rod Stewart.

SilverScreen

nyarlothothep wrote: »

For example Beautiful People, the riff is instantly recognisable, sure its simple but its the combination of the riff and the tritone and the overall production and atmosphere of menace which makes it for me, how many bands can write a song that makes such an impression, the song doesn't have to be uber complicated or demonstrative of musical ability to achieve this? A band like the Sex Pistols wrote simple songs but they worked.

A lot of artists have made great music that's musically simple yet is effective and has a great innovative artistic vision. The Velvet Underground did it, The Stooges, Suicide, Venom, Spacemen 3... But the thing with Manson is there's nothing really that original going on for the music to really be all that vital, for the music to be influential on artists in ten or twenty years time or more.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

The thing I'm amazed by is that he was still on form in 2003 but then in 2008, in the space of 5 years he totally deflated.
I think this may be the reason in his epic fall from grace, I say epic because in just 5 years he went from force of nature to flatulence/Rod Stewart.

I can clearly remember The Golden Age Of Grotesque being panned on release in 2003. Magazines like Kerrang! were writing him off even at that stage.

mikeyboy

Personally I was never a fan of MM. I always found his whole sthick just a bit too contrived. As far as it goes here's a great quote from Dee Snider about what happens to all music

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Yeah, I was talking to Marilyn Manson, and I told him, “Enjoy your badass celebrity status now, because whether you like it or not, twenty years from now, you’re going to be easy listening!” I mean, there’s no avoiding it. “Oooh. Play that fun ‘Beautiful People’ song.”[/FONT]

Full interview here

nyarlothothep

Zero1986 wrote: »

A lot of artists have made great music that's musically simple yet is effective and has a great innovative artistic vision. The Velvet Underground did it, The Stooges, Suicide, Venom, Spacemen 3... But the thing with Manson is there's nothing really that original going on for the music to really be all that vital, for the music to be influential on artists in ten or twenty years time or more.


I can clearly remember The Golden Age Of Grotesque being panned on release in 2003. Magazines like Kerrang! were writing him off even at that stage.

Well that's where we differ I guess. I got the critical praise for the Velvet Underground or the Stooge and the others are well meh for me anyway. There's nothing strikingly original, I think he has his own heavily processed glammed up combined with metal/goth sound which is different. His music is a lot better than Alice Cooper's. I think he will be influential, a lot of novice guitarist play that beautiful people riff, its like Smoke on the Water in my experience. Not that it even matters whether he is influential, a lot of obscure music is superb but is never going to be influential because it doesn't fit in whatever trends/fads are going at present, (mainstream or underground). It doesn't matter if other people "approve" of music, the music should be taken on its own merits, disconnected from the circus of human affairs.

Napper Hawkins

I was 13 when Antichrist Superstar was released, so the perfect age to be completely blown away by an artist such as Manson.

That album imo has stood the test of time and I still listen to a handful of the tunes every now and then.

"1996", "Tourniquet", "Little Horn" etc. it was pure aural eargasm to these ears which had previously only really been exposed to the likes of ****e like U2, Oasis, Blur etc. due to the heavy reliance of tv for any fix of music. Ah the days of no internet!

From MM I moved onto Korn and Slipknot then Machine Head and Fear Factory and so on until it just got heavier and heavier to the point where I consider Meshuggah, Misery Index, Dying Fetus and Strapping Young Lad to be my easy listening music.

My point is that Manson was great, at least great enough that he opened my eyes to a world of music I otherwise wouldn't have been exposed to at least until the Internet began to hit its stride, for that I'm thankful.

"Holywood" was the beginning of the end for me, the first MM cd that had more filler than killer. "Mechanical Animals" was his last decent effort though he never topped "Antichrist Superstar". "Portrait Of An American Family" was and still is an enjoyable listen. The live album is brilliant stuff too.

Anything after "Holywood" can get to ****e.

"Tainted Love" was the death knell. "Heart Shaped Glasses" I think is the only decent tune he ever wrote after that, from the "Eat Me, Drink Me" complete load of my arse cd that came after "Golden Age Of The Grotesque". Haven't paid him any attention since. I'd prefer to remember the MM that got me into heavy music rather than subject myself to the embarrassment he has become.

viadah

One gets the impression that Trent Reznor followed 'The Downward Spiral' with 'Antichrist Superstar'. It cleansed his palate for 'The Fragile' in that regard, which is another reason to be thankful.

jpm4

Antichrist Superstar has held up quite well I think - a real barmy pop industrial metal kind of thing. The vocals were very hit and miss though.

The opening up of all kinds of weird s**t via the internet, and the fact that pretty much everyone knows who he is now means the shock value is largely gone. There was all sorts of crazy rumors going around about the guy in the mid 90s - stupid s**t like he has sex with children and smokes bones and other daft things. Actually the bones things might be true I've just read, but still it all fueled his notoriety at the time.

Also, I would imagine Americans found more things to be frightened of rather than MM post 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

SilverScreen

I find it funny that a lot of people, especially the American media, portray him as the devil incarnate. He might have thrived off his shock value but there's no shortage of artists that went before him who were even more shocking and actually lived up to the image, such as GG Allin. It shows you how paranoid and clueless the American media is when he is seemingly to blame for the Columbine High School shootings among other things.

Funnily enough if you've ever watched Bowling For Columbine Marilyn Manson is the only person in the film who actually talks any sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYApo2d8o_A

RebelSoul

Alice Cooper called.

120_Minutes

He peaked at antichrist, then a few years passed and lady gaga came along.

buck65

Not a conventional metal head per se , I always listened to a lot of different genres and would be well into extreme music. But I somehow missed the attraction with Manson, his music never did it for me and sounded very similar.
He was just too obvious if you know what I mean?

old gregg

never a fan but my kids enjoyed him when they were early teens but for those who enjoy his stuff, it looks like he's about to hit the road in the USA:
http://gunshyassassin.com/news/marilyn-manson-books-spring-tour-dates/

LH Pathe

According to some guy on TV Columbine happened to Marilyn Manson. I guess the boys were big fans! ..media got on his case bigstyle n he wilted; pulled out - stagefright.