Music and Marilyn Manson

[Tic_Toc]

I personally enjoy the alliteration of the thread title.

Anyway, I was listening to Marilyn Manson’s album Antichrist Superstar the other day, and was pretty surprised. It’s not really overtly satanic. It’s actually pretty good, if you’re into some hard rock. I suppose I’m straying from the point, though. I got down to thinking whilst listening to Brian Warner about the bounds of censorship on him, and art in general. Honestly, can we censor art, and would it still be art? I don’t think so, actually. I think people will interpret Marilyn Manson and others as they will; and whether or not they get something good from it or not is that person’s fault. Honestly, Mr. Warner does make some valid points. Look up his interview with Bill O’Reilly, actually. Billy Boy actually has a nice interview with him and lets him finish sentences and even commends him at a point.

Anybody here actually listen to the album, though? I guess that’s an irrelevent little aside.

 

[Christy_Beth]

I don’t get into that sort of music.

 

[bogeydogg]

I used to listen to Manson and I have listened to that album.

You say however that we only get out of something what we interpret from it. Along that line I have some questions for you.

Are all interpretations true and valid?

Are all interpretations good?

Is subjective interpretation a true measuring rod of truth?

The reason I ask is because, for example, let us say that a person were to take the Bible to teach that slavery and white supremacy were actually good things and that all people of dark skinned origin were in fact the sons of Cain and subject to his curse of carrying the mark which God placed upon him, claiming this mark to be dark skin.

BTW, there really are people out there who believe this.

Now, this group has only gotten out of the Bible what they interpreted from it;

Is this a true and valid interpretation of Scripture?

Is it good?

Does this interpretation lend credence to the truth or in and of itself prove the truth of Scripture.

Of course not.

And the reason why is that those people are using Scripture for an evil intent so what they say, no matter how they package or justify it, is poison.

Manson is also poison. Though he is more subtle, the underlying message of music is one of great hopelessness that can only be alleviated by utter hedonism. That being so, even though he does on occasion say things I am pretty cool with, the intent of his heart and mind is to pull down and destroy and that negates any good thing he has to say.

Just something to think about.

BTW, if you like heavy metal, try Demon Hunter or Advent.

 

[cpayne]

Nothing at all to do with censorship, Marilyn Manson, or heavy metal music. Just wanted to say: Check out The Violet Burning. My favorite band, Christian or non. Where to start: “Strength,” “The Loudest Sound in my Heart,” “Demonstrates Plastic and Elastic,” or their self-titled CD.

 

[Tic_Toc]

I used to listen to Manson and I have listened to that album.

You say however that we only get out of something what we interpret from it. Along that line I have some questions for you.

Are all interpretations true and valid?

Are all interpretations good?

Is subjective interpretation a true measuring rod of truth?

The reason I ask is because, for example, let us say that a person were to take the Bible to teach that slavery and white supremacy were actually good things and that all people of dark skinned origin were in fact the sons of Cain and subject to his curse of carrying the mark which God placed upon him, claiming this mark to be dark skin.

BTW, there really are people out there who believe this.

Now, this group has only gotten out of the Bible what they interpreted from it;

Is this a true and valid interpretation of Scripture?

Is it good?

Does this interpretation lend credence to the truth or in and of itself prove the truth of Scripture.

Of course not.

And the reason why is that those people are using Scripture for an evil intent so what they say, no matter how they package or justify it, is poison.

Manson is also poison. Though he is more subtle, the underlying message of music is one of great hopelessness that can only be alleviated by utter hedonism. That being so, even though he does on occasion say things I am pretty cool with, the intent of his heart and mind is to pull down and destroy and that negates any good thing he has to say.

Just something to think about.

BTW, if you like heavy metal, try Demon Hunter or Advent.

Ah yes. I know of the argument for slavery because of that Noah story. That was kind of weird. Noah got drunk and he got mad at his KID? Anyway.

No, I don’t really think that interpretation is valid. I mean, I think all rational people who don’t have some skewed sense of morality would agree that any interpretation of anything, be it Scripture, music, paintings, or any art whatsoever is wrong. I think that you can interpret something as you wish, and you can even think that certain Scripture passages demand that we kill children and eat them for that matter, but you just can’t act on them. All interpretations of things that can be openly interpreted (like art) are true and valid; however, if those interpretations lead to one hurting themselves or others physically, mentally, pyschologically, etc., should be either kept to oneself or not acted upon. I mean…Charlie Manson thought the White Album was predicting a war between white and black people and that’s the excuse he gave for the La Bianca murders. If that’s how he wants to take it…um…okay, but, uh, you can’t go killing people because of it.

I am actually pretty cool with some of the stuff Manson says. I don’t think his one intent is to pull people down. He’s a known atheist, but, I don’t think he throws his atheism on people like, say…Dawkins. I think he wants people to look at themselves.

 

[CarlosG]

As far as the aesthetic quality of his music, I dont like it and I blame him for starting this whole ‘cover an old song with different speed music’ trend (though I know if he didnt someone else would have )

What I also dont like is that he uses the censorship issue to as a guise when in reality its just that the people dont like what he says. Well guess what, he doesnt like what they say and wishes they werent at his concerts protesting, so its a two way street there.

 

[bogeydogg]

I suppose it is possible to say that art can be interpreted in more than one way and it still be valid, because some art is intended that way. However, the reason one cannot assert that the Bible teaches us to kill and children is because it is so countermand to the obvious intention of its author. When interpreting art, it is very important to understand what the creator of said art intended. I realize of course that some people through painting or sculpture or other forms intend for the meaning and/ or value of a certain piece be left tot he observer of the piece, and if Manson is wanting to allow his audience to interpret his music however they wish, then he should not have lyrics. Having lyrics, he is imposing the intention of his thoughts, and thus the meaning, on his music, and he is inviting others to partake of his thoughts.

This being so, he has very little ground to stand on when others complain about what he says because his message is not ambiguous. He is an atheist and he does subscribe to a life style of wanton hedonism. That is poisonous.

It is the very free speech he claims for himself which he rails against in others who dislike his music.

Personally, I vote with my cash and started ignoring him years ago, and the reason I did is because of his intended message in his music.

 

[Meathead]

Marilyn Manson is not music.

I’m not just saying this because I don’t like hard music (I actually own many Slayer albums, and I am in to death metal), but I am saying it because I think his music is possibly the worst s*** ever to violate my earlobes. He relies too much on shocking the audience, and the music itself seems to have a tasteless industrial metal beat.

Please do not ban me for censoring myself. I know you guys are sensitive about that kind of thing, but there is not other way that I could discribe such atrocious filth.

 

[thomfra]

Marilyn Manson is not music.

I’m not just saying this because I don’t like hard music (I actually own many Slayer albums, and I am in to death metal), but I am saying it because I think his music is possibly the worst s*** ever to violate my earlobes. He relies too much on shocking the audience, and the music itself seems to have a tasteless industrial metal beat.

Please do not ban me for censoring myself. I know you guys are sensitive about that kind of thing, but there is not other way that I could discribe such atrocious filth.

wow…don’t hold back…

 

[Mirdath]

As far as the aesthetic quality of his music, I dont like it and I blame him for starting this whole ‘cover an old song with different speed music’ trend (though I know if he didnt someone else would have )

He didn’t come up with that. First example I can think of off the top of my head is the Ramones’ cover of ‘Let’s Dance’ – which is quite good.

I’m not really a fan of Manson (or the other notable pop-industrial/darkwave act, Nine Inch Nails) – give me Throbbing Gristle, Eisbrecher, or Project Pitchfork any day – but I do have to give Brian credit for Not Being Stupid. In his interviews, he comes off as intelligent, articulate, and fun, with reasonable opinions and the ability to back them up.

I just don’t like his music. De gustibus non est disputandum.

 

[Matthias123]

I don’t get into that sort of music.

I concur. That guy is nothing but bad news. The reason you are posting is because you are attempting to legitimize it in your mind. You hope that if your fellow Catholics agree to your arguments, you will have an excuse to do something you know deep down is unacceptable.

Sorry for being so blunt, but the truth hurts.

There is plenty of morally acceptable pieces of music out there. It does not need to be flawless. There are very few songs that do not have some elements of immorality. Just stay away from the satanic imagery.

 

[Tic_Toc]

Um…Actually, I had a teacher that told me once that we can never know what someone intended when they wrote it. I have always agreed with that teacher. In that vein, I will say that you cannot know what I meant or intended to do when I posted this. However, I am pretty certain that I don’t need other Catholics to validate my music choices. I don’t subscribe to everything Mr. Warner professes and/or chooses to do.

Oh. I guess the “you never really know what someone intended” could go with the art interpretation thing, but anyway, you all are admitting that he’s a shock rocker. Everything that he says, he doesn’t mean. If that were the case, he probably would have committed suicide a long time ago.

Anyway, to those of you who say that he isn’t real music: yes. I will agree. I think the only legitimate album he ever came out with was Antichrist Superstar. At least, that is the only one with any real lyrical substance.

Oh, and, to whoever it was that said that if he didn’t want to force his interpretation on people, I want to ask: can’t I see a poem differently than you might, even looking at the same words?

 

[rinnie]

I think the mans nasty, years ago a guy told me he went to one of his concerts, he said he urinated on the crowds. Thats sick, i never heard of such a sick thing, so i have nothing positive to say for this man. And you would never find me at a concert of his.

 

[rinnie]

Marilyn Manson is not music.

I’m not just saying this because I don’t like hard music (I actually own many Slayer albums, and I am in to death metal), but I am saying it because I think his music is possibly the worst s*** ever to violate my earlobes. He relies too much on shocking the audience, and the music itself seems to have a tasteless industrial metal beat.

Please do not ban me for censoring myself. I know you guys are sensitive about that kind of thing, but there is not other way that I could discribe such atrocious filth.

SPOT ON! I AGREE

 

[bogeydogg]

Um…Actually, I had a teacher that told me once that we can never know what someone intended when they wrote it. I have always agreed with that teacher. In that vein, I will say that you cannot know what I meant or intended to do when I posted this. However, I am pretty certain that I don’t need other Catholics to validate my music choices. I don’t subscribe to everything Mr. Warner professes and/or chooses to do.

Oh. I guess the “you never really know what someone intended” could go with the art interpretation thing, but anyway, you all are admitting that he’s a shock rocker. Everything that he says, he doesn’t mean. If that were the case, he probably would have committed suicide a long time ago.

Anyway, to those of you who say that he isn’t real music: yes. I will agree. I think the only legitimate album he ever came out with was Antichrist Superstar. At least, that is the only one with any real lyrical substance.

Oh, and, to whoever it was that said that if he didn’t want to force his interpretation on people, I want to ask: can’t I see a poem differently than you might, even looking at the same words?

Of course you can interpret something differently, however we should also remember that words have definite meaning and that their primary purpose is to communicate ideas. That being said, as I pointed out before, we may both interpret something differently that is true, however that does not preclude the possibility that one of us is wrong.

Words are not paintings and Manson’s words are not vague. As such you can claim to get one kind of meaning out of it apart from everyone else, but that does not alter in the least the clear meaning of his words. He is a misanthropist of the highest order and he lashes out the pure good and true as defined by Scripture and the Church. You can claim this is somehow OK but you’re wrong. Especially if you are claiming that it does not conflict with orthodox belief. A minister could claim to be praising God for the beauty of the human body as he’s looking at pornography on line, but he’s still going to disciplined, fired or even jailed depending on the content. No amount of ‘personal interpretation’ is going to excuse him because of the clear nature of the material.

You see, sometimes the nature and intent of something overrides interpretations of it because its very nature is so obvious that it lays all interpretations aside.

 

[BlaineTog]

Marilyn Manson is not music.

Of course not. He’s a human being.

But if you meant “his music is not music,” then you’re wrong. Bad music is still music.