Marilyn Manson Releases Slo-Mo-Tion

[The Newswire]

Marilyn Manson just release his latest video Slo-Mo-Tion off Born Villain, and although it's certainly no Floria Sigismondi, it does manage to be stylish and convey a certain debaucherous and empty mood. The video as a whole really reminds me of parties I don't go to anymore, I mean there is only so many times you can put your dick in the mashed potatoes, metaphorically, if you know what...

Read the full article

[ForrestBlack]

[Mr Karl]

yeah....the tunes all right, the video's...just scattered, like a whatsername video

[Raza]

Mmm. I think I've been in that mood, where perversion just becomes automatism and no amount of wickedness succeeds at being exciting anymore, but you keep it up for the barely noticeable ego stim. Generally that's around 38 hours in and a clear sign to head for bed.

If that's how he rolls by default now I blame his choice in drugs. The visuals were a nice kind of trippy, though.

[Pleth]

This is the same guy who gave us "Irresponsible Hate Anthem"? I think I know the problem; the song SUCKS.

[Class-Punk]

Manson strikes me as being more concerned with being macabre or abstract as a means of being shocking, than delivering a clearer message on a distinct social or political movement; which he used to do with Christianity before Atheism combined with the internet started calling it out, or for whatever reasons, is no longer as edgy. But I think the truth is that there is nothing more shocking or pointed than spot-on social commentary that people understand. True to Punk, the lack of this is my biggest problem with this and most music.

[Raza]

Manson strikes me as being more concerned with being macabre or abstract as a means of being shocking, than delivering a clearer message on a distinct social or political movement; which he used to do with Christianity before Atheism combined with the internet started calling it out, or for whatever reasons, is no longer as edgy. But I think the truth is that there is nothing more shocking or pointed than spot-on social commentary that people understand. True to Punk, the lack of this is my biggest problem with this and most music.

I get what you're saying, but also where he's coming from on this. His artistic image, and this is a psychological impulse I understand intimately, is based on going where no one else will; taking on the simultaneously sociologically important and egotistically satisfying function of dissident prime.

I call this sociologically important because the human mind is built as such that when one secretly disagrees with the majority, the impulse to conform is much stronger when everybody else you're in contact with agrees than when even just one other person has come out against the majority opinion. As in, magnitudes stronger. There's highly interesting studies establishing this mechanism.

Of course aside from being important, it's also a huge ego rush to be in the tiny minority voicing an important message. It's... inefficient with regards to bringing about positive social change, but once you build a self image as someone capable of spotting and speaking out for the most unpopular kinds of truth, adding your voice to a sizable existing movement just doesn't feel worthwhile anymore.

That said, I'm personally all for having a message you believe in, and I agree that he could do with a little more of that these days, with the morbid, fucked-up aesthetic serving to make it beautiful and appealing rather than being the main goal. 'Course, there is a real need to balance clarity with subtlety; blatant political art is rarely appealing to anyone but those already vocally in agreement with its message, which hurts the overall reception of message and beauty alike.

[Raza]

Still, I do still think he's making a useful contribution towards social progress simply by glamourizing the doing and saying of highly stigmatized things. It's encouraging people to resist stagnating social pressures and find their own messages where they'd otherwise have overlooked or ignored them.

(Damn that 5 minute edit limit...)

[Class-Punk]

I get what you're saying, but also where he's coming from on this. His artistic image, and this is a psychological impulse I understand intimately, is based on going where no one else will; taking on the simultaneously sociologically important and egotistically satisfying function of dissident prime.

I call this sociologically important because the human mind is built as such that when one secretly disagrees with the majority, the impulse to conform is much stronger when everybody else you're in contact with agrees than when even just one other person has come out against the majority opinion. As in, magnitudes stronger. There's highly interesting studies establishing this mechanism.

Of course aside from being important, it's also a huge ego rush to be in the tiny minority voicing an important message. It's... inefficient with regards to bringing about positive social change, but once you build a self image as someone capable of spotting and speaking out for the most unpopular kinds of truth, adding your voice to a sizable existing movement just doesn't feel worthwhile anymore.

That said, I'm personally all for having a message you believe in, and I agree that he could do with a little more of that these days, with the morbid, fucked-up aesthetic serving to make it beautiful and appealing rather than being the main goal. 'Course, there is a real need to balance clarity with subtlety; blatant political art is rarely appealing to anyone but those already vocally in agreement with its message, which hurts the overall reception of message and beauty alike.

Still, I do still think he's making a useful contribution towards social progress simply by glamourizing the doing and saying of highly stigmatized things. It's encouraging people to resist stagnating social pressures and find their own messages where they'd otherwise have overlooked or ignored them.

(Damn that 5 minute edit limit...)

Ironically even though social or political commentary is rebellious, I think you have to rely on the crowd or the critics to draw the line of entertainment between "good" abstraction and raw social and/or political commentary with musical lyricism. Not necessarily "raw" as in macabre, which it also could be, but painfully truthful or excessively aware.

I had a friend make the argument to me that music is entertainment and so the lyrics are primarily there to entertain, but my bias is that I often see this as a cop-out for lack of education. My view of a lot of music, mostly Mainstream stuff, is that the lyrics seem reduced to or obsessed with romance, success, and partying. Not that there's anything wrong with the subjects, there's just no balance of subjects, and that lack of culture and variety on the radio often comes across to me as being dishonest or stagnant towards the human condition.

I think Manson still has more of a lyrical variety or poetic sense than a lot of musicians. Also, he is helping to poke holes in the Abrahamic bubble or bubbles, which is the usual cause of any kind of Alternative intolerance, and it will take all of us working together with big needles-- metaphorically speaking.

[Raza]

Ironically even though social or political commentary is rebellious, I think you have to rely on the crowd or the critics to draw the line of entertainment between "good" abstraction and raw social and/or political commentary with musical lyricism. Not necessarily "raw" as in macabre, which it also could be, but painfully truthful or excessively aware.

For clarity, I don't think blatant political art is "bad" in a general sense; it is just very often bad art.

Any kind of truth or awareness can be wrapped in quality art; when done well, this kind of payload only adds to the impact and memorability. But people tend to be alienated by things that rub against their current beliefs and identities without first delivering something that feels true or positive, and you can get neither beauty nor message across to people when they're alienated. Similarly, politically motivated artists often fall in the trap of voicing mostly indignation at everybody who doesn't already understand and live according to their message, or they otherwise don't bother understanding where people who aren't already on their side are coming from and coming across respectful to them. It's the same kind of confrontative self-indulgence that can get two otherwise intelligent, curious people to become pissed off at each other and give up on communicating in a heated debate.

To reach people with harsh truths you have to more or less seduce them, offering the message alongside something they enjoy enough to overcome their general resistance to a change in worldview... for some people, their self images as good and/or reasonable people suffice so long as you make your case well and don't actively rub them wrong, but you rarely get to really lay out your reasoning and evidence argument by argument in a song or other creative work. What you do get to do is candy-coat your point with the beauty of your art, which can be incredibly effective... but subtlety is still required to minimize the feel-bad value of the message, because once somebody decides to take issue with that, denying whatever beauty surrounds it becomes really easy.

I had a friend make the argument to me that music is entertainment and so the lyrics are primarily there to entertain, but my bias is that I often see this as a cop-out for lack of education. My view of a lot of music, mostly Mainstream stuff, is that the lyrics seem reduced to or obsessed with romance, success, and partying. Not that there's anything wrong with the subjects, there's just no balance of subjects, and that lack of culture and variety on the radio often comes across to me as being dishonest or stagnant towards the human condition.

I can see where both of you are coming from. Personally, I think music is art, and the essential function of art is to construct and express beauty... this serves well as 'entertainment', in commercial terms, but meaning is one of the cognitions that contribute to (or detract from) the perception of beauty. It is no more essential to good art than a video is essential to a song or a nice smell to a pretty person, but when the medium serves a message it can be a waste to leave it out, or stuff it with empty, inoffensive filler like pop songs tend to. On the other hand, adding to the beauty of your art with a message requires a specific, distinct set of artistic skills - just like adding a video to a song requires more than just musicianship - and doing it poorly is much worse than not doing it at all, so deciding not to can be a perfectly valid choice when the circumstances ask for it.

Of course, connoisseurs or the artistic medium of the political message, like yourself, may well feel like no music that doesn't have a message ever reaches the heights of good songs that do... and you'd be quite right. Every additional dimension of synchronicity multiplies the impact of a work of art with the audience's attunement to the sense that delivers it... so just as a good accompanying video can raise appreciation for a song to otherwise unreachable heights in the eyes of a visually oriented viewer, a good message will reach intellectually/politically attuned listeners like nothing else can, too. It's an opportunity for awesomeness - but again, not essential to objectively good art, insofar as artistic quality is ever objective.

I think Manson still has more of a lyrical variety or poetic sense than a lot of musicians. Also, he is helping to poke holes in the Abrahamic bubble or bubbles, which is the usual cause of any kind of Alternative intolerance, and it will take all of us working together with big needles-- metaphorically speaking.

Agreed. =)