Cazzeggiando su YouTube vidi questo nuovo video di Marilyn Manson:
..un romanzo rosa insomma.
Come per ogni cosa, sono un nostalgico, e qua comunque mi sembra che siamo ben lungi da una Get Your Gunn o una Long hard Road Out Of Hell. Qua siamo a livello di musica &Getta direttamente.
Quanto alla performance artistica del video, il video è un omaggio al cileno-francese artista guru idolo planetario (a quanto sembra, scusate la mia perpetua ignoranza) Alejandro Jodorowsky. Per acculturarmi mi sto scaricando legalmente El Topo (1970) e The Holy Mountain (1973). Vi saprò dire. Vi poi a chi, non lo so. A mia nonna.
Un interessante dibattito riguardo al video, preso da un blog che non ha caso si chiama Dangerous Minds:
Sep 15, 2011 – t.x. says:
Big surprise people are saying things like, “Manson isn’t challenging himself,” “Absolutely zero magic,” “absolute shit,” etc., etc., and dismissing the video as “fetish footage and teenage angst.” Every time Manson has done/released anything new (even all the way back to Antichrist Superstar, when the fans he had attracted with Portrait of an American Family were already saying he’d betrayed his roots), people have always dismissed either it as being nothing new or original from what he’d been doing previously, or as something TOO different which didn’t stay true to what he was originally about. So which is it? Do we want him to stay the same or explore new territory?
While those who say he’s stayed the same are partially right—-Manson has stayed true to the artistic vision he had from the beginning, which I think is a GOOD THING—-they are also wrong, in the sense that Manson had repeatedly changed his style, his visuals, and essentially re-invents himself frequently, as a way of keeping things new.
I’m not sure why people are reacting so negatively to this. What’s wrong with it? If you liked anything he’s done before, what’s wrong with this? He’s got the artistic freedom to do something like this (no censorship) now for the first time in his career—-because he is no longer being hovered over by finger-wagging, wrist-slapping Interscope Records—-and he’s living it up. I say, good for him.
And as far as people saying Shia LaBeaouf (or however you spell his ridiculous name) has made something shitty and its not surprising, WHY is this shitty? What’s shitty about it? He shows an obvious talent for cinematography—-it is very well-done in that regard at least.
And for those of you saying he’s exploring no new territory, I beg to differ. How exactly IS this like the material he’s put out in the past? It has similarities, sure, but that’s to be expected; on the whole, however, it is considerably experimental compared to past material—-I for one have never heard him do a song where the song breaks down and all of a sudden he’s reciting poetry. Not only is the visual style and subject matter different, even the music has evolved—-and in my opinion it has evolved in a positive direction.
I’m really enjoying seeing Manson exercising his new-found creative freedom, and I’m not disappointed by it at all. I think he’s still got that “magic touch” he had from the very beginning, and I remain a diehard fan of the man, and I also agree with the message he represents.
And for those who say Manson isn’t a magician, I think that shows either stupidity or an unwillingness to be open minded to what Manson is trying to say and do. Manson himself said once that he believes “the only thing truly spiritual in the world is art.” No need for occultnik mumbo-jumbo and audience-alienating ultra-esotercism, he expresses his artistic vision in his own unique way; what’s NOT magical about that? How many people here are doing THAT with their life?
Everyone is always ready to jump on this man, saying that all he does is try to shock, or that there’s “no reason” behind it. In this case, perhaps, they are right—-there IS no reason behind it, other than this: Manson is an artist, and he doesn’t care who understands it or can get behind it ideologically, he’s not going to stop just because people (jealous people, I must presume) are trying to say he’s washed up or has lost his touch. If he was so easily swayed by the ignorant opinions of nameless nobodies, I’d have much less respect for him.
So if he did what everyone thought he should do instead of doing what HE wants, wouldn’t everyone be calling him a sellout. Stupid double standard. He can’t win, because no matter WHAT he does, most people have already decided ahead of time that they want to be against it.
Pardon how long that was. When I see people bashing or trying to discredit Marilyn Manson (which people have always loved to do—-from the very beginning of his career all the way up to the present—-and will continue to do), I can’t just let it go without putting in my piece.
Nobody has to agree with me, and I assume they don’t. But I think if people would approach his work (and him as a person) with more open minds, they might not be so quick to side against him.Sep 15, 2011, t.x.says:And Jodorowsky apparently likes it. Does his opinion mean nothing? I’d like to think a man as intelligent and as creative as Jodorowsky has good tastes.Sep 15, 2011, Nicksays:@t.x. – I hate to say it, but Jodorowsky may feel that a new audience may come his way via Manson? A wise person may welcome opportunity in any form… (?) He may also see the same potential that many of us see, along with being flattered.
I actually became aware of Manson between Portrait.. and Antichrist. For me, it was new and exciting and energetic (much like nin’s Downward.. ) Manson seems to now have become a caricature of himself. There’s a point in time when an artist may need to accept that past works are what they were/are, and the relevance of the person ceases to exist. It makes us wonder, if Jim Morrison were alive, would we view him the same way we do now?
There’s a big difference between inspiration and a copy, between homage and lack of vision and originality. No doubt it took a lot of energy (and drugs?) to come up with the concept of and execute Antichrist. His following works lacked that vision.
Ultimately, Manson does not exist on the same realm as Jodorowsky, plain and simple. There’s the master and there’s the student.Sep 16, 2011, foreward says:
When I was younger, I really didn’t like Manson at all, and figured he was just a lame glam rock show like any other. I appreciate Manson today, because at the time of his peak, there was no escaping the act – religious people would go to his shows and protest, fans would dress up like him – when you stop looking at manson as a musical act, and more like a social performance, the idiotic use of quasi-religious or historical/political images kind of starts making sense. Manson isn’t about the music, it’s about myth, celebrity and our desire to become fanatical about something in an attempt to find community and ultimately home.
And yes, like other pop art artists, Manson will take that manipulation home all the way to the bank. Nobody criticizes Andy Warhol for doing the same.
Non so, per concludere con un commento intelligente e ben studiato, in generale preferisco comunque la musica degli anni ’90.