All of you have very interesting things to say. I see that a few of you compared Manson to Hitler. I think that's a pretty good comparison, but not in the way it's been mentioned so far.
I think that Manson's music is much like Hitler's artwork. They both were extremely talented artists before they were criminal geniuses. Hitler painted some of the best paintings I've ever seen, but have you ever seen one of his paintings featured in an art museum? Hitler is not known for his art, but for the horrendous crimes he committed. I think that it's the same with Charles Manson.
Manson was an artist before he was a killer, and he was a talented one. I can appreciate his music as long as I don't associate it with what he did after his musical career. I'm not going to go and buy a Charles Manson CD from e-bay, but if I come across a Charles Manson song, I'll listen to it, and I'll probably enjoy it.
And to those of you who are arguing that Charles Manson was not a murderer: you're arguments are pretty futile. He may not have physically murdered anyone, but he is still responsible. He instructed The Family on who to kill, and how to do it. He took advantage of the fact that they all had extremely malleable minds. He used The Family's bodies' as his own to murder, and thus the blood is on his hands.
So I guess my point is that, although Charles Manson is responsible for some of the most horrible and widely publicized murders of the century, he was a musician before he was a killer. I will continue to listen to his songs as if they are those of an artist, not what he is today.
mayabreathscolors, you are probably the most "intelligent" person on this "thread". there is no such thing as universally bad or good art, it all comes down to taste, making artsluts comment futile.
mayabreathscolors, you are probably the most "intelligent" person on this "thread". there is no such thing as universally bad or good art, it all comes down to taste, making artsluts comment futile.
as for your comparison to hitler, it was flawless. both men were artists before they were "morally distorted". they always believed, as far as we can tell, that they were doing the right thing. their past however, clouded them and changed them into something "wicked".
as for your comparison to hitler, it was flawless. both men were artists before they were "morally distorted". they always believed, as far as we can tell, that they were doing the right thing. their past however, clouded them and changed them into something "wicked".
All of you have very interesting things to say. I see that a few of you compared Manson to Hitler. I think that's a pretty good comparison, but not in the way it's been mentioned so far.
I think that Manson's music is much like Hitler's artwork. They both were extremely talented artists before they were criminal geniuses. Hitler painted some of the best paintings I've ever seen, but have you ever seen one of his paintings featured in an art museum? Hitler is not known for his art, but for the horrendous crimes he committed. I think that it's the same with Charles Manson.
Manson was an artist before he was a killer, and he was a talented one. I can appreciate his music as long as I don't associate it with what he did after his musical career. I'm not going to go and buy a Charles Manson CD from e-bay, but if I come across a Charles Manson song, I'll listen to it, and I'll probably enjoy it.
And to those of you who are arguing that Charles Manson was not a murderer: you're arguments are pretty futile. He may not have physically murdered anyone, but he is still responsible. He instructed The Family on who to kill, and how to do it. He took advantage of the fact that they all had extremely malleable minds. He used The Family's bodies' as his own to murder, and thus the blood is on his hands.
So I guess my point is that, although Charles Manson is responsible for some of the most horrible and widely publicized murders of the century, he was a musician before he was a killer. I will continue to listen to his songs as if they are those of an artist, not what he is today.
Hitler's watercolors were mediocre AT BEST, just like Chucky's songwriting skills.
Hitler's watercolors were mediocre AT BEST, just like Chucky's songwriting skills.
mayabreathscolors, you are probably the most "intelligent" person on this "thread". there is no such thing as universally bad or good art, it all comes down to taste, making artsluts comment futile.
mayabreathscolors, you are probably the most "intelligent" person on this "thread". there is no such thing as universally bad or good art, it all comes down to taste, making artsluts comment futile.
as for your comparison to hitler, it was flawless. both men were artists before they were "morally distorted". they always believed, as far as we can tell, that they were doing the right thing. their past however, clouded them and changed them into something "wicked".
as for your comparison to hitler, it was flawless. both men were artists before they were "morally distorted". they always believed, as far as we can tell, that they were doing the right thing. their past however, clouded them and changed them into something "wicked".
well done...
well done...