# Talk:The High End of Low

THE HIGH END OF LOW - Nuevo Album de Marilyn Manson

No. The translation of that site reads: "COMING SOON... First single is I Want To Kill You Like They Do In The Movies. There is even the official date of launch of this new single and album. Supported the return of Marilyn Manson and buy the original CD. Photo: Cover created by a fan in MansonUSA. Greetings!" (Translation by Google Translate). Fezmar9 (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope I am doing this correctly this is my first attempt at being a non IP contributor. 
Anyway,
There seems to be edit bounce backs over the said topic. I tried to find reference online from a valid source and i cannot. I think if someone is adiment about Rob Holliday being the new guitar player shouldnt they cite where the source came from?
CHEERS
Ivtv (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Two tracks, "Arma-God-Damn-Mother-Fucking-Geddon" and "The Wow" were leaked, related to "The High End of Low". Regardless of whether they weren't the official cd versions, why is there no mention of them on the article? Also, what happened to the song title "Four Rusted Horses"? Wasn't that an official announcement?
When all of your wishes are granted, many of your dreams will be destroyed. 23:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Because as of yet, nobody has bothered to find reliable sources regarding them. If somebody does, then they will mentioned. Zazaban (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Sean Beavan confirmed "Four Rusted Horses" on MySpace, but I don't believe MySpace is a legitimate source by Wikipedia's standards. Digitelle (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Would it be considered legitimate, though, because Sean Beavan was the one who provided the announcement? Isn't he close to the project itself? --TranceZero  (talk) 08:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

He's the producer. Digitelle (talk) 05:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is for user "208.49.109.75". Are you stating that CHRIS VRENNA is wiki user "Boypod"? I have checked this and it is clearly not. I have done my research. There are no other sources to back up your edit which is why I keep reverting it back. If you can show me here exactly what you mean I will stop. Thanks
Ivtv (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Boypod is Vrenna, but I can not publically prove without violating privacy (which I will not do). If you can show confirmation on how you know for certain it is not Vrenna, please let me know. Boypod has confirmed the correct personnel for this album (Manson himself confirmed Twiggy on keys, Rudy confirmed Chris on drums) - so please don't revert unless you have some concrete evidence otherwise.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.109.75 (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC) 
If you cannot publicly prove a source then it is not a source
Ivtv (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Chris V is the source - but leave it how you want. The info will be confirmed officially soon.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.109.75 (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Chris V may be the source. I agree, however you are not linking any source to the page. Get him to put it on his official page and then link it. Thank you for understanding
Ivtv (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The burden of proof is on "Boypod". It's not our responsibility to prove he is not Chris Vrenna, it's his responsibility to prove he IS. End of discussion. Stop the unsourced edits.
Ginger Fish plays the piano intro on the final version of Into the Fire. It was rerecorded on a proper piano to replace the digital version as heard on the Unruly Demo mix.  208.49.109.75 (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You again? Evidence or it didn't happen. Robert Berkshire (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

im in love with the title, is this the name of a track as well?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.125.184 (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC) 

No title track has been confirmed yet. Digitelle (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
No tittle track. --IThe Angriest Gamer you've Ever Heard 20:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the title track section should be edited to say that it is the first since Portrait of an American Family to not have a title track. Anyone who knows about the band, knows that the Smells Like Children album is really a remix album and technically classified as an EP.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leviathanlover (talk • contribs) 11:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Very interesting comment above me. Smells like Children does state it is a remix release. I would like to hear other arguments from other wiki users on this. I feel by editing it, it would cause some type of minor edit war. I never saw smells like childern as a remix release, I wonder if there is some official cite outside wiki stating what it is considered.
Ivtv (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If you listen to Smells like Children, the songs have similar lyrics to Portrait of an American Family, and also releases that were before, i.e. demos, early cassette tapes, etc. There are also covers on there, which this is the only Manson studio album to have any cover songs on it. I would put it on the same level of Remix & Repent, which also didn't have a title track.Leviathanlover (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Smells Like Children was more of an album-length EP. Manson considers it an album, but in reality a record consisting of mainly remixes and covers isn't a "studio album" by definition. Furthermore, Smells Like Children may not have a title track, but it was named after a song of the same name that the band performed on the preceding tour, which was the lyrical predecessor to "Kinderfeld"; and Remix & Repent was an EP so it doesn't count. So it would be more accurate to say The High End of Low is the first studio album since Portrait of an American Family not to feature a title track. Digitelle (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The only reason Remix & Repent was brought up, was because Wikipedia considers Remix & Repent and Smells Like Children as EP's. It was used to state that if Smells Like Children is used as the last Manson CD to not have a title track, then the overall Discography and quick review at the bottom need to be changed to reflect this. Leviathanlover (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Why is it even notable to state this is the first album or EP to not have a title track since whatever? Is Manson known for his title tracks or something? It really seems like a useless bit of information... Fezmar9 (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Marilyn Manson is known for title tracks. Anti-Christ Superstar,Mechanical Animals,Holywood(In the shadow of the valley of death), The Golden Age of Grotesque, and Eat Me Drink Me are all releases that have title tracks.
Ivtv (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, ok yes he has had them on previous albums but, is he known for them? What makes it worth noting that this album is missing one? Tons of bands have multiple title tracks throughout their discography, so what makes Manson's title tracks different from all the other bands? Fezmar9 (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Nothing. Why does it matter? It's interesting trivia. Let it go. Robert Berkshire (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Random bits of trivia are to be avoided when editing Wikipedia, especially in the case of full trivia sections. Although that particular Manual of Style refers to a section of trivia, most experienced wiki editors would agree that minor trivia should be removed from the body of an article. I was curious if there was anything to set Manson's title tracks apart from other band's title tracks that would make this a notable inclusion to the article. If not, it will probably be removed by an editor sooner or later. Fezmar9 (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I just realized something. Smells Like Children is an EP. And So is Remix and Repent. Remix and Repent came out 2 years after SLC. So I think That's the last album without a tittle track. (of course, there is also the greatest hits album, Lest We Forget. --The Angriest Gamer you've Ever Heard 20:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
"So I think That's the last album without a tittle track." You just answered your own question by acknowledging SLC and R&R aren't studio albums. Technically every record the band has made has had a title track though, be it conventional or unconventional. The 1996-2007 albums had direct title tracks, while Portrait had "Portrait (The Family Trip)" and The High End has "I Have to Look Up Just to See Hell" (which contains the album title as a recurring lyric), and the situation is the reverse with the SLC compilation; rather than have a song carry the name of the release, the release was named after an unrecorded song. Digitelle (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Album, EP, Live ALbum, whatever, I f*cked up. --The Angriest Gamer you've Ever Heard 21:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
My point is, if we're considering SLC to be an album despite it being an EP, then we can't just shun R&R.--The Angriest Gamer you've Ever Heard 21:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
And I hate to correct you, but it's Prelude (the Family Trip) --The Angriest Gamer you've Ever Heard 21:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I ADDED THEOL IS THE FIRST ABLUM SINCE ?... UP HERE DUE TO THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR TWO SECTIONS FOR THE SAME DEBATE. --The Angriest Gamer you've Ever Heard 23:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This debate seems to be going on since the first time this was mentioned. It is definitely not Holywood. The entire title is Holywood(in the shadow of the valley of death). what is in brackets is the name of a song. The debate is over smells like children(argument is it is an EP not an LP) and now Remix and Repent was brought into the mix.(argument with smells like children, seeing how both are 'EP' releases, Remix and Repent came out after). Lastly, should this notation be removed altogether?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivtv (talk • contribs) 21:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Personally, My thoughts on the whole "Tittle Track" Issue:
WHO CARES? 
I only added remix and repent because I've already seen the topic removed, then restored, so I thought the least I could do was make it factual. But really, 
WHO CARES ABOUT A TITTLE TRACK!!!!!11--The Angriest Gamer you've Ever Heard 21:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I care? Just kidding. It's not important, I Have To Look Up Just To See Hell has "the high end of low" in the lyrics, and anyone can look this stuff up just by reading the track listings. Mind as well remove it, seeing as how, if we're only counting studio albums, then it's actually the first since PORTRAIT. Even so, Smells Like Children had the live song of the same name. Robert Berkshire (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2009

Which is simply Kinderfeld (great song BTW) With "Smells Like Children" repeated. Anyway, let's say Holy Wood (in the Shadow of The  Valley of Death) (great album) didn't have the song "In the Shadow of the Valley of Death"? (Okay Song) Would we be making a point that In The Shadow of the Valley of Death is mentioned in the Song "Valintines Day? (not-so good song) I don't think so. This whole tittle track thing is just something you would see on a list of trivia. And you know how wiki feels about that. --The Angriest Gamer you've Ever Heard 23:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we all agree. NO ONE GIVES TWO FUCKS ABOUT THE TITTLE TRACKS! :              D
--The Angriest Gamer you've Ever Heard 00:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I really do not feel the need for you to remove my new section and merge it here. It is a seperate discussion. However I will not revert your changes. 
Ivtv (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone get the 2 new leaks off this page. Especially the one which has been LINKED to an mp3 of the song. People should know well enough that this is against several rules.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian The Mute (talk • contribs) 23:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC) 
I only saw reference to one leak which I removed. I cannot see any other information that needs to be removed. If I missed something please advise. Thanks
Ivtv (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Could this be about Pogo's accusation's of Manson using the band's funding money for Nazi stuff? --IThe Angriest Gamer you've Ever Heard 16:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Speculation, this early? Fail.
In all seriousness, I suppose so. I want to at least read the lyrics before speculating on it. Robert Berkshire (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Instead of contributing to the edit war, I will ask here. The Marilyn Manson site in no way states that the new photo is the official cover, also there is no reference in any of the edits or on the page stating it is the official cover. Why are people assuming it is? I think it should be removed until a viable source becomes available. Ivtv (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks more like a splash screen of sorts to me. It may actually turn out to be the cover, but it would be best to wait until we can confirm that. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
From Rudy Coby's Facebook bulletin: "marilynmanson.com updated with album artwork plus track titles." Coinciding with this, the actual cover art (without the "In Stores May 26" line) was added to the band's MySpace profile. Digitelle (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Kewlio. Has anyone added a link to Coby's bulletin yet? Robert Berkshire (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not going to edit this in since I can't confirm it without revealing too much BUT the song "I Have to Look Up Just to See Hell" was originally titled "The High End of Low". While the official name did change, it should be viewed as the title track for the album. This will be confirmed once the lyrics are available.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.109.75 (talk) 14:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 

And you know this how? Robert Berkshire (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
As I stated - can't say without revealing some other info. I understand it will be doubted, just as Boypod was earlier. All details will be revealed soon, I just wanted to clarify this in regards to the title track discussion earlier. This is the track that defines the album, of course the title and wraps the theme together.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.109.75 (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 

Then shouldn't you have said it there? Robert Berkshire (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Why are you even bothering to give us information we can't use yet? Fezmar9 (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
If you cannot cite any source for your claims then why bother to mention it in the first place? The official track list is just that. Official. It is off the site. Not to be disrespectful, but it would be like me saying that the original track count for this release was 18, but 3 songs were removed in November. I know this because Ginger Fish is on my msn. But I can never prove this because there is no official source to my claims, just a personal conversation. But what is the point of me stating this? none. No real proof, or source to my claims for the readers of wiki. Same as your statement. 
Ivtv (talk) 02:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Things can be known without being publically confirmed via MM.com/Myspace/Rudy Coby etc. The reason I posted this was to share the information. It was posted here in discussion instead of on the wiki page since I can't confirm it publically just yet. The tracklisting of the album has been known in some circles for quite some time (prior to being posted on MM.com), and "I Have to Look Up..." was listed with both this name, and as an album title track. 
The comment about 18 songs is obviously incorrect as Manson stated the album was originally just the 14 tracks, but it felt unfinished - so they wrote "15". Again - this discussion post was to share information in refrence to the "title track" discussion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.109.75 (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC) 

Then it belongs in that discussion. Robert Berkshire (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I was never claiming my information to be correct. I was making a point. 
Ivtv (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
This coming from the same person that started the "boypod" thing here? I smell something fishy, and it's not the nearby fishing dock.
71.48.76.1 (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Turns out you were right. Click this statment for a video that gives you samples of each manson song. (they are undeniably manson voice.) And listen to the lyrics of the sample for IHTLUJTSH --The Angriest Gamer you've Ever Heard 23:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Of course he was right. 208.49.109.75's right about the piano being re-recorded for "Into the Fire" too, but there's no reasonable source to verify that at the moment. This album has been plagued by little promotion, so every now and then people who've heard the new material take it upon themselves to speak up about it. Digitelle (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Would I get in Trouble if I linked some of the demos on this article? i want to know before hand. --The Angriest Gamer you've Ever Heard 21:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Do NOT link to them. Robert Berkshire (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes. This would be a copyright violation because neither the artist nor the record label is providing the music. However, even if the demos were obtained through legal means, I just don't see a reason to include them. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
The demos were obtained through legal means, but the people who leaked them to the Internet did so without authorization. Digitelle (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"The logo for The High End of Low appears to be based on the English logo for The Criterion Edition of the film Tengoku to jigoku, which translates to Heaven and Hell, a lyrical theme in "Four Rusted Horses". it also come with an image as well.
from The High end of Low article on MansonWiki (the marilyn manson wikipedia)
Can anyone verify this information?
--The Angriest Gamer you've Ever Heard 21:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm an admin there, and it's so clear that I don't get what you need verified.
Look at the logo of the album, and then look at the logo of High and Low. On the film cover, "And" is vertically placed before the bottom row, on the album "End" is vertically placed at the end of the top row. The top and bottom of the "O" is trimmed the same way as the High and Low cover, and the font used for the album is almost completely indistinguishable (with the exception of the "G" in "High").
Even though English pressings are called High and Low, Tengoku to jigoku more literally means "Heaven and Hell" in English. Heaven and Hell are lyrical themes in "Four Rusted Horses" ("You can't take this from me/Forbidden in Heaven and useless in Hell"). Digitelle (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
So would that make it acceptable for this article? --The Angriest Gamer you've Ever Heard 21:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure. Wikipedia has different rules and ideas of what's notable for an article, whereas we're not so strict with what deserves to be mentioned; as long as it's reasonable information. I'm going to upload a better comparison of the logos to MW though, so the similarities are more obvious. You could upload it here afterwards if you'd like. Digitelle (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
While I agree there are some obvious similarities, this will constitute as original research unless a reliable source is provided. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
No reason to use innaproperate language. I changed the header of this discussion. I hope it worked. 
Ivtv (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What do they mean by this? An explanation please? --The Angriest Gamer you've Ever Heard 22:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like things were written in a non-chronological order. Robert Berkshire (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Each little chunk of information on this page has a specific date creating more of a timeline of information instead of well written paragraphs. Not every detail needs a specific date. If you go to Wikipedia:Proseline, it gives a more extreme example of prose/timeline that does not quite mimic The High End of Low, however this article does have a very timeline feel when read – too many dates with not enough important information. This generally occurs with things like unreleased albums where small amounts of information are revealed at a time. The template is a notice to editors that feel like writing a proper article. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said in a previous edit summary, it doesn't matter to me what's in this article because my priorities with Manson and wikis really only lie in MansonWiki. But still I like to point stuff out here from time to time, so about the edit summary "ITunes also spells the song Get Your Gunn as get your gun. ItUnes can be wrong. Anyway it says Alternate version, so It must be talking about the song 15," what are you talking about? iTunes' deluxe track listing titles the song "Fifteen (Bonus Track)," not "Fifteen (Alternate Version)." If this article had a decent group maintaining it, they'd be enforcing verifiability, and because there's no confirmation that "Fifteen" is absolutely an alternate version of "15", you shouldn't be making it appear to be the same song. Digitelle (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Technically if you wanted to enforce wikipedia's policy on verification, you could not use iTunes as a source. Any online source has to be accessible  to all readers, so for example you cannot cite a website as a source if it requires a username and password. In this case, iTunes cannot be used because it requires the reader to have the iTunes program. Also because webstores are not considered reliable sources. What you can do is delete the bonus disc in its entirety, and request a proper source be provided. Then when it is re-posted, the information on wikipedia must directly reflect the source provided. That method generally ends all debate. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
If it doesn't matter to you what is in this article then why are you contributing to an edit war? I agree with user Fezmar9 however due to the discrepency between other users I will not revert Digitelle's edits. a viable source should populate eventually for the song in question.
Ivtv (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not contributing to an edit war, I was just tweaking KMFDM Fan's edits for accuracy purposes. If you're going to have information cited from iTunes (setting aside for the moment that it's an online retailer), might as well paraphrase it so as not to jump the gun. If you don't want this track listed then don't let me get in the way of trimming it out. I just think it's unreasonable to assume that by this bonus track iTunes "must be talking about the song 15" just because its called "Fifteen". Digitelle (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
It is unreasonable to assume that this track is not referring to the verfied track listing, yet it is reasonable to assume that what they are stating is correct with no viable source?(refer to wikipedia's policy on verificationWikipedia:Verifiability) This debate is redundent. The track should  be removed totally, not reverted to the confirmed LP track listing, until a source is available. I noticed that you mentioned the mansonwiki numerous times, just to clarify mansonwiki is not Wikipedia.
Ivtv (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

iTunes can fuck up. It said the song "Get Your Gunn" was spelt "Get your Gun." And anyway, Marilyn Manson is a smart man. He wouldn't be a big enough moron to make a song called "15" and then make a totally different song with absolutely no relation called "fifteen". plus, They can't be two other songs because who would someone differentiate between the two? "Do I wan to listen to Fifteen as written in letters, or 15 as written in numbers? It doesn't make sense. I'm changing it.--The Angriest Gamer you've Ever Heard 23:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I heard "Fifteen" is a 20-second long track, so I'm willing to bet it isn't a complete song. However, for the moment, I agree that it should be removed. Robert Berkshire (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Intresting. May I ask where you heard this? Just curious.
And btw, NO ONE ADDS FIFTEEN UNTIL WE HAVE A VALID SOURCE. STOP THE FUCKING EDIT WAR!
--The Angriest Gamer you've Ever Heard 00:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I retract my statement, we should add it. But I think we should find something on wikipedia that is added when we are unsure of a tittle. I'll start looking for something that fits that.--The Angriest Gamer you've Ever Heard 01:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I know MansonWiki's policies aren't the same as Wikipedia, I never said otherwise. The fact is somebody added the iTunes bonus track "Fifteen" to the track listing, then someone else came and changed it to "15", which is not correct judging from all that is currently known about the song (just the name, really), so I changed it back to read the way it does on the only source for the track's existence. Don't hassle me for making a damn correction. I told you to remove it if you prefer to wait for a more appropriate source (here is a non-account based website that reports the track, but again their source is iTunes so do what you will). Digitelle (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's please wait to get all the times for each track before adding them one by one? KK? :D--The Angriest Gamer you've Ever Heard 00:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Credits too.--The Angriest Gamer you've Ever Heard 00:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Mein Gott, people are doing this AGAIN? Robert Berkshire (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

With the recent banner added, pretty much stating that some parts of the article are written as if the album is out, and other parts as if it is expected to come out, I have token the liberty of editing some phrases, to word it as if the album has been released, with the release coming so soon, 

Ex: "The dog will go to the store" is now, "the dog went to the store".
Also, I can't help but feel that Marilyn Manson albums are somewhat neglected, let's compare Antichrist Superstar to Reign in Blood, The slayer album has an insane amount of information, covering what the songs mean, recording, reception, and where as ACSS only has basic info. Let's try again with GOAG and Kill 'Em All. Once again, the Manson article comes no where near to compare to the Metallica article. 

What I'm trying to say is that this album is shaping up to be fantastic, and I don't want to see it be just a basic article. I'll add as much as I can, but I need some help too. Any information you have to contribute would be fantastic! Okay? --The Angriest Gamer you've Ever Heard 20:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Uh. Sure. When more information is available. Robert Berkshire (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I would recommend starting something like what Seegoon is doing over at Talk:Wavering Radiant. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't this article already have that, even if it's in timeline mode? And even so, we know precious little about the album. Like I said before, let's be patient, and when interviews start pouring in . . . Robert Berkshire (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
What Seegoon is doing is collecting sources on the talk page to improve the Wavering Radiant article some day. He is also posting topics about the album for him or someone else to find – it can turn into a group effort. You could get a start on it now, and not actually edit The High End of Low article until enough sources are collected. Seegoon has been adding about one source to that list a week since March, but has not yet made any actual edits to Wavering Radiant. It was just a suggestion on how to get started... Fezmar9 (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

WTF? Does any body have any info for the delay of the Arma-Goddamn-Mother-Fuckin-Geddon video? --The Angriest Gamer you've Ever Heard 00:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
This better not end up like the Holy Wood book. D< Robert Berkshire (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Before an edit war begins, WHAT is the official title? I heard from MansonNews on Twitter a few days ago that it got changed to Pretty as a ($). But is it possible that this is just a censored title, like with Armageddon? What should be put in this article? Robert Berkshire (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Pretty as A Swastika. I guess it's called pretty as a ($) because people are probably offended. (even though the swastika isn't always associated with Nazism) However I don't get why they all chose to censor it as ($) so that makes me think it's not censorship cause asterisks work. So there may be a different reason. bottom line. the site says it's Pretty as a Swastika. --The Angriest Gamer you've Ever Heard 20:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
And one more thing, who is MansonNews? It could be just some guy trying to look like the ultimate manson fan, so he makes a bunch of stuff up. A lot of impersonation goes on the twitter sites. Up until recentley I realized I wasn't following the Real Andy Milonakis. --The Most Angry Pissed off Gaming Nerd 20:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Just make sure no original research gets posted in the article, only post what we know and can source and keep the speculations here on the talk page. Most sites have the song listed as "Pretty as a Swastika," but from what I have seen only iTunes posts it as "Pretty as a ($)." Allmusic, a website that gets its track listings directly from CD packages has the song "♠" listed as untitled or blank instead of just "Spade" under the listing for Golden Age of Grotesque. It is likely that perhaps iTunes is getting their track listing directly from The High End of Low's packaging, and on the case it is actually the swastika symbol. Maybe ($) is the closest thing to a swastika? We should just keep it as "Pretty as a Swastika" in the article, with a small note if need be, until we know more. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, the Billboard.com listing for Golden Age of Grotesque has "♠" labeled as "[Untranslated]". Fezmar9 (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
This may be a big stretch but perhaps the ($) ties into what I was saying earlier about the song being about Pogo's lawsuit involving Manson using band money (or $) for nazi paraphernalia. --The Most Angry Pissed off Gaming Nerd 20:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing, but I'm interested less now on the focus of the title so much as what the title really IS. And so far, MansonNews has been correct every time, including the announcement that Pretty As A Swastika would be renamed; that was announced about 2 weeks before we knew about it, supposedly in an email from Polydor; I believe this is Manson's record label in France, right? Anyways, the Twitter page in question: https://twitter.com/MansonNews  Robert Berkshire (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Just came to me. Isn't a dollar sign in a circle the logo on the podium from the pictures of the armageddon video shoot? The closest thing to a dollar sign in a circle is a ($)? I think the two are related. --The Most Angry Pissed off Gaming Nerd 01:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
That must have been mentioned a million times by now. Digitelle (talk) 04:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
symbolism is all. I really do not think Marilyn Manson can use a swastika on tour. I am assuming he wants too, but the record lable would have a brain hemmorage. So, in certain countries they changed the name to a $. and in the video he uses that sign. but it symbolizes a swastika. I thought this would be obvious.
Ivtv (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Manson can do anything he wants on tour. When the band plays "Antichrist Superstar" live, they use the "You might as well kill yourself, you are already dead" sample that Interscope pressured him not to use on the album version of the song (but is still apparent in the demo version). So on tour, he can do anything about the swastika he feels like. And you're speculating about the $ in "Arma-goddamn-motherfuckin-geddon"'s music video symbolizing a swastika already? Come on, the video isn't even out. Digitelle (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I know Manson is a Shock Rocker, but really, I do not think he would us a Swastika. Anyway Manson doesn't repeat himself. He's already used altered Nazi Symbolism for Golden Age. (the MM logo was an altered version of the Wolfinstein Symbol, and He also used a Nazi Death Skull with Mickey Mouse Ears.) Anyway, Those symbols were altered, and were only used because Golden age was based on Germany in the 20's and 30's. I really doubt Manson would use a flat-out swastika. (at least a Nazi one, there are other swastikas, but I still doubt he would use those two. i don't think he's singing about the Hindu symbol for peace.) It would just make it look like he's trying to get controversy. The Most Angry Pissed off Gaming Nerd 13:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
If it helps, I got my hands on the lyrics, although I'm unaware if these are the full lyrics, or all of what was heard in 1m 30s previews.
    When I see you in the sun you're as pretty as a swastika
    Take you down, down from the inside
    Take you down, down from the inside
    I want to smash into your face,
    like a plane,
    and drown in between your legs
    Take you down, down from the inside
    Take you down, down from the inside
    I'd die for your sins
    if you don't kill me while I'm trying, baby
    Let me show you where it hurts
    Let me show you where it hurts
    Let me show you where it hurts
    There's more than one way, to make you cry
    When I see you in the sun you're as pretty as a swastika
    When I see you in the sun you're as pretty as a swastika
    Take you down, down from the inside
    Take you down, down from the inside
    One of us is a knife
    One of us is ripe, baby
    Let me show you where it hurts

Perhaps this could help with the debate.
The Most Angry Pissed off Gaming Nerd 01:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

You lifted those from MansonWiki, they were transcribed by me. I don't see the point in your posting them though, they don't do anything to clarify the title of the song. The band's official website calls it "Pretty as a Swastika", while every retailer lists it as "Pretty as a ($)" (this is also what it goes by on the sticker tacked to copies shipped to independent record stores). And again, the speculation for how Manson will interpret swastika imagery on tour is unnecessary. He may not do it, but if he wants to, he could. It wouldn't be the first time; he's been known to use swastikas in paintings, some of which have been taken to exhibitions. Digitelle (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, a buddy emailed them to me, but he may have gotten them from mansonwiki. any  way I thought they might help. The Most Angry Pissed off Gaming Nerd 17:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I dunno, album scans are probably the only prime source for the title of the song. Unfortunately this track wasn't on either of the album promos, so I couldn't tell you what the proper name is. Minor detail but by the way, the lyrics definitely came from MW (note the five-point indentation above and here. Doesn't really matter, it's just something I wanted to clarify). Digitelle (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"Kerry King (of Slayer), James Iha (former guitarist of The Smashing Pumpkins), and Nick Zinner (of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs) were mentioned as likely contributors."
Did one or any of them actually contribute? If not we should say that they did or didn't end up contributing. --The Most Angry Pissed off Gaming Nerd 20:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

None are confirmed yet. Digitelle (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I suppose when The album comes out we can read the booklet. --The Most Angry Pissed off Gaming Nerd 21:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
And if the booklet says nothing? Robert Berkshire (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Then Manson is a jerk for not giving credit. --The Most Angry Pissed off Gaming Nerd 01:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh, if you meant if the booklet doesn't say any of those three names, then we will make the point of stating that they did not end up contributing. Anyway I think Slayer is making a new album so Kerry King may be ruled out. The Most Angry Pissed off Gaming Nerd 01:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it's safe to say that James Iha isn't contributing either: http://hipstersunited.com/blog/archives/2008/05/kerrang-loudly-repeats-iha-manson-collaboration-rumor.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.74.180.25 (talk) 10:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The album infobox is only intended to have one release date. A separate release history section is to be made in cases where there are many release dates. See WP:ALBUM#Release history for more information on how to do this. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

THAT TOOK ME 20 MINUTES!!! I'm just playing. But there are multiple release dates according to what I heard.
Japan-May 19th
Germany and Australia-May 22nd
UK and France-May 25th
North America-May 26th
I thought I would do the same thing that was done on GOAG. The Most Angry Pissed off Gaming Nerd 00:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
What was done to Golden Age of Grotesque is not a good method to follow, and I will probably remove that after this comment. Only one release date is permitted in the infobox, and those flags are being used for decoration which is also not permitted. You can familiarize yourself with the use of icons, and specifically flag icons, if you want at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons). Fezmar9 (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
What I saw on GOAG looked like a good idea, but I guess I don't know all the rules. So the release date in the infobox is always the earliest? The Most Angry Pissed off Gaming Nerd 00:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't blame you for thinking that was a good idea, I think I did the same thing a few years back when I first started editing. The date in the infobox should be the earliest known (legal) release date for any country. It is not intended to be specific to the US. All other release dates and labels can be posted in the form of a table somewhere else in the page. WP:ALBUM#Release history will show you a basic format of making one, but you can see actual tables on Slipknot (album) and Shallow Life. If you want to start one, just fill in what you know and leave what you don't know blank or use "???". Fezmar9 (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess we'll be needing one of these later. The Most Angry Pissed off Gaming Nerd 01:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Done! The Most Angry Pissed off Gaming Nerd 14:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverted this from the main page. If you want this to become a good article, you're going to need to do the release history the way WikiProject Music says. Digitelle (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Just curious, is there any specific reason why the table is in that format? Fezmar9 (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

My table? Well, I didn't know how to make the one that is on the article now, and I thought It wouldn't matter what the table looked like as long if it was easy to read and gives the right info. The Most Angry Pissed off Gaming Nerd 19:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
It was just kind of an older bulky version with a lot of unnecessary format code. Does the dash indicate you do not now the catalog number? Fezmar9 (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh you meant the table on the Main Page? That's not mine. But I'm pretty sure that is what the dash means. The Most Angry Pissed off Gaming Nerd 19:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1670076655?bctid=23158783001
Here is the new Manson video. Therefore, we can remove any notes of the video waiting to be released on the article.
--The Most Angry Pissed off Gaming Nerd 19:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Already, two ratings have popped up that I don't recognize. I can't find a source, either. Anyone mind pointing to, say, the Rolling Stone review? Robert Berkshire (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm keeping a close eye on AllMusic for one, mainly because AllMusic is the one i trust the most. I'll be sure to post when they make one. The Most Angry Pissed off Gaming Nerd 00:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I addded a cite note () to both the revolver and RS reviews. --The Most Angry Pissed off Gaming Nerd 00:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Both reviews are taken from their latest respective issues; neither have been posted online yet. Digitelle (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, You can still cite magazines. Just put something like "Blank Magazine. May 2009 Issue. Page 25" I've seen people do that before. --The Most Angry Pissed off Gaming Nerd 00:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop posting that the album was leaked online May 20th. It's not necessary to add.KMFDM FAN (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well technically it leaked on May 19 from somebody with a copy of the Japanese pressing that went on stock only a few hours later. But anyways, to be more specific on why this shouldn't be added, see WP:LEAK. Digitelle (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
100% agreed, even without looking at WP:LEAK. Why would we encourage/advertise  stealing from artists? That fact alone is suffice in not noting any leak date. Period. Unless of course it gets huge media attention for whatever reason.Which this is clearly not.
Ivtv (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I should read WP:LEAK shouldn't I? Robert Berkshire (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyway it's 2009. Come on,  Album leaks happen all the time. No one cares. KMFDM FAN (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
It is always encouraged to read any applicable information in regards to the rules governing wikipedia. Second, ignorance is not innocence. Stealing is stealing.
Ivtv (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe a short note should be made regarding the album's late leak date. It's quite the rarity nowadays for an album to "leak" only when it's actually been released in a particular territory. Not even Metallica with all their heightened security could manage that. Someone should find a source where Manson or someone close to the band discusses this and incorporate it into the article. I think it's pretty damn noteworthy - and a simple mention of how someone managed to not have it leak could hardly be considered as "encouraging" people to steal. 89.100.53.137 (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been reading a lot of blogs about the similarity between The Wow's drum beat and Closer's opening drum beat. Some have been even gone as far as calling it plagiarism.  Should there be mention of this in the article? KMFDM FAN (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

On this note, when Year Zero came out in 2007 everybody pointed out the similarities between "The Beginning of the End" and "Mister Superstar", but sonic similarities aren't notable. Maybe if a credible source points this out, but even then.. Digitelle (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, my first thought was "Are they trying to hide the drums in there?" Mention it if you want, but yes, find a credible source. Robert Berkshire (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
NIN and Manson seems to have a lot of similarity. Compare the drums in a Manson Song "Insect Pins" (an old one) to "Everyday is exactly the Same" Perhaps it's not worth noting. KMFDM FAN (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Let us not forget that for a very long time Marilyn Manson and Trent Reznor were friends and worked with each other on songs and records. There are bound to be similarities when you have two bands that have been frequent contributors to each others music. Leviathanlover (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Just recieved an Email from the site today that said there is a hot topic version of the album that comes with a seven inch with an exclusive slipknot remix. Haven't seen anything on here about it and it did not specify a track title. Anyone heard about this? Leviathanlover (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The Slipknot remix can be found on the Arma-Goddamn-Mother-Fuckin-Geddon single as well. They're probably using that one. KMFDM FAN (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

ultratop is the page of the oficial belgium album charts, and the position that the album pick is 17, i'm going to put the reference of the page beside the position, so you can check out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digimortal (talk • contribs) 14:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC) 

I've taken the liberty of editing these slightly. I have removed the Sputnik Music review as it was a user review not a staff review. Wikiproject Albums guidelines are quite clear that Sputnik Music reviews may only be included where they are staff reviews, see WP:ALBUM#Review_sites. I also removed the Scotland on Sunday review as I do not consider it particularly notalbe - given only ten reviews should be included (see WP:ALBUM#Professional_reviews) and this is a widely reviewed album, the ten reviews should be from more notable sources.
Wikiprojects Albums guidelines states "When choosing which reviews to include, consider the notability of the review source and keeping a neutral point of view" - as such I have added The Guardian review and the PopMatters review - these have more notability than the Scotland on Sunday review and give the section more balance by reflecting a more mixed reception to the album. Peteds (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds logical to me. Thanks for contributing! Fezmar9 (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Twiggy Ramirez may appear on the credits of the album, but the wikipedia page uses Jeordie White.  Twiggy is unclear and could be mistaken for Twiggy by the unfamiliar (remember that wikipedia has a global audience who may not be familiar with Manson's band and members).  We follow wikipedia's manual of style, not the album credits.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I did write a brief summary of the reviews, but can't claim to have read them and committed them to memory.  Writing a summary is inherently original research-ish, and I'm not too attached to it so if anyone wants to have a crack at re-writing or even deleting it, have at thee.  If re-summarized, the only point I consider essential is that they were mixed.  The comparison to other albums was mentioned in two reviews, as was the "Manson is better writing about his feelings than being a shock-rocker", so those are dubious but defensible.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 05:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic verifies the genres of industrial, alternative and heavy metal.  Other genres can be added or adjusted based on sources, but should not be changed just because people disagree.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Reviewers at Allmusic are hardly the definitive source on genre specification. Regardless of whether I personally disagree or not, you'd have to be a fool to consider THEOL "heavy metal" - because Megadeth it certainly is not. Change it to Alternative rock and get it the hell over with. Homeostasis07 (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Would someone mind explaining why they've "taken the liberty" of practically wiping the entire production and background section? I'm aware that section of the article had some problems with prose, but that was hardly an excuse to wipe the whole thing and replace it with a tiny 4-sentence paragraph. That edit should be reverted. Homeostasis07 (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

On the singles section, it states We're From America was the first single off the album. But at the top, it says that Armageddon was the first (and the link leads to the wrong page anyway). Was We're From America released as a single but not on the radio or was just some really big screwup? I don't know the facts for sure so I can't change it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obamamaniac (talk • contribs) 03:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC) 

Can you guys please stop using Mansonwiki, The Nachtkabarett and Marilynmansonimages as direct sources. Wikipedia does not recognize them as proper sources. This page will continue to go nowhere if you people keep doing so. Also, learn to use wikipedia's cite web, journal, news, etc. templates. 
Anyone interested in actually doing this right, here are a couple of very good references to cite or use as a guide:

Provider Module interview archive during the HEOL era
News on Marilyn Manson's activities from ACSS to present, compiled by VH1. You can directly cite these.
Fans React To Marilyn Manson's Dance-Punky New Song "We're From America"
Marilyn Manson premieres new video
Marilyn Manson to host Halloween party in LA
Marilyn Manson names new album
-Red marquis (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be an Old English linguistics bitch, but the etymology given for 'wight' in the section talking about the meaning of the track 'wight spider' is a bit off: it originally meant 'man' or 'person', and has been used more recently as a (broadly interpreted) synonym of ghoul. Given that it's likely to only be the current meaning under consideration in the choosing of a title, it seems to me pointless to have the (inaccurate) etymological history of the word 'wight' in the article.
I am minded to remove that section (and replace it w/ summat like 'A wight is a rarely-used english word meaning ghoul or wraith') unless anyone has any serious objections.
In addition, the whole of the paragraph that this is in seems to violate neutrality, apparently giving an individual's opinion of the track (eg. 'One of the most enthralling tracks on "The High End of Low" simultaneously serves as one of the most laden with multi-faceted imagery'). It seems to me more in keeping with wiki style guidelines to change it to summat like 'Wight Spider has a number of different layers of meaning'.
Finally, the only source cited in that paragraph is one that wiki does not consider valid.
Sorry to be a bitch, guys.
Thedisillusionedyouth (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The High End of Low/CommentsTalk:The High End of Low/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 00:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC).
Substituted at 08:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The High End of Low/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 14:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Is it reasonably well written? 
"Chris Vrenna (Nine Inch Nails) and Rob Holliday (The Prodigy)" - Do you think it's necessary to specify their other bands in brackets? Looks a bit superfluous to me. Maybe it would look better if you specified these bands in prose rather than brackets, as seems to be the style in the next two sentences.
Removed.
'Manson's fantasies about "smashing [Woods'] skull in with a sledgehammer."' - can you expand on this at all? That's a pretty provocative statement and it makes me want to know more about the situation.
I've elaborated on how that song is inspired by their breakup.
As a fiercely pro-choice person I personally approve of your piping of 'anti-abortion rhetoric' to 'anti-abortion movement', but in the interest of neutrality I will mention that it very likely would be considered biased. I'll leave it up to you but I wouldn't be surprised if this is challenged in the future.
Changed to "such as pro-war and anti-abortion rhetoric." I think I piped anti-abortion rhetoric like that because of the link to pro-war rhetoric. Or would it be better to change this to "...  referencing various aspects of neoconservatism in its lyrics, such as pro-war rhetoric and anti-abortion policies"?
That suggested wording does sound better. Freikorp (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Should Artists and repertoire be abbreviated? Why not just mention the full title?
Done.
"anybody's [sic]" - assuming that's a typo from Rolling Stone rather than Twiggy (I presume Rolling Stone conducted a verbal interview and then transcribed it) I think you should just type it up correctly.
Done.
"much [the soon-to-be-murdered-in-their-home press] believe in their freedom of speech" - once I read the original source I could see how this bracketed statement makes sense, but just reading it on its own is confusing. I'm not sure if there's much you can do about that, I just thought I should mention it.
I removed the part in brackets, and rephrased the whole thing slightly.
"week figure since live album" - I think you could use a 'the' in between 'since' and 'live'
Done.
Can you link to an archived snapshot of the official website in the external links section?
It was a flash-based website, so archive.org couldn't properly copy it. And the only archive.is save is just a redirect to Universal Music's webpage. So I've had to remove it altogether.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable? 
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 
B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 
C. No original research: 
Is it broad in its coverage? 
A. Major aspects: 
The lead mentioned multiple editions of the record being released. While this is clearly the case as indicated by the track listing section, I was expecting to see further coverage of it in the prose. Can you find anyone commenting on these multiple releases?
I've had a look around, but couldn't find anything. Should I remove that sentence from the lead? I remember putting that there as filler anyway, because that first paragraph of the lead looked a bit lop-sided with just 3 sentences. I'm sure I'd be able to remove it and fill it back out again with something sourced.
No if you can't find anything that's fine. Freikorp (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
B. Focused: 
Is it neutral? 
Fair representation without bias: 
Is it stable? 
No edit wars, etc: 
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic? 
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Overall:
Pass or Fail: Very impressive work. Looking forward to passing this once minor issues have been addressed. Freikorp (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Happy for this to pass now. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)