Ten Reasons I Subscribe To SPIN Magazine

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (37 of them)

I didn't read the jane's addiction oral history, but I remember liking the beasties one a few years back. didn't details (waaaay back in the day, under john leland maybe) do an oral history of a scene/happening/whatevah every month? anyhow spin's problems now (besides their actual problem - not enough good writers) is they're chasing too many chickens at once - blender, rolling stone, the would-be spin's nipping at their heels (magnet, alternative press), the mtv2 viewership, tne alt-rock radio listenership, their own ghosts, the next thing - and not coming close to catching any. even rolling stone seems surer of what it is and wants to be (the mtv cousin to us weekly's e), spin's floundering in search of a tone and a reason to be. even the good ideas they have (the last page tour stories cartoon) somehow aren't as executed as well as they could be.

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Thursday, 31 July 2003 18:24 (twenty years ago) link

Reading a decade of SPIN in the last month has told me SPIN is always what it was (except after Greer and Blackwell left there were more big words in it - which isn't entirely a bad thing - and it's shinier now). I, the guy who started reading it when he was 13 and stopped subscribing around 23, was the one who probably changed the most.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Thursday, 31 July 2003 18:30 (twenty years ago) link

They have at least one great writer at their disposal: Charles Aaron. But they never fucking use the guy, and when they do, it reads like he's being kept on a very short leash. Why don't they let this guy take over the thing instead of Klosterman? Seems to me that if Aaron had the rains, they wouldn't have too much trouble finding a tone, except then maybe they'd have to put black people on the cover every once in a while.

― Tom Breihan (Tom Breihan), Thursday, 31 July 2003 18:30 (twenty years ago) link

I remember hirschorn (sic) talking about how he wanted to shift spin's focus toward more youth culture at large, more pop culture less pop music (they even had tad friend briefly). after he got canned it's always felt like it's been on a long term interim basis - under alan light it always felt like it was just trying to ride out the pop storm until alt-rock came back (80s spin woulda written about xtina, 90s spin just made fun of her makeup), under sia michel there's even less vision, unless you count hiring klosterman.

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Thursday, 31 July 2003 18:32 (twenty years ago) link

I don't know ant - I think of 80s spin - the legs mcneil stuff, the focus on 'underground' music (I think that was the name of the column) that rolling stone wasn't even mentioning in passing, the focus on obvious music (debbie gibson features) that rolling stone wouldn't touch. alot of it's passage of time (ie I'm not 13 anymore but also nowadays every national music mag - and there's more now - is writing about hip-hop, dance music, etc.)(rolling stone in the 80s was still all about boomers - I remember being sooo happy the times a non-60s artist actually made the cover), plus the internet makes alot of what made spin great to me when I was 13 (ie where else was I gonna read about gg allin, see a rock critic acknowledge salt n pepa's greatness, see a byron coley byline period) irrelevant now - I guarantee you there are 13 year olds out there reading simon reynold's blog or phillip sherburne's column or the voice music section. in 1985 rolling stone puts madonna on the cover cuz she's really famous, spin puts her on the cover cuz they 'get' her; nowadays everyone gets madonna.

― nnnh oh oh nnnh nnnh oh (James Blount), Thursday, 31 July 2003 18:41 (twenty years ago) link

seven years pass...

For those interested, you can subscribe for just $5 for a year:

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/9v6Xlf/w1.buysub.com/servlet/OrdersGateway?cds_mag_code=SPM&cds_page_id=87872

― NYCNative, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 23:26 (thirteen years ago) link

reading Spin is so depressing ...

― David Allah Coal (sexyDancer), Tuesday, 1 March 2011 23:30 (thirteen years ago) link

it's like ad, ad, ad, article, tiny reviews, tiny reviews, collage of tiny pictures, ad, ad, fin.

― kelpolaris, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 23:50 (thirteen years ago) link

but i might actually just take that sub up. i'm still fond of the ~print medium~ no matter how absolutely out of fucking touch spin is when it insists that it's still culturally relevant

― kelpolaris, Tuesday, 1 March 2011 23:51 (thirteen years ago) link

spin releasing all their back issues on google for free was great.

― Mr. Snrub, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 02:26 (thirteen years ago) link

i had a Spin subscription for about a year that must've ran out a couple months ago because it didn't occur to me until i clicked on this thread that i haven't gotten a new issue in a while. i should re-subscribe, i was enjoying it!

― some dude, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 02:54 (thirteen years ago) link

explain.............why

― kelpolaris, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 04:38 (thirteen years ago) link

Its not as awful as everyone wants to make it out to be. I like it because sometimes it gathers up the stuff that falls in the gap between "too indie for Rolling Stone" but "too mainstream for Pitchfork". Some of the features are worth reading too.

― rendezvous then i'm through with HOOS (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Wednesday, 2 March 2011 04:47 (thirteen years ago) link

yeah pretty much every recent issue i've gotten has at least one or two really worthwhile features. good lengthy profiles with bigger acts are still one thing the mags do best that the internet hasn't totally supplanted.

― some dude, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 04:50 (thirteen years ago) link

^agree w/ both. but on the back-issue thing, it infuriates me that the magazine has condensed into so little... pages would go on into the 200's in the late 90's, issues today are nary close to 76. I mean, obv. I realize the impact internet has made upon magazine. But it hasn't stopped Wired. Hasn't stopped the Economist. I would hope that Spin follows their leads by being the source for big, long features that one wouldn't have the tolerance for scrolling again and again online.

But, it's like, I read the magazine and there's the celebrity playlist, and then theres a 4 pages consisting of only a blown-up picture, and then a "whats in your room" profile. i mean, come on. bands come and go so fast in this ~modern era~ that the notion of celebrity - do i care what, for ex, james blake has next to his bed?? - is one i care little for in the musical realm.

― kelpolaris, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 07:06 (thirteen years ago) link

the "what's in your room" thing is cool imo, thurston moore and ozzy osbourne have a lot of interesting random stuff around their houses!

― some dude, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 12:23 (thirteen years ago) link

ha i guess those would be p interesting. but the last issue i got featured rilo kiley & her boyfriend's room... who were so utterly hop and boring i wanted to cry.

― kelpolaris, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 13:13 (thirteen years ago) link

yeah it definitely is someone boring like that about half the time

― some dude, Wednesday, 2 March 2011 14:03 (thirteen years ago) link

one year passes...

i got my first issue yesterday! exciting. not sure if azaelia banks was born when my last sub to spin ran out.

― tylerw, Wednesday, 15 August 2012 17:29 (eleven years ago) link

nine years pass...

https://www.gofundme.com/f/tuawbp-charles-aaron-cancer-treatment-fund?

― an icon of a worried-looking, long-haired, bespectacled man (C. Grisso/McCain), Thursday, 4 August 2022 22:48 (one year ago) link

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.