Spin Magazine continues pathetic slide into utter mediocrity.
April 26, 2002 12:29 PM   Subscribe

Spin Magazine continues pathetic slide into utter mediocrity. Our Top 40 may not move as many units as 'N Sync once did, but then again, neither does 'N Sync. And by highlighting such unknown, airplay-deprived and impoverished artists as Jay-Z, U2, Linkin Park and Creed, Spin proves just how far they've sunk. Hey, Spin? Your cred called to laugh at you.
posted by solistrato (29 comments total)
 
Worthless. Has Spin ever been cool? I seem to remember them as always just wanting to be Rolling Stone. Uggh.
posted by elvissinatra at 12:44 PM on April 26, 2002


Incubus looks a lot like moby.
posted by phatboy at 12:52 PM on April 26, 2002


"You can say what you want about this band, but it's undeniable," says Creed lead singer Scott Stapp. "It's very similar to Led Zeppelin..."


i can't belive he just said that.
posted by Qambient at 12:53 PM on April 26, 2002


This is pretty cool, but it kinda sucks that many of the indie, unknown bands I love (U2, Eminem, Radiohead) are going to get all popular now that they've hit the Spin Top 40.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 12:54 PM on April 26, 2002


Amazingly enough, some of us actually like this kind of music that Spin publishes, God forbid. I guess that makes me a loser or something, though
posted by jmd82 at 12:54 PM on April 26, 2002


Blink182 looks a lot like Missy Elliot
posted by gen at 1:05 PM on April 26, 2002


I guess that makes me a loser or something, though

Don't be so hard on yourself. I used to like Phil Collins. We all make mistakes.
posted by solistrato at 1:06 PM on April 26, 2002


fugazi looks a lot like weezer.
posted by witchstone at 1:08 PM on April 26, 2002


Apparently their cred *and* the site QA cops will be calling them.
posted by brand-gnu at 1:09 PM on April 26, 2002


Jmd82, the issue isn't about whether you like that kind of music or not. Millions of people do. The issue is whether those 40 artists actually "play by their own rules and speak in their own codes" and make "some of the freshest, most challenging music of the past few years." I would think that even their fans would be hard pressed to find anything fresh or challenging about U2, Bob Dylan, Dave Matthews, Creed, or No Doubt. Fresh? Challenging? Come on!

Those groups are just not "today's most fascinating and amazing artists."
posted by elvissinatra at 1:24 PM on April 26, 2002


I can't believe that Dashboard Confessional made it on the list (even if it was the 40th). How can anyone listen to that shlock and put it on the same list with the likes of Bjork and Fugazi ( The only two worthwile artists on that list).

The dude (Dashboard Confessional is just one guy) is 28 years old, and writes songs as if he was about 14. It's really disturbing that he's popular now.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:34 PM on April 26, 2002


Look, another Mefi thread where we can belittle the popular music that the masses actually like! Is it Friday already?
posted by owillis at 1:39 PM on April 26, 2002


"play by their own rules and speak in their own codes"
What exactly does this mean??? In the first place, these top-40 lists are a complete and total waste of time and effort because as i would hope the masses would agree, what makes music is very subjective. I love my Linkin Park and Disturbed, but i can't stand Fugazi and/or Bjork (and, yes, I listened to their music multiple times), and yet I don't know how other bands like Creed who have maybe 2 good radio songs per albumn (of course, many people will think they have no good songs, or all their songs are good, which further shows how there is no real way to say the top 40 whatever) May seem lame, but i always take these "top whatever" lists to mean the top is what's the most popular or what the average joe would consider "great"...Well, if there's any conselation, at least they left BSB & Britney Spears off the list...
posted by jmd82 at 1:52 PM on April 26, 2002


Oliver's just mad because Britney hasn't called back yet.

Echoing what elvissinatra said. It's not the choice of bands that I have a problem with, necessarily. They're popular. And hey, I happen to like Radiohead, Bjork, the White Stripes, Sigur Ros and DJ Shadow. True, Creed has earned its spot in Hell, but in spectacularly crappy fashion, so they're entertaining me with their stupidity as they annoy me with their "music."

But it's the notion that these artists are in any way a) challenging and b) struggling to be heard. Like N'Sync is really keeping Missy Elliott of the radio. Like U2 hasn't had a bazillion blowjobs from the press over their thoroughly mediocre album Hell, like U2 isn't getting bum-kissing praise from Spin, a magazine that made a cottage industry out of mocking them in the 1980's and 1990's.

And that's really where I'm going with this: Spin was founded to be an alternative to Rolling Stone, and actually got behind bands and movements that no mainstream music magazine would go near at the time. So to see Spin snark on RS for putting Britney on the cover, while Spin devotes a cover story to Creed, is just sad evidence as to how a magazine becomes just another fashion rag.
posted by solistrato at 1:58 PM on April 26, 2002


And Spin's last cover had Pink on it! How can you rip RS for Britney and then come back with Pink?!
posted by LionIndex at 2:07 PM on April 26, 2002


owillis you said it - popular bands.

No one needs this list, because the payola radio crapola is already promoting them, save fugazi, from coast to coast. Spin, Rolling Stone, et al cannot start naming bands that don't get some radio play or bands that play only 21 and over shows on a once an album tour, if they ever tour outside of their home scene. What this does it try to push another "cool" image. Suburban rockers are coddled to believe that clear channel-type stations are truly hip and promoting struggling and original artists.

Not to get into a conspiracy theory here but by contrast indie stations, college stations, internet radio, et al are devalued as true promoters of artists struggling to be heard because commercial radio and stadium tours are, according to Spin, where its at.
posted by skallas at 2:13 PM on April 26, 2002


I'm just waiting for Nickelback to get their Spin cover now.
posted by solistrato at 2:24 PM on April 26, 2002


Alternative press did an issue not too long ago (sorry don't only the preview is online) that presented 100 bands or so to be on the look out for. Some of this was stuff like Dashboard Confessionals, AFI and other fairly well publisized bands, but there were also some really good/far less known bands like Panthers (from brooklyn), the Locust, and lots of stuff I'd never heard of. I recommend it to most of you who are not enjoying this spin list.
posted by m@L at 2:39 PM on April 26, 2002


Suburban rockers are coddled to believe that clear channel-type stations are truly hip and promoting struggling and original artists.

Does it matter? Does it really matter? 99% of those "struggling" acts is just waiting in the wings to become a "big time rock star" anyhow - I can never understand how the same exact singer is regarded differently because he/she has a contract, as if being a poor (financially) singer somehow makes 'em better.

Anywho, trust me, Britney called.
posted by owillis at 2:40 PM on April 26, 2002


i can't belive he just said that.
why? because he's young? while it's possible he was conceived to the strains of led zep, it's unlikely he actually knows anything about led zep.
speaking of which, i saw this incredibly contrived VH1 show the other day that referred to early Robert Plant and Roger Daltrey as "The Blonde Jesus Rock Star Archetypes".
hey, hey, mama...
posted by quonsar at 3:40 PM on April 26, 2002


Does it matter? Does it really matter?

Depends on the person. Some people don't care if the media is limiting their options because its easier to make a buck off of a handful of selected overly-hyped bands compared to actually providing quality or to be objective - variety.

I think it definitely matters in the scope of this article though. They mock N'Sync and by proxy the very same top-40 system that produced the acts they list. Why isn't N'Sync on that list? Probably because Spin's buying demographic isn't mostly pre-teen girls.

I can never understand how the same exact singer is regarded differently because he/she has a contract, as if being a poor (financially) singer somehow makes 'em better.

Its about variety. The top-40 machine only promotes a handful of artists. The local "alternative" station may showcase 10-12 different artists with the same 20 songs on rotation for a year, but the local college station will play ten or twenty times that many. More acts on the radio means you get exposed to more music. The more you know the better.

I think a lot of people, even the suburban rockers I slammed, were blown away by napster, not because they could burn CDs but because they could finally hear the inaccessible music they've heard us 'snobs' talking about.

Simple put more is better and Spin has an vested interest in staying within the profitable top-40 system. This article reflects this and artficially divides the system by choosing a scapegoat to represent bad music, N'Sync in this case, when some/most of the artists listed are really no better.

As far as the "why are the poor/indie bands so good and the wealthy ones arent" argument goes; well its not true. There are simply more indie and unsigned bands out there and thus a better chance of hearing something you may really like. Big label acts aren't necessarily bad, hell I love Radiohead, but the big label machine is notorious for taking good bands (that is if they aren't just manufacturing them a la Spice Girls, Backstreet Boys, etc) and matching them up with ultra-cool-producers and market savy managers who greatly influence what the end product becomes.
posted by skallas at 3:43 PM on April 26, 2002




It's all about intelegence.

Smart people get annoyed with the "same old crap". Well, it might not actualy be intelegence, could be some other attribute, but people who like to say that they are smart like to act like they have it.

Some music is just boring. Creed is terrible, Linkin park is OK, but really they're just a boy band with instruments and a 'hard core' outlook.

Some of the stuff on the SPIN site wasn't bad. Radiohead, U2, Weazer, The strokes, OutKast, etc. And a little bit sucked (jay-z, creed). The fact that something is popular dosn't mean it's "bad".


Btw, w.r.t Creed, I think the analogy to led zeplin was that led zeplin was never popular with the critics, but was with the fans. So it might have been a resonable thing for someone other then the lead singer to say, out of his mouth it was just incredibly arrogant.
posted by delmoi at 4:11 PM on April 26, 2002


I can't believe that Dashboard Confessional made it on the list (even if it was the 40th). How can anyone listen to that shlock and put it on the same list with the likes of Bjork and Fugazi ( The only two worthwile artists on that list).

i had never heard of DC until a couple months ago, when amazon.com sent me an email about checking them/him out (i think i had bought a getup kids cd from them once.). i listened to the first song, and moved on. i recently saw a video of that song (screaming infidelities) on mtv, and found it got stuck in my head. i got the cd the next day. i haven't memorized the words that fast to nearly every song, ridiculously sang along with so much passion with nearly every song, or liked nearly every song on a cd like i did with this one, in a LOOOONNNG time. probably even years. i hear he's getting popular now.. good for him. even if his newer songs start sucking, i still have his first two full albums...

i've probably voiced my immaturity instead of experience... oh well.. if it's worth anything, i still dislike most of the artists on spin's list, as well as spin...
posted by lotsofno at 5:21 PM on April 26, 2002


Spin used to be amazingly cool.

but just like most great things in music, i liked their earlier stuff.
posted by tsarfan at 6:00 PM on April 26, 2002


Street cred? The first ever Spin cover featured MADONNA, for god's sake.
posted by litlnemo at 6:27 PM on April 26, 2002


Does any of us have any business talking about street cred?

Lately, when I'm fed up with the crap being force-fed to listeners on the radio, I tune in an independent radio station like Radio Pig in Memphis. Those of us who live plugged in to the Internet aren't limited to payola radio.
posted by rcade at 9:25 PM on April 26, 2002


bloods, spin has never had any scene cred.
posted by Dom at 9:57 PM on April 26, 2002


Madonna? God's sake? nyuk nyuk nyuk.
posted by ODiV at 9:58 PM on April 26, 2002


« Older Squirrels Invade Stanford!!!!!   |   South Koreans replace Coke with dog meat juice at... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments