i always enjoyed the days of when it was the spin way of thinking and the rolling stone way of thinking about music. to each their own and all that. i got a free subscription to rolling stone after buying tickets on ticketmaster recently. it seems to have changed in nature and slighted view. has spin remained the same because i never bother to read spin?
i've had free a free subscription to spin for some time now, as well as RS, both b/c of free offers that came with ticket purchases. actually, i think i'm now out of the "free offer" period for spin and they just keep sending it to me.
RS has had an evolution over the years because there has been some amount of substance to what they write - so there has been something to evolve. you can disagree with what they write but you can't deny that they have some good writers on staff who try, however meekly, to get beyond the surface of a story. then they have rabid left-wingers like taibbi who takes his watchdog role way too seriously (he does come up with
some gems, tho). a problem they have is that they have become an institution, they are the status quo of rock journalism.
spin, as far as i can tell, makes no allusions about depth. they are the teenbeat/tiger magazine of music journalism. they report whatever the industry & its marketing machines gives them to report. nothing jarring, no negative lead stories, no horrible reviews. it can be a decent source of information on upcoming albums and shows, and i get some entertainment out of the interviews with artists, but it's pure cotton candy. every now and then they try running something beyond the marketing hype - "the problem with the music industry today" or "why does <insert city name here> have such a vibrant music scene?" - and invariably fall flat.
has spin changes over the years? i've only been reading it for 3 or 4 years, and from what i remember it's always been about the same... not that i've been paying close attention. hasn't been much substance to pay close attention to.
