The Spin Doctors

"Spin." Don't know why I get it, but I do. I've tried to right for it in the past, but have had no luck. I would try to write reviews breaking in new music, figuring I would have a better chance getting new music covered there than in "Rolling Stone," which I also get for some reason.

"Spin" has never published one of my pieces, though. Ever. One of the last ones I submitted was a few years back and it was for King Kahn and His Shrines' "Three Hairs and You're Mine" on Voodoo Rhythm. It was great Screamin' Jay Hawkins-like music, which, as many of you know, isn't being done these days. "Spin," a magazine that prides itself on exposing readers to new music, turned it down.

I wasn't too upset, though. I didn't really expect "Spin" to publish the review because it only really covers bands that have been floating around underground for years anyway. In other words, by the time it reaches "Spin" it's old news.

Flash forward to the 2/09 issue of the magazine and it's "Big in '09" feature. Page 59. The King Kahn and BBQ Show. Apparently, back when I first tried to expose "Spin" readers to the awesome power of King Kahn, that wasn't good enough. Now, however, years later "Spin" thinks it's time.

Is it any wonder I have no respect for the cutting-edge music magazine?

How can readers trust "Spin" to say music is worth listening to when it is years behind the curve? I'm not musical guru, but I can tell when something is worth watching out for. Ten plus years in music journalism taught me that. "Spin," on the other hand, has a lot left to learn ... but at least it's still light years ahead of "Rolling Stone." That magazine thinks Bruce Springsteen is still relevant.

No comments: