Pink to replace Yeah Yeah Yeah's spin cover, under new management

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

not that spin has been all that great latey, but this surely marks the beginning of the end

― pink, Friday, 3 March 2006 17:11 (nineteen years ago)

I am more than fine with this decision.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 3 March 2006 17:12 (nineteen years ago)

I would think that a large part of the reason SPIN was doing so badly was the insistence that the Yeah Yeah Yeahs were popular enough to be a cover story in a ridiculously competitive newstand market!

― Matthew C Perpetua (inca), Friday, 3 March 2006 17:18 (nineteen years ago)

i guess ILX thinks Pink is the way to go!

― hmmmmmmmm, Friday, 3 March 2006 17:20 (nineteen years ago)

http://i7.ebayimg.com/01/i/06/05/94/9f_1.JPG

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 3 March 2006 17:21 (nineteen years ago)

so when does pink 'dj' misshapes

― maura (maura), Friday, 3 March 2006 17:24 (nineteen years ago)

that madonna issue from '95 is the best she ever looked

― Autonomous University of Zacatecas (Jody Beth Rosen), Friday, 3 March 2006 17:25 (nineteen years ago)

both have had spin covers before

― Zwan (miccio), Friday, 3 March 2006 17:31 (nineteen years ago)

both suck

― billstevejim (billstevejim), Friday, 3 March 2006 17:33 (nineteen years ago)

that madonna issue from '95 is the best she ever looked

Agreed.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 3 March 2006 17:41 (nineteen years ago)

Absolutely, Pink over the Yeah Yeah Yeahs any fucking day, at least if you're looking to sell copies of your magazine.

― pdf (Phil Freeman), Friday, 3 March 2006 18:00 (nineteen years ago)

With drastic content changes like this I am going to subscribe for another 3 years. Does anyone have $14.50 I can borrower?

― harshaw (jube), Friday, 3 March 2006 20:45 (nineteen years ago)

I would think that a large part of the reason SPIN was doing so badly was the insistence that the Yeah Yeah Yeahs were popular enough to be a cover story in a ridiculously competitive newstand market!

I think it's more like they were trying to carve out a niche as the magazine that covers the Yeah Yeah Yeahs (and Interpol, and My Chemical Romance), which is not unlike covering the Cure in 1985-7.

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Friday, 3 March 2006 21:27 (nineteen years ago)

OK, covering My Chemical Romance in 2006 is NOT like covering the Cure in 1985-7. I just mean that the strategy seemed to be to cover alt bands w/fervent if smallish followings and hope it pays dividends down the line. The main problem with this was that alt's early-to-mid-'90s bubble made the mag bigger than it could continue being once that bubble burst.

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Friday, 3 March 2006 21:29 (nineteen years ago)

OK, covering My Chemical Romance in 2006 is NOT like covering the Cure in 1985-7.

I was going to say.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 3 March 2006 21:29 (nineteen years ago)

I was going to just roffle.

― blunt (blunt), Friday, 3 March 2006 21:30 (nineteen years ago)

But that's mostly insofar as MCR are much more commercially successful now than the Cure were back then. It has nothing to do w/musical quality.

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Friday, 3 March 2006 21:31 (nineteen years ago)

or musical similarity

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Friday, 3 March 2006 21:31 (nineteen years ago)

Anyway good call on that cover ay

― blunt (blunt), Friday, 3 March 2006 21:33 (nineteen years ago)

has anybody heard "I'm Not Dead," by the way?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 3 March 2006 21:39 (nineteen years ago)

$10 that the Pink article has a subhead that goes, "[Obsequious question whose answer is self-evident by the fact that we're running this fucking feature on her in this magazine]? Yes!"

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Friday, 3 March 2006 21:41 (nineteen years ago)

(See every Pemberton issue of Blender ever)

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Friday, 3 March 2006 21:41 (nineteen years ago)

As long as it isn't a half-naked flying tomato i don't care who is on the cover!!!

― scott seward (scott seward), Friday, 3 March 2006 21:44 (nineteen years ago)

Besides, The Wire did that when Sinker was running things.

― Andy_K (Andy_K), Friday, 3 March 2006 21:46 (nineteen years ago)

speaking of flying tomatoes, did anyone else see eminem's ass in rolling stone??? baby's got back! so plump round and smooth. he could give j-lo a run for her booty.

― scott seward (scott seward), Friday, 3 March 2006 21:46 (nineteen years ago)

scott are you auditioning for Random Notes?

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Friday, 3 March 2006 21:47 (nineteen years ago)

the cure were pretty big around 1985-87. what's so laughable about the comparison?

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Friday, 3 March 2006 21:47 (nineteen years ago)

the Clever Clever Clevers won't be around by 2007 and you know it.

― blunt (blunt), Friday, 3 March 2006 21:49 (nineteen years ago)

yeah only bands that will be around for a long time should be on magazine covers. the nme should never have covered the sex pistols.

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Friday, 3 March 2006 21:51 (nineteen years ago)

In retrospect, perhaps they shouldn't've!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 3 March 2006 21:52 (nineteen years ago)

If I were doing the cover of Spin, I'd have P!NK as the bride of Frankenstein on the cover in black and white (except with pink hair, pink lipstick and green eyes), turned slightly towards the camera with BUGGIN OUT eyes and slack jaw, one hand reaching creepily towards the camera.. HED: "P!NK'S ALIVE!"

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 3 March 2006 21:52 (nineteen years ago)

To answer Fritz's earlier question: According to RIAA.com, the Cure didn't get their first gold record until Standing on a Beach in 1987, a best-of covering a half-dozen albums. Whereas MCR's second album went platinum only a year after its release. In those terms, MCR are much more popular right now than the Cure were in '85-'87.

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Friday, 3 March 2006 21:53 (nineteen years ago)

And I thought I was being cold-hearted.

― blunt (blunt), Friday, 3 March 2006 21:56 (nineteen years ago)

I'm told the remaining staff there are absolutely mortified/miserable…AP has apparently been giving the lectures that i know so well individually, and has not yet addressed the staff as a whole. apparently, the staff has collectively refused to sign something called a "rehiring agreement."

what a great strategy: alienate the fuck out of the people who are supposed to work for you! very consistent with the AP I know. In any case, i know that he would just as soon fire every single one of them and hire all english people, but there's no $$$ left over for a green card orgy, and he has to put out a magazine…one I'm sure that will be put out by many folks gritting their teeth.

Matos OTM re: his display copy. made me want to puke everytime he slapped it on…

― veronica moser (veronica moser), Friday, 3 March 2006 21:58 (nineteen years ago)

ok then, carry on.

alternate cover for Tracer's headline: "PINK'S ALIVE" with two Pinks dressed up as the two dudes with the banner from the back of Kiss Alive! Those guys are the best.

― Fritz Wollner (Fritz), Friday, 3 March 2006 21:58 (nineteen years ago)

By the way, if I were doing YYY's on the cover of Spin it would be the exact same thing except with Karen O.

xpost: Wait a minute, that's way better. Or Pink's face coming up through baked beans, like in Mexican Radio.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 3 March 2006 22:00 (nineteen years ago)

>I'm told the remaining staff there are absolutely mortified/miserable…

They should be, too, considering what they've been putting out the past few years.

― pdf (Phil Freeman), Friday, 3 March 2006 22:02 (nineteen years ago)

"If you thought Spin was smug BEFORE, kids, just you wait! Now it's smug AND English!"

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Friday, 3 March 2006 22:02 (nineteen years ago)

xpost

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Friday, 3 March 2006 22:02 (nineteen years ago)

I'm told the remaining staff there are absolutely mortified/miserable…
They should be, too, considering what they've been putting out the past few years.

Number of Spin regulars in the forthcoming Marooned anthology: 10

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Friday, 3 March 2006 22:06 (nineteen years ago)

Its editor not among them.

― pdf (Phil Freeman), Friday, 3 March 2006 22:07 (nineteen years ago)

oh, one of its editors is among them (hi, Dolan!)

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Friday, 3 March 2006 22:09 (nineteen years ago)

I meant that I, the book's editor, have never contributed to Spin.

― pdf (Phil Freeman), Friday, 3 March 2006 22:12 (nineteen years ago)

ah. I stand corrected.

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Friday, 3 March 2006 22:12 (nineteen years ago)

(you got my email, right Phil?)

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Friday, 3 March 2006 22:13 (nineteen years ago)

Is Pink the new Red-Hot? YES!

― gear (gear), Friday, 3 March 2006 22:15 (nineteen years ago)

Will Pink rule the world and look hot scantily clad? Yes!

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Friday, 3 March 2006 22:15 (nineteen years ago)

>(you got my email, right Phil?)

With your piece? Yup; can't wait to check it out. I'm also looking forward to someday receiving a burn of the disc from you...

― pdf (Phil Freeman), Friday, 3 March 2006 22:19 (nineteen years ago)

Will Pink rule the world and look hot scantily clad? Yes!
that's such a gay thing to say

― in more ways than one (blunt), Friday, 3 March 2006 22:20 (nineteen years ago)

I burned your copy of the disc yesterday and will send it along on Monday.

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Friday, 3 March 2006 22:26 (nineteen years ago)

Cool!

― pdf (Phil Freeman), Friday, 3 March 2006 22:28 (nineteen years ago)

And there is love.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 3 March 2006 22:33 (nineteen years ago)

Let's ALL feel the [stupidity that gets deleted.]

― gygaxx!, Friday, 3 March 2006 22:36 (nineteen years ago)

um.

― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Friday, 3 March 2006 22:37 (nineteen years ago)

[idiocy removed, thanks for leaving the IP!]

― gygaxx!, Friday, 3 March 2006 22:41 (nineteen years ago)

i much prefer pink

need to get that off my screen. working, people!!

― Susan Douglas (Susan Douglas), Friday, 3 March 2006 22:51 (nineteen years ago)

oh, my multiple returns didn't work. now there's just a head.

here you go
here you go
here you go
here you go
here you go
here you go
here you go
here you go
here you go
here you go
here you go
here you go

― Susan Douglas (Susan Douglas), Friday, 3 March 2006 22:52 (nineteen years ago)

We should combine them on the cover.

Pink + Karen O = .....Wendy O?

Or not...

― Brian O'Neill (NYCNative), Friday, 3 March 2006 23:47 (nineteen years ago)

neither. pink has a dude's body.

― youth problem (YouthProblem), Saturday, 4 March 2006 01:51 (nineteen years ago)

i can see why, but she registers as very womanly to me...but perhaps within a queer aesthetic. and she has the perfect punk body -the padded parts look as though they are made out of industrial rubber--like her curvaceousness is utilitarian! i think its awesome.

― Susan Douglas (Susan Douglas), Saturday, 4 March 2006 03:31 (nineteen years ago)

Just FYI for all your rubber-neckers: this isn't true. The YYYs cover closed weeks ago. Sorry to disappoint. There will be a Pink feature in the first AP issue, but it's not the cover. Carry on fiddling . . .

― someone, Saturday, 4 March 2006 05:27 (nineteen years ago)

Oh it's not so much caring for Pink as it is not caring for YYY

― blunt (blunt), Saturday, 4 March 2006 08:29 (nineteen years ago)

Yes...and no.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 4 March 2006 09:05 (nineteen years ago)

I'm a Libra too you know

― blunt (blunt), Saturday, 4 March 2006 09:07 (nineteen years ago)

Hi AP!

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Saturday, 4 March 2006 09:10 (nineteen years ago)

xxxpost yeah yeah yeah Eminem's growin a moonpie BUT MY ASS IS TOO BIG FOR ACAMERA well maybe a fisheye (lens that is (if you got it flaunt it

― A Big Fat Drunk Chick With A BoomBox, Saturday, 4 March 2006 09:27 (nineteen years ago)

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