Feb 22, 2008 04:13 PM
15,894
Enter your username and password.
New York, 9:47 AM
Wed Feb 10
56 posts in the last 24 hours
In the March issue of Maxim, writer David Peisner reviews the new Black Crowes album, "Warpaint." The verdict: Ehhh. Two and a half stars, out of five. The problem: Maxim didn't listen to the album. Their review, it turns out, was an "educated guess." Um, what? The full story, including the faux-review and the band's outraged response, below.
The Black Crowes' label didn't make advance copies of the album available for review, so they were surprised when they saw Maxim's turn up. The writer couldn't have heard more than one song off the album, the label says. When they contacted the magazine, they say an editor emailed them:
'Of course, we always prefer to (sic) hearing music, but sometimes there are big albums that we don't want to ignore that aren't available to hear, which is what happened with the Crowes. It's either an educated guess preview or no coverage at all, so in this case we chose the former.'"
Yea, that's just not right. If you want to tell the Black Crowes they suck, at least listen to the album first, so you can be specific. Imagine a critic handing you this review without having heard your record:
The response from the band:
Then again—now, a lot more people are reading that negative review. There's two sides to the PR coin! The band better hope that its full album is strong enough to make Maxim look foolish.
Send an email to Hamilton Nolan, the author of this post, at Hamilton@gawker.com.
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
Start a new discussion