Black Crowes Say Maxim Review a Fraud

NEW YORK — The Black Crowes are lashing out at Maxim magazine for reviewing the band's new album _ apparently without actually hearing it first.

The review, published in Maxim's March issue, gives the Crowes' "Warpaint" a rating of two-and-a-half stars out of five.

"The writer _ who has not heard the album since advance CDs were not made available _ wrote what appears to be a disparaging assessment anyway, citing, `it hasn't left Chris Robinson and the gang much room for growth,'" said a statement on the band's official Web site.

The band's manager, Pete Angelus, said the magazine explained that its review was an "educated guess."

"It speaks directly to the lack of the publication's credibility," Angelus said in a statement. "In my opinion, it's a disgrace to the arts, journalism, critics, the publication itself and the public. What's next _ Maxim's concert reviews of shows they never attended, book reviews of books never read and film reviews of films never seen?"

A representative for the magazine would not confirm or deny to The Associated Press whether the writer actually listened to the album. Instead, Maxim released this statement in response: "Maxim will continue to provide our readers with information that is important to them, whether it is about fashion, lifestyle, technology, music, movies and more."

"Warpaint," the band's first album in seven years, is set for release March 4. The blues-rock group, fronted by Chris Robinson, has released only one song from the disc, "Goodbye Daughters of the Revolution."

The band's hits include "Hard to Handle" and "She Talks to Angels."

___

On the Net:

The Black Crowes:

http://www.blackcrowes.com/

Comments

[DocManhattan]

I'm kind of surprised that the AP story included that bullshit statement from the magazine. It's a blatant, self-serving evasion, tantamount to a "no comment".

Pretty shabby all 'round, really. I'm just a casual fan of the Black Crowes, but I do feel bad for them under these circumstances.

[VegetableMan]

this new comment system sucks. can we get a decent quote function, please?

[VegetableMan]

whilst i certainly wouldn't stand up for anything to do with maxim, it's possible the reviewer downloaded it from an illegal torrent site ("warpaint"'s all over the place), which i bet would make the crowes even less happy than reviewing it without hearing it... please discuss (and forward to crowes management if you want!).

[ClaudiaJean]

Writers are getting pissed off -- used to be record labels would send out advance CDs... but with the internet and all the other outlets for music, and unfortunately people being untrustworthy, you can no longer afford to let music out early even to an 'esteemed member of the media' for previews/reviews. The backlash is apparent if the writers are not catered to... And make no mistake. There are some critics who have hard ons for certain artists, and no matter what those artists create (even if it is the new White Album, Thriller, STairway to Heaven... )it will be trashed because all too many music critics are vindictive, still acting out in retaliation for their uncool junior high years as an outcast... And concert reviewers -- many don't stay until the end of the show, so reviews are half=assed. Also, just as music reviews are based on free CDs and there's pissiness now that they're not free and far in advance and without significant security concerns addressed, lots of artists aren't tossing free tickets to concert reviewers anymore. It used to be a label expense. Now, lots of papers need to buy tickets if they want a writer (and a guest) to attend a show... so there is a backlash there too.... Cushy job if you can get it...

[VegetableMan]

Writers are getting pissed off -- used to be record labels would send out advance CDs... but with the internet and all the other outlets for music, and unfortunately people being untrustworthy, you can no longer afford to let music out early even to an 'esteemed member of the media' for previews/reviews.
reviewers are the ones leaking them...

The backlash is apparent if the writers are not catered to... And make no mistake.
true true.

There are some critics who have hard ons for certain artists, and no matter what those artists create (even if it is the new White Album, Thriller, STairway to Heaven... )it will be trashed because all too many music critics are vindictive, still acting out in retaliation for their uncool junior high years as an outcast...
true true.

And concert reviewers -- many don't stay until the end of the show, so reviews are half=assed.
occasionally.

Also, just as music reviews are based on free CDs and there's pissiness now that they're not free and far in advance and without significant security concerns addressed, lots of artists aren't tossing free tickets to concert reviewers anymore.
one doesn't really have anything to do with the other. and it's not artists who throw tickets, it's the labels.

It used to be a label expense.
never. EVERYTHING is an artist expense. chalk it up to recoupable advances and promotional budgets. in the long run labels don't pay for SHIT. that's why all that drivel about labels protecting "artist's royalties" is, well, drivel.

Now, lots of papers need to buy tickets if they want a writer (and a guest) to attend a show...
no. a simple call to a pr flack usually does the trick. if not, the tickets are written off as a business expense.

so there is a backlash there too....
eh, not so much.

Cushy job if you can get it...
eh, not so much.

[ClaudiaJean]

Actually, you're incorrect about concert tickets going to the press. While each concert tour will differ, it's more complicated than stated...

Depending upon the artist, among the comps set aside prior to an onsale may be a designated allotment for media/reviewers... those are comps, and are merely non-money-earning tickets. They 'cost' the artist money (they are good seats, not being sold and therefore producing no revenue for the artist.)

Some artists don't give a damn about reviews, refuse to cover that cost, lost that profit and provide no tickets explicitly for writers for that purpose...

And if an artist will no longer give a comp, the label would need to purchase a ticket and give it to a reviewer. And with labels growing cheaper and cheaper, often the media outlet is responsible for purchasing its own tickets... if the artist isn't soliciting a review.

There also may be a quantity of tickets that the record label purchases for any number of reasons (promotions department, new media, executives wanting to parade around like the starf*&kers they like to be) -- and that may include comp tickets the Artist Relations & Publicity departments provide to media outlets for the purpose of review. True, that may be a cost the label uses to eat away at artists income (what you say is wholeheartedly true) but this equation, the artist has made the money on the concert end because the physical ticket has been purchased to the concert... regardless of who is in the seat.

Now, a word of advice... using the phrase 'PR Flack' is insulting and dismissive and out of the PageSix Handbook so I don't recommend it. Whatever your feelings are about Publicists (and your terminology seems to indicate it clearly...) be it at the label or independent - in the end have to get their quantity of tickets from the artist/promoter who control the tickets to a show... and there is a finite amount of tickets available. You may call a PR "flack" (though likely not to their face?) for your tickets but they can only give you a ticket IF they have access (comps or to buy) and IF they're to be purchased (by the label to give as a comp or the outlet to purchase on their own thru label connections to the artist) it would need to be before tickets cease to be available. This, of course, is with regards to a hard-ticketed show with a limited ticket manifest and capacity (and doesn't include walk-ins, credentialed media or non-capacity-capped venues.)

Writers/re­viewers/me­dia outlets can easily write the ticket off as a business expense, yes. But they do have to pay the artist before they can review the show... and that's not always how it was done, and for some, there is resentment... but an artist wises up... For most concerts, if you wanted to be there, you got a ticket. If you didn't want to go, you wouldn't have bought a ticket. By the time a review appears, the artist is long gone, onto the next city and a review would be read by people interested in the concert they went to (in which case, a reviewers opinion is worthless) or ignored by people who didn't want to go anyway. Concert reviews are music writers masturbating... and artists have decided they're not giving out free tickets to high-demand shows to people who will write negative things about them -- why should the artist pay for that "privilage?!'

[KCFreedom]

What? Someone actually read an ARTICLE in Maxim?

I can't imagine Maxim having any journalistic credibility.

Not just bashing Maxim, there's probably plenty of music critiques in publications that have been done without actually hearing the recording. It probably happens more than we think.

[thewhitewitch]

Maxim is a joke. Chris Robinson is heaven on a stick. Yummy!

[Stanley]

That is an absolutely unbelievable highlight of the journalistic abyss we have fallen into in our current pop culture. For a well known national magazine to write a scathing review of a musical effort then admit to never having even heard it, yet defend the review just the same is just priceless. Maxim is a pile of worthless poo with booby pixs as wrapping paper. Maxim - Pile of shit wrapped with tit, should be their slogan.

[trex67]

Music critics are almost without exception the most biased journalists in existence. The most successful are power addicted philistines that wouldn't recognize quality material if it crawled up their leg and exploded. Only idiots care what any of them print. They serve no useful function other than telling gullible consumers what to buy. "Gee, Christgau likes this crap, maybe I should, too." Does anyone believe that any of them actually listen the music they criticize, other than maybe a cursory examination to give the illusion they aren't completely fraudulent?

[Arguman]

Who takes tips on anything from Maxim anyway? :P

[Arguman]

Who takes tips on anything from Maxim anyway? :P

[normathumb]

I thought Maxim was an instant coffee. When did they start doing album reviews.

[normathumb]

I thought Maxim was an instant coffee. When did they start doing album reviews.

[citizenofmars]

great publicity though...

[Wilsonfisk89]

Maxim magazine is a joke. It is frat boy fodder. If anyone reads said magazine and considers themselves more than a brainless fratboy drone, they are saidly mistaken. Graduate to Playboy at least dudes.

[OttoMann]

I haven't seen the Maxim review, but I found the article to be pretentious and poorly written. The prose was, well, prosaic; the sentence structure, awkward; and there was, without doubt, much, too much, way too much, use of punctuation.

[rmetz74]

You are my favorite.