Maxim has psychic reviewers. We already know that. A day after the magazine issued an apology for reviewing the new Black Crowes without hearing it, the band’s manager, Pete Angelus, has responded with his own statement in a press release posted to the Crowes’ site:

“In my opinion, Maxim’s fabrication of an album review is highly unethical and indefensible. This issue potentially pertains to all artists and their craft, and a publication which apparently has no respect for either.”

Maxim’s Editorial Director, James Kaminsky, issued this statement to the media: “It is Maxim’s editorial policy to assign star ratings only to those albums that have been heard in their entirety. Unfortunately, that policy was not followed in the March 2008 issue of our magazine and we apologize to our readers.”

Angelus responds, “Maxim seems to continue in their attempt to deceive the public with their usage of the word ’entirety.’ At the most, Maxim could have only heard the one complete song that has been released to radio, before publishing their ’album review.’ It comes as no surprise that Maxim has elected to apologize to their readers now that the world has been informed of their deception; however, that is not full accountability.”

In closing, Angelus said, “In my opinion, Maxim’s ’apology’ is self-serving damage control by failing to mention The Black Crowes. The appropriate action from Maxim is to immediately issue a public apology to The Black Crowes for disparaging both the band and their soon to be released new album ’Warpaint’ without having heard the material.”

Understandable ire, but at this point it seems like the Black Crowes are just being smart about the publicity. Also interesting, though, is that Rolling Stone reviewed the album in the issue that hit newsstands earlier this month. Maybe Maxim just cribbed from Alan Light? But then, we’re hearing the no-listen Crowes review isn’t an isolated case over at the beleaguered T&A rag.

Via NY Post:

Rapper Nas was shocked when Maxim gave his new album, N – - – - r, a 21/2-star review – because it isn’t even finished yet. “I’m finishing the album now, and it will be out April 22,” Nas told Page Six. Maxim has since apologized for the premature review, but Nas doesn’t care. “I’d prefer [a review from] Playboy,” the rapper said. “That kind of stuff doesn’t reach my radar or effect anybody around me. I don’t know what a music rating from Maxim is . . . I don’t know what it even means really.” Maxim also reviewed the Black Crowes’ album, War Paint, without listening to it in its entirety.

Way to bring innocent ol’ Playboy into it, Nas. Of course, the real loser in all of this, of course, is this month’s Maxim cover girl Avril Lavigne. Like, just her luck — people are actually reading the articles.

Comments (25)
  1. stephen  |   Posted on Feb 27th, 2008 0

    What? He says it’s not good enough because the apology doesn’t mention The Black Crowes?

    If that’s not proof enough that the band are going to squeeze every last drop of ill-deserved publicity out of this fiasco, then I don’t know what is.

    Drop it, lads. You’ve been totally irrelevant since Marc Ford left anyway. And everyone knows 2 1/2 stars is probably being generous.

  2. ian g  |   Posted on Feb 27th, 2008 0

    it’s not the reviewers fault.
    i wouldn’t want to listen to a black crowes’ album either.

  3. jack  |   Posted on Feb 27th, 2008 0

    Maxim should write a review next month, downgrading the album to 1 star, saying “the rest of the album was even worse than we thought.”

    Besides, they probably downloaded the whole thing and just can’t admit they did that.

  4. Everyone  |   Posted on Feb 27th, 2008 0

    Dear blog commentators,

    Please refrain from dubbing all music made before you turned 13 irrelevant. Also, I dare you to name all the members of REM without google or wikipedia.

    Thank you,
    Everyone

  5. WHO GIVES A FUCK  |   Posted on Feb 27th, 2008 0

    WHO GIVES A FUCK.

  6. henry darger  |   Posted on Feb 27th, 2008 0

    and to Nas – a 21/ 2-star review is pretty damn good in the eyes of a dead man.

  7. studly roberts  |   Posted on Feb 27th, 2008 0

    Bill Berry, Peter Buck, Michael Stipe, Mike Mills

    Got something tougher?

  8. srb  |   Posted on Feb 27th, 2008 0

    Here, here, Everybody.

    Why is it that the band affected by this shoddy practice shouldn’t demand an apology? Because you haven’t liked them since Three Snakes and One Charm?

  9. Everyone  |   Posted on Feb 27th, 2008 0

    Dear Studly, hmm… I guess that was a rhetorical trivia question, so… um, nope, I’m good!

    Dear Who Gives a Fuck, You’re right! Who does give a fuck?! And people should stop trying to make you give a fuck because you just won’t!

  10. DW  |   Posted on Feb 27th, 2008 0

    haha they also reviewed Nas’s new album without hearing it! http://nahright.com/news/2008/02/27/maxim-reviews-the-new-nas-album/

  11. cash  |   Posted on Feb 27th, 2008 0

    dear “everyone” are you seriously defending a black crowes record? if so then i’ll wager that you, yourself were 13 when you first heard them

  12. Elliot  |   Posted on Feb 27th, 2008 0

    I understand this is a music blog, but shouldn’t we all be ranting and raving about how a magazine out right lied and then tried to spin it so they only half-lied?
    You know, as opposed to making fun of the victimized band?

  13. srb  |   Posted on Feb 27th, 2008 0

    I’m not sure relevancy even enters into the equation. It’s the Black Crowes…their whole sound is built on ripping off Free and The Faces, and doing a damn good job of it.

  14. Mario Incandenza  |   Posted on Feb 27th, 2008 0

    Maxim would’ve gotten away with it if they’d pretended it was satire, since the review is doubtless going to prove 100% accurate. Their weaselly, arrogant non-apology makes it worse. Jeepers, no one comes out of this one looking good.

  15. George  |   Posted on Feb 27th, 2008 0

    The Black Crowes’ management has opened their offices to reviewers who’d like to listen and review the album. That’s how Rolling Stone was able to review it. Pretty smart on the Crowes’ camp part of not releasing review copies. That’s where a majority of the leaks come from anyways…

  16. Greg  |   Posted on Feb 27th, 2008 0

    Apparently they’ve been doing this kind of thing for years. I once read an article in Maxim about a phonecall the writer had with a serial killer, and later it turned out the serial killer didn’t even exist.

  17. mark  |   Posted on Feb 28th, 2008 0

    it’s Maxim, who cares? it’s the Black Crowes, who cares?

    case closed.

  18. Web Sheriff  |   Posted on Feb 28th, 2008 0

    WEB SHERIFF
    Protecting Your Rights on the Internet
    Tel 44-(0)208-323 8013
    Fax 44-(0)208-323 8080
    websheriff@websheriff.com
    http://www.websheriff.com

    Hi Stereo Gum,

    Many thanks for your candid reporting of Maxim’s erroneous review of The Black Crowes forthcoming album, “Warpaint” … .. pre-release security on this album has been handled by the artist’s label Silver Arrow / Megaforce and Web Sheriff and, for the avoidance of doubt, review copies have not been sent-out to magazines etc.

    Regards,

    WEB SHERIFF

  19. Oh shit, Andy – Barney’s got yr badge AGAIN!!!!!

  20. If you’ve heard one song haven’t you really heard them all?

  21. There is a distinct possibility that “Warpaint” will suck, but it comes down to being judged on present merit and not past merit. Thirty year olds aren’t regularly thrown in jail for their 13-year-old misdeeds (unless, of course, they whacked someone)…

    So even though the odds may be stacked against thrm, the band is still entitled to be judged fairly and, sure, they’re entitled to apologies whenafter they’ve been judged on bias.
    DwD

  22. No. What it comes down to is journalistic integrity. To judge an album, any album, whether it be another Fergie solo disc or a new Bob Dylan album, without hearing it, is a foul. Indeed, it is Maxim magazine, where journalism is negligible at best, but lying to your readers, no matter what magazine you are (we’ll give the tabloids a pass on this one), is disrespectful to the practice and makes us all look bad. I could easily write:

    Graffiti – *** (of four stars)
    Gnarls Barkley

    As a follow-up to 2006′s breakout St. Elsewhere, Graffiti picks up immediately where the collaboration left off. Danger Mouse continues to push the limits of his hyper-disco-funk, while leaving space between the beats to allow Cee-Lo to peruse the depths of his personal psychosis. And although there aren’t any songs equal to the landscape changing “Crazy”, the album itself, cohesive as a whole, makes a strong case for longevity, and the importance of this genre-bending duo.

    There you are Maxim, your next CD review. Go ahead and print that.

  23. Blackadder  |   Posted on Apr 3rd, 2009 0

    Brilliant, it?s unbelievable that people can?t see that this article is about journalistic integrity than about a band. And in defense of the band in question so what if they have taken influence from previous bands e.g Led Zeppelin, look at the songs they ripped off I don?t need to mention the songs or other bands in that matter even the sacred Beatles, because I?m sure that everyone has really thought about what they?ve written.

    From black?

    What do you think of Percy’s rough?
    I think he looks like a bird who’s swallowed a plate my Lord.
    No that’s what I think, that’s what I think! What do you think?
    Try to have a thought of your own, Baldrick, thinking is so important. What do you think?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post, reply to, or rate a comment.

%s1 / %s2