Premature Evaluation

February 26, 2008 9:21 AM

In the March issue of Maxim magazine, music critic David Peisner gave the Black Crowes' upcoming release Warpaint two and a half stars out of five, remarking: "...they sound pretty much like they always have: boozy, competent, and in slavish debt to the Stones, the Allmans, and the Faces." Nothing remarkable, right? Except he had never heard the album.
posted by rocket88 (103 comments total)

LTFA
posted by elwoodwiles at 9:24 AM on February 26, 2008 [1 favorite]

perhaps he downloaded it? oops, no, that'd be illegal.
posted by dubold at 9:26 AM on February 26, 2008 [1 favorite]

The real scandal is that people are reading Maxim for the music reviews.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:27 AM on February 26, 2008 [8 favorites]

wow that is a great twist!
posted by milestogo at 9:28 AM on February 26, 2008

As an exercise, I am going to write a review of the record without even hearing one song, and I’m going to do it in five minutes.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:29 AM on February 26, 2008 [2 favorites]

Maxim has articles?
posted by Mike D at 9:30 AM on February 26, 2008 [2 favorites]

I haven't heard the album either, but I'm going to call the review spot-on.
posted by DU at 9:32 AM on February 26, 2008

Mike D : WTF!? I totally get it for the articles.
posted by eurasian at 9:33 AM on February 26, 2008

I didn't read the article, but BOY, AM I OUTRAGED!
posted by nasreddin at 9:33 AM on February 26, 2008 [9 favorites]

The real scandal is that people are reading Maxim for the music reviews.

As opposed to what? The side-boob?
posted by Sys Rq at 9:35 AM on February 26, 2008 [2 favorites]

The real scandal is that people are reading Maxim for the music reviews.

Fixed that for you.
posted by lumpenprole at 9:38 AM on February 26, 2008 [13 favorites]

Well played, sir.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:38 AM on February 26, 2008

Most pop music should be reviewed without being listened to. It's about what they deserve. Come to think of it, a lot of things are like that. I haven't seen the new Martin Lawrence film, but I can tell you right now that it sucks.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:40 AM on February 26, 2008 [9 favorites]

I didn't even have to read Astro Zombie's comment to know it was insightful. +1 favorited!
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:41 AM on February 26, 2008 [2 favorites]

Does Maxim need to be criticized for it's reviews, of all things? They're literally 20-30 words long. Do you really think they had a reviewer listen for 50 or so minutes for the 2 inches of copy they get?

You better sit down for this one: they probably don't listen to most albums. Why would they? It's 30 fucking words.

Granted, it probably shouldn't be called a review, but it's fucking Maxim, for God's sake.
posted by graventy at 9:42 AM on February 26, 2008

Updated, because, you know, I'm sure we're all enthralled.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:43 AM on February 26, 2008

Maxim didn't get enough sleep last night.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:44 AM on February 26, 2008

All I know is that "She Talks to Angels" is a kick-ass karaoke tune.
posted by uncleozzy at 9:44 AM on February 26, 2008

Martin Lawrence is still alive?
posted by DU at 9:47 AM on February 26, 2008 [1 favorite]

perhaps he downloaded it? oops, no, that'd be illegal.

I just checked all the torrent sites I know of (a lot) and the only ones up are fakes. This is pretty bad, even for Maxim. Although Blender wasn't a bad mag, don't know how they managed that.....
posted by lattiboy at 9:49 AM on February 26, 2008

*GASP* Maxim has compromised its journalistic integrity?? The bottom has fallen out of my world. What's next, the New York Times printing lies and propaganda in the run-up to war?
posted by LooseFilter at 9:51 AM on February 26, 2008 [1 favorite]

Not surprising given how long Maxim employed movie company shill/lapdog/lackey Peter Hammond.

Maxim is also notorious for their inexplicably positive reviews for the shittiest of videogames.
posted by aerotive at 9:53 AM on February 26, 2008

I vaguely remember a Boston Globe music critic who was caught praising some band's amazing encore when it turned out that they'd deviated from the playlist and played something totally different. I can't remember which reviewer or band it was, though. Anyone remember this?
posted by transona5 at 9:53 AM on February 26, 2008

Is the actual review online anywhere?
posted by MrMoonPie at 9:54 AM on February 26, 2008

The crime writer Ian Rankin used to write reviews of music systems for a job. He's admitted that towards the end he would review stuff without even it taking out of the box. I guess it's more common than what people might think.
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 9:56 AM on February 26, 2008

Dancing about imaginary architecture?

Anyone who reads Maxim for music journalism needs their head examined. I'm just amazed that the journalist didn't simply cut and paste the Crowes’ record company's press release.
posted by dmt at 9:57 AM on February 26, 2008 [1 favorite]

My review of the latest Black Crowes record, unheard:

What is that revolting stench coming from my speakers? It's like... a cross between a decaying rat that drowned itself in patchouli oil and a backed up sewer line. Oh Christ, I've got to open up the windows and air this place out before the health department condemns my home.
posted by bunnytricks at 9:58 AM on February 26, 2008 [2 favorites]

Way to go, Mitch Albom!
posted by klangklangston at 9:58 AM on February 26, 2008

MrMoonPie: There's an inage of the review here.
posted by rocket88 at 9:58 AM on February 26, 2008

There's an image, too.
posted by rocket88 at 9:59 AM on February 26, 2008

And, yeah, I expect Maxim to have reasonable standards of music journalism. Only a tiny fraction of people who want to write about music for publication will ever have the chance to do so, even at a lad mag. Is it ridiculous to expect that the lucky few will listen to the albums?
posted by transona5 at 10:00 AM on February 26, 2008

Not having heard the album is not necessarily a handicap; Klosterman wrote perhaps the greatest rock album review of all time that way.
posted by louie at 10:01 AM on February 26, 2008 [5 favorites]

BUSTED

This happens more than you think.
posted by tkchrist at 10:02 AM on February 26, 2008

I understand to a degree the argument some are presenting here that Maxim isn't exactly known for its revolutionary, insightful rock journalism in the first place. But if you are not even going to bother to listen to the CD, the least you could do is give the artists a break and make 4/5 your default review instead of 2-1/2
posted by The Gooch at 10:10 AM on February 26, 2008

Black Crowes? Bunch'o long haired dirties is all.

In all seriousness, isn't there a popular Amazon.com book reviewer who bases his reviews solely on the cover of the book? Same thing in this case, really.
posted by JaySunSee at 10:10 AM on February 26, 2008

They should turn it into a feature, something like "4 Advanced Copies, 5 Reviews!" and then have people vote on which one they think the person didn't listen to.
posted by 23skidoo at 10:11 AM on February 26, 2008 [14 favorites]

There was a fairly infamous instance of Seattle reviewer reviewing a show that particular band never played. Ouch! The scandal was he kept his job.
posted by tkchrist at 10:11 AM on February 26, 2008

Jayson Blair is writing record reviews for Maxim now? I'm glad to see he landed on his feet.
posted by psmealey at 10:12 AM on February 26, 2008

This happens more than you think.

I think it happens every single time in every single music review.
posted by flarbuse at 10:13 AM on February 26, 2008

This is exactly what is wrong with the press today. They basically just make shit up.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:17 AM on February 26, 2008

It's so sweet to see the little huckster busted like this. However, when the album comes out he will probably turn out to be correct.
posted by caddis at 10:17 AM on February 26, 2008

This is indeed a dark day for the credibility of all magazines whose content is primarily composed of airbrushed 'celebrities' covering their nipples.

.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:24 AM on February 26, 2008 [1 favorite]

I just listened to the album on the Black Crowes website linked above. David Peisner is correct in his assessment.

How does he do it?
posted by chillmost at 10:25 AM on February 26, 2008

Maxim is also notorious for their inexplicably positive reviews for the shittiest of videogames.

Any idea what they thought of Duke Nukem Forever?
posted by Challahtronix at 10:25 AM on February 26, 2008 [2 favorites]

The Robot Rock Critic, by the way, has a different assessment:

For all their falsetto throb, Black Crowes has never been easy to understand. They did it. They finally did it. Black Crowes is more driving than ever. Black Crowes understand that recycling musical styles is a pop tradition that's older than the blues. Thankfully, they have stuck to what they know best: introspective roar.

At its most smoldering, Innuendo recalls the Stones' Exile on Main Street. Innuendo gets things off to a uncompromising start with the fist-pumping "Breathing."

The latest from Black Crowes starts with the bluesy songwriting of "10 Seconds to Live," and doesn't let up.

Or at least it did when I tried it.
posted by transona5 at 10:30 AM on February 26, 2008 [1 favorite]

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

I am so going to roll this term out when I don't feel like doing my due diligence.

"My educated guess tells me that, since dogs and cats like the taste of antifreeze, that it must be both delicious and healthy!"
posted by quin at 10:33 AM on February 26, 2008 [1 favorite]

This happens more than you think.

Indeed. Maxim is a long-lead publication. That "review" was written nearly two months before the issue hit the stands. Most times, the reviewers are provided advance copies. Most times.

This partially explains why magazines like Maxim give highly glowing reviews to games, movies, records, etc, that other media find questionable. In this case, they simply got caught.

There was a fairly infamous instance of Seattle reviewer reviewing a show that particular band never played. Ouch! The scandal was he kept his job.

There was also a fairly infamous scandal where a GameSpot reviewer issued a review score for a massively multiplayer game, which hundreds of hours of gameplay, after having played it for 45 minutes, which is barely enough time to create a character and get moving around the world. The game developer caught them by simply reviewing the account status.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:33 AM on February 26, 2008 [1 favorite]

Tom Scharpling has been doing this for years now.
posted by basicchannel at 10:38 AM on February 26, 2008

Who cares if he heard it or not, is the review incorrect? After n albums (where n is a number I can't be bothered to look up), did the Black Crowes undertake a radical departure and decide to record an album that fuses Xenakis with John Cage? When I pop Warpaint into my CD player, will I hear something more reminiscent of Stravinsky than the Stones?

I heard every song this band will ever record when I heard the song "Hard to Handle" oh so many years ago. Forget the reviewer, it is this band that has no integrity.
posted by Pastabagel at 10:40 AM on February 26, 2008 [1 favorite]

This just in: Critics are bored by the Black Crowes, and self-righteous music fans agree.
posted by The World Famous at 10:42 AM on February 26, 2008

By way of explanation.
posted by basicchannel at 10:45 AM on February 26, 2008

The comments on the A.V. Club write-up are actually pretty damned funny and worth the whole silly kerfuffle.
posted by batmonkey at 10:48 AM on February 26, 2008

There was also a fairly infamous scandal where a GameSpot reviewer issued a review score for a massively multiplayer game, which hundreds of hours of gameplay, after having played it for 45 minutes, which is barely enough time to create a character and get moving around the world. The game developer caught them by simply reviewing the account status.

Link?

My all-time favorite mini-scandal was back when Quake 3 was commonly used to benchmark gaming computers, since it would display the FPS it was capable rendering of rather than the actual FPS (which, of course, topped out at your monitor's refresh rate). ATI shipped a video card that did very, very well on Quake 3 FPS, but everything looked a little... fuzzy. A peek inside the driver revealed that whenever the quake3.exe process was running, the card would automatically pull the anti-aliasing right up to the camera, degrading the user experience in exchange for higher FPS in benchmarking.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:52 AM on February 26, 2008

Maxim has betrayed my faith in its journalistic integrity for the last time.
posted by nanojath at 10:53 AM on February 26, 2008

And man, this does strike me as kinda funny—for my reviews, even for Hustler (which is a measly 25 words), I worry about being too glib if I've only listened to the album a handful of times. I'm always catching new things on each listen, and often I hear an album again and really regret not nailing some aspect in my review that I should have. I get really neurotic about it, especially with these 25-worders, so much so that I have to worry about being late. The editor though, he can bang 'em out on one listen.

I have, however, on deadline at the ol' Current Magazine written reviews as I've listened to the albums. But that was pretty rare, one of those "We just got a whole blank page and we need content stat!" moments.
posted by klangklangston at 11:06 AM on February 26, 2008

Pastabagel writes "I heard every song this band will ever record when I heard the song 'Hard to Handle' oh so many years ago. Forget the reviewer, it is this band that has no integrity."

Integrity? The Crowes haven't been heard in my house for a long time, but I'm not sure how they lack integrity.
posted by krinklyfig at 11:09 AM on February 26, 2008

The Black Crowes are awful. Maxim is awful. Happy now?
posted by basicchannel at 11:19 AM on February 26, 2008

Most pop music should be reviewed without being listened to. It's about what they deserve. Come to think of it, a lot of things are like that.

I have heard that, on occasion, some Americans participate in elections without even researching the candidates' proposals and stance on the issues. Now, I don't have any empirical studies of this close at hand, but if it were true I'd think it would be a BIG scandal...
posted by googly at 11:22 AM on February 26, 2008

klangklangston : And man, this does strike me as kinda funny—for my reviews, even for Hustler (which is a measly 25 words), I worry about being too glib if I've only listened to the album a handful of times.

No, you weren't too glib- "three quarters erect" nailed it.

_{"The editor though, he can bang 'em out" = too easy:)}
posted by Challahtronix at 11:39 AM on February 26, 2008

"No, you weren't too glib- "three quarters erect" nailed it."

Dude, that's the film review metric. The record reviews are just 25 words on why you should buy it, with the general assumption that you won't, because who the fuck reads record reviews in Hustler?
posted by klangklangston at 11:44 AM on February 26, 2008 [1 favorite]

In other "record review goes wrong" news:

"There's a famous story about critic Richard Williams, who while writing for the Times in the early 1970s was sent a copy of a John Lennon/Yoko Ono album to review. One side of the album consisted of a single, unmodulated sine tone. Williams was initially a bit taken aback, but after a few listens began to enjoy what he heard, remarking in his review on how the record drew attention to imperfections in the vinyl, how it made for a deeply meditative experience and so on. It turned out he'd been sent an engineer's test pressing by mistake, with a reference 1khz sine tone on one side instead of the music. Though Williams was derided for this, Brian Eno rightly pointed out that his response (though conditioned by the fact that this was a John Lennon record and therefore worthy of attention) was an honest enough one. John Cage would have been proud of him." - BBC review
posted by meech at 11:45 AM on February 26, 2008 [10 favorites]

Integrity? The Crowes haven't been heard in my house for a long time, but I'm not sure how they lack integrity.

I think the word "artistic" may have been left out from in front of integrity, but that's really Pastabagel's call. Anyway, I think it might be more useful to try to explain why they do have integrity (or, rather, if they ever had it in the first place and then lost it at some point), but I think you've got an uphill struggle there. Their biggest hit ever was a cover; every reviewer of any of their records in all their history has included the words "rolling" and "stones" in every review of their records, ever; and I seriously doubt that Black Crowes fans go out to buy their albums to see what new, interesting directions they've gone in or what kinds of crazy musical experiments they've undertaken. So, you know that the review at Maxim was basically correct, and having the reviewer listen to the actual album would really be just a formality. There's not going to be anything new here, and for a review this short, they're not going to go into depth on individual songs anyway.

I like some of their songs, but really, the Black Crowes have been played on my local classic rock station since they first came out. Coming from the American South, I guess you could say they're the actual manifestation of the band the Stones was pretending to be when they did Exile, like some odd musical hr246nir called into existence by the very creation of that album.
posted by LionIndex at 11:53 AM on February 26, 2008

Crap.
posted by LionIndex at 11:53 AM on February 26, 2008

Dude, that's the film review metric. The record reviews are just 25 words on why you should buy it, with the general assumption that you won't, because who the fuck reads record reviews in Hustler?

I bought the "Music" Issue of Hustler a couple of years ago for a laugh, and was impressed with how well they integrated spread vaginal lips and commentary about the career trajectory of Marilyn Manson.
posted by beaucoupkevin at 11:55 AM on February 26, 2008

I found this Metafilter post overthought and snarky. Between the LOLXTIANS and the ...

ah screw it, I bet if I read this post someone would have already done this better than me.
posted by Reverend John at 11:56 AM on February 26, 2008

There was also a fairly infamous scandal where a GameSpot reviewer issued a review score for a massively multiplayer game, which hundreds of hours of gameplay, after having played it for 45 minutes, which is barely enough time to create a character and get moving around the world. The game developer caught them by simply reviewing the account status.

Link?

It was five years ago, but this old blog post makes mention of it here.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 12:02 PM on February 26, 2008

25 word reviews? We do them in 20 words. And I actually listen too. I may listen to a few tracks all the way through and them sample the rest to confirm my first impression, but with only 20 words to play with all I'm going for usually is my first impression. I also tend to not review somethng if I find it really awful. Not being a musician, I feel sort of bad being too harsh on somebody's creative output, even if they did ask for it by sending us an review copy.
posted by COD at 12:07 PM on February 26, 2008

I think this was part of R. Meltzer's schtick, too.
posted by joseph_elmhurst at 12:17 PM on February 26, 2008

The comments on that onion av club article are amazing. I think there are more commens congratulating the guy who posted the first comment than there are actual comments about the review.
posted by shmegegge at 12:17 PM on February 26, 2008

LionIndex writes "Anyway, I think it might be more useful to try to explain why they do have integrity (or, rather, if they ever had it in the first place and then lost it at some point), but I think you've got an uphill struggle there."

What's the point? I'm not sure that they're going for the high art aspect of rock and roll. I just find it funny that anyone would say that the Black Crowes lack integrity, as if that would really mean anything to anyone who cared. It's a little like saying that Molly Hatchet lacks integrity. Fine for critics to bandy such sentiments around, but who else who's a fan is going to give a shit?
posted by krinklyfig at 12:33 PM on February 26, 2008

I am the antichrist!!!!!!!!The real scandal is that people are reading Maxim for the music reviews.

Fixed that for you?

posted by zerobyproxy at 12:45 PM on February 26, 2008

My favorite music review ever: With Teeth by Nine Inch Nails.
posted by ALongDecember at 12:54 PM on February 26, 2008 [1 favorite]

Another favorite non-review review is Mike D of the Beastie Boys' review of Soul Asylum:

Soul Asylum, Whatever The Fuck Their New LP Is Called, White music by white people for white people, and now being played at the white house. This is why most white people suck. Who stole the soul? Soul Asyulm.- Mike D
posted by jonp72 at 1:05 PM on February 26, 2008

Maxim regularly has reviews of video games that appear in the month that the game was originally supposed to have been released, often when the actual release was delayed for an extended time. It really doesn't surprise me that they fake the music reviews too.

Also it's Maxim, a mag that is barely worth the free subscription I get.
posted by acetonic at 1:11 PM on February 26, 2008

Shit Sandwich.
posted by brain_drain at 1:25 PM on February 26, 2008 [1 favorite]

Did he really need to listen to the album? Betcha anything he's right anyway. It's the Black Crowes. They've been playing endless variations of the same Allman Brothers/late-period Stones ripoff for like 20 years now. They're one of the most derivative bands of all time. What, like they all of a sudden incorporated a reggaeton influence or something? Sounds like the Allmans and the Stones, just like the rest of their shit. No new ground broken. There are "clever" references to mara-ja-wanna. There, now you've written your review without actually having to listen to the Black Crowes. Bonus! Next, I'll do Tom Petty and Aerosmith.
posted by DecemberBoy at 1:50 PM on February 26, 2008

My favourite story like this concerns a Scottish music hackette writing for a broadsheet, who couldn't be bothered going to a Meat Loaf gig, but gave it a glowing review anyway (ridiculously glowing, if I remember, full of purple prose in praise of the Loaf). Unfortunately, Mr. Loaf fell ill, and cancelled the concert. The hackette's editor found out... when an editor on a tabloid called to ask for his comment on the fake review he'd run that day. Tabloid went on to have a field day ripping the piss out of their 'quality' rival. (Didn't do her career much harm in the long run, mind - presumably the story didn't make it South of the border.)
posted by jack_mo at 1:58 PM on February 26, 2008

The Black Crowes are very much like ZZ Top; one song, ya heard em all. I'd say a band which doesn't do advance copies knows the album sucks and is pissed to get caught out on it.
posted by Bovine Love at 2:03 PM on February 26, 2008

Stomach Nipples??? Ok, I am gonna be laughing for hours now.
posted by Bovine Love at 2:06 PM on February 26, 2008

Rolling Stone reviewer J.D. Considine once gave GTR's self-titled album a simple (and spot-on) review: SHT.
posted by rocket88 at 2:08 PM on February 26, 2008

In all seriousness, isn't there a popular Amazon.com book reviewer who bases his reviews solely on the cover of the book? Same thing in this case, really.

Hey! It's not just Amazon, and it's not just music, some dude at the Philly Weekly reviewed my latest book this way.

Seriously, wtf with the laziness, reviewers? Running out of time to polish your gold Mercedes or something? I mean yes, the Black Crowes are pretty boring (to me, anyway), but if I was getting paid to review their album I'd at least give it the ol' college try.

And before someone digs this up and uses it against me, I have done this myself (reviewing a book by Elizabeth Wurtzel) because the thought of reading more of her drivel was too much to bear. But at least I a. admitted I was doing it and b. explained why, in the context of her other books I'd read.

Hell, I still get hate mail about that review.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 2:18 PM on February 26, 2008

Seriously, wtf with the laziness, reviewers?

Well, in this case I am guessing that Maxim wanted a review for the issue that would be on news stands when the album was released. The Crowes weren't providing advance copies (makes ya wonder at their opinion of the album), and lead times being what they are, Maxim said WTF and wrote the review anyway, well in advance of being able to hear it.
posted by Bovine Love at 2:23 PM on February 26, 2008

If the Crowes weren't providing advance copies (and I could see why, given the number of leaks, etc lately), then they deserve what they get, review-wise. What I can't understand is why someone who DOES have a copy of the [book, CD, whatever] does this...
posted by bitter-girl.com at 2:29 PM on February 26, 2008

From the update: Maxim magazine has apologized for publishing a negative review of the Black Crowes’ new album by a writer who hadn’t listened to the whole CD.

That implies that he'd listened to _some_ of the CD, which is also dishonest!
posted by Laen at 3:00 PM on February 26, 2008

If the band didn't provide a copy of the album, why is it being reviewed at all?
posted by Sys Rq at 3:27 PM on February 26, 2008

Egads, I'm about to sort of defend the Black Crowes. How has my life come to this?

It doesn't matter if the Black Crowes suck or have been ripping off the Rolling Stones for years or only ever had one decent song and it was a cover. Indeed, it doesn't matter if Maxim is a high quality publication or not.

What matters is if you're going to publish something that purports to be a review of an album - anything - you owe it to your readers to make sure that you've actually had a listen to it.

If you haven't listened to it and claim you have, you're a liar. If you get called out on the fact that you've published lies, you should do exactly what Maxim did and admit it and apologize.

And good for the Black Crowes for calling Maxim and their reviewer on this. Yeah, Maxim is a magazine that primarily focuses on the non-nipple region of the female breast, but they do run some other information in the magazine, too. It isn't beyond the realm of possibility that there are a good number of people who get a significant chunk of their information from Maxim. These poor souls should at least be receiving accurate information when they stop jerking off to extremely soft core porn long enough to notice the "music review" section.

Maybe the album deserves more than an average rating. Or maybe, just maybe, the album is such a huge stinking pile of turd that it deserves zero stars and a stern warning to avoid it at all costs. If the reviewer was concerned more with the readers and less with "oh God, I don't want to listen to the Black Crowes again," he could have simply waited a few months, listened to it, and trashed it without causing any trouble.

So, that all said, why 2 1/2 stars? Because that will not necessarily prevent long time fans from buying the album, perhaps? Because the Maxim reviews are really ads? Because it was a safe number to place on it since it was neither too enthusiastic nor two damning?

Bah. Bottom line is this is more time that I've spent thinking of the Black Crowes than I've thought about them in 15 years. Fuck you, Maxim, for making that happen by publishing a false review. An honest, accurate review and nobody would have cared and I'd be able to go another fifteen years without being troubled with recycled Keith Richards riffs running through my brain.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:30 PM on February 26, 2008

Sometimes one-word reviews will do:

Artist: Teeth
Album: Grate
Review: False.

(From a short-lived free NZ magazine).
posted by Infinite Jest at 4:15 PM on February 26, 2008

bitter-girl.com: "What I can't understand is why someone who DOES have a copy of the [book, CD, whatever] does this..."

Because the thought of reading more of her drivel was too much to bear?
posted by jack_mo at 5:04 PM on February 26, 2008

MetaFilter: I assume your favorite band sucks.
posted by Eideteker at 5:29 PM on February 26, 2008

Because the thought of reading more of her drivel was too much to bear?

That's fine, but it's not a review of the album, book, or whatever if you don't actually listen to, read, whatever the whole thing. It's a review of the part that you did read, and that's fine, too. But it should clearly state that.

If the review of a Black Crowes disc is that the reviewer didn't want to listen to it because he hates the Black Crowes, then that is not a review of the disc, it is a review of the band in general. For all he knows, the new disc has a couple tracks of dub and some downtempo techno on it. Not likely, but I bet he didn't listen to the whole thing of Three Snakes and One Charm to find the one track that sounded like Sly & the Family Stone, either. It's a good thing he didn't review R.E.M.'s Out of Time album, because he would have just assumed that it would go on being the same mumbly but brilliant college rock out of Athens GA that R.E.M. had been making on every record until then, and he would have completely missed out on the fact that that was the moment when R.E.M. fully embraced the suck and became the Bizarro R.E.M.

All the review told anyone is what we already know: The Black Crowes have basically one song. It was a good one when the Rolling Stones wrote it, and some people dig it now, too. But his review did not say "I haven't heard the new Crowes album, but I assume it will sound just like all the other ones, which I am too smug to like."
posted by The World Famous at 5:35 PM on February 26, 2008

who the fuck reads record reviews in Hustler?

Relaxed, sticky people?

After watching the entire first season of Desperate Housewives in 48-hours in order to meet a deadline, I've relaxed my standards a little bit on entire-season DVD reviews. I'm not sure my semi-delirious take on the whole season was better than a reasoned, sane review of a handful of selected episodes.
posted by Bookhouse at 6:04 PM on February 26, 2008 [1 favorite]

Hey, if the Stones decided to start sucking about 25 years ago, and haven't let up since, why fault the Black Crowes for at least attempting to pick up the mantle?
It may not be original, but it's a style of music that deserves to live on in some form.
posted by rocket88 at 6:08 PM on February 26, 2008

That cortex guy seems awfully keen on derails.
posted by Bovine Love at 7:14 PM on February 26, 2008

Well, now, how did I put that in the wrong post? Doh. Too much wine. At least it was good wine. And not a single crowes song came up on the Pod.
posted by Bovine Love at 7:16 PM on February 26, 2008

WHERE IS JONMC IN THIS THREAD
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:38 PM on February 26, 2008 [1 favorite]

"There was a fairly infamous instance of Seattle reviewer reviewing a show that particular band never played. Ouch! The scandal was he kept his job."

The only good thing about that situation is that the whole damn city knew he did it and never to trust a review of his ever again. It became legendary.

"All the review told anyone is what we already know: The Black Crowes have basically one song. It was a good one when the Rolling Stones wrote it, and some people dig it now, too."

Except it was written by Otis Redding.

Dammit, someone beat me to mentioning the GTR/SHT review. That is probably my favorite review ever.
posted by litlnemo at 4:42 AM on February 27, 2008

I remember reading something somewhere by a former editor of Cosmopolitan that they just make up what readers want to hear, it gets the readers which get the advertisers, everyone is happy. They are in the business of selling ad space, not truth. I noticed that Maxim likes to laugh at rappers in one breath while giving grudgingly positive reviews to their albums in the next. I figure there's some sort of editorial obligation to not offend the public sensibility by trashing their tastes.
posted by erikharmon at 8:55 AM on February 27, 2008

My favorite opening to any review:

"A science fiction trip with Billy Idol? Get real."
posted by johngoren at 10:05 AM on February 27, 2008

Except it was written by Otis Redding.

I wasn't talking about Hard To Handle. I was talking about every Black Crowes song, and the fact that the Black Crowes turned Hard To Handle into a version of the One Black Crowes song, too.
posted by The World Famous at 10:49 AM on February 27, 2008

Eh, I get what you mean. I misread it, sorry.

But it gave me the opportunity to link to some Otis, and if that's wrong, I don't wanna be right.
posted by litlnemo at 3:26 PM on February 27, 2008

People are missing the real humor.

RAPPER Nas was shocked when Maxim gave his new album, “N – - – - r,” a 21/2-star review – because it isn’t even finished yet...

Now that's just stupid.
posted by artifarce at 6:25 AM on February 28, 2008

Now that's just stupid.

Um, which part?
posted by Bovine Love at 6:35 AM on February 28, 2008

That new Happy Mondays album? I don’t know if there is one, but if there is, it sucks.
posted by stevil at 9:28 PM on February 29, 2008