Admittedly, this is a little harsh, even for Maxim. The culture magazine has recently posted its ‘Unsexiest Women Alive’ list, and the results are a little bit shocking. Sex & The City’s Sarah Jessica Parker came in first, and apparently shes not happy about it.

Parker: “Do I have fake boobs, Botox and big lips? No. Do I fit some ideals and standards of some men writing in a men’s magazine? Maybe not. Am I really the unsexiest woman in the world? Wow! It’s kind of shocking when men… It’s so brutal in a way, so filled with rage and anger, so it was surprising to me that more people didn’t talk about the providence of it, that it’s coming from these men. [...] It’s condemnation, it’s insane. I guess you can’t please all people. But I played a lot of parts, women that are really interesting and attractive to me. Obviously someone thinks I’m palatable to some degree.”

By fluke chance, it just so happens that this poll and Kristin Davis’ sex pics are surfacing months before the much awaited Sex & The City movie is due out. Is it possible that a film based around shoe shopping and gossip will be the next big viral campaign?

The rest of the top 5 is made up by Britney Spears, Madonna, Sandra Oh, Amy Winehouse.

In an interview with the LA Times, freelance writer David Peisner claims that his controversial reviews of NAS and The Black Crowes in Maxim were assigned to him as previews, with the star-ratings and review context added after he had turned them in:

“I’m a freelance writer. I was assigned to write previews of the Black Crowes and Nas albums. I did that. When the issue came out, the previews were laid out as reviews complete with star ratings. I never at any point or to anyone claimed to have heard these albums in their entirety. Whatever decisions Maxim made after I turned in my work were beyond my control.”

Of course Black Crowes manager Peter Angelus had little sympathy for Peisner:

“There’s no accountability for Dave Peisner, editor James Kaminsky or Maxim magazine. They issued a partial apology to their readership, but no apology directly to the artist whose work they denigrated without having heard more than one song, while attempting to pass it off as an album review. I think Peisner’s claim is absurd. He wrote a review of music that he never heard, he disparaged both the band and the material. He said, ‘It hasn’t left Chris Robinson and the gang much room for growth,’ and yet now he’s going to attempt to pass off his actions on Maxim? Absurd.”

I’d like to congratulate both NAS and The Black Crowes for getting so much mileage out of what amounts to common knowledge. OMG A REVIEWER FROM MAXIM TALKS OUT OF HIS ASS!!??? Cue the crocodile tears is five, four…. Brings new meaning to the phrase, no press is bad press! Not to mention when was the last time Maxim was talked about by anyone beyond 18 year dudes who just got out of high school but don’t have enough balls to subscribe to Playboy? This is a win-win situation for everybody. Now excuse me while I write my scathing reviews of Guns ‘N’ Roses Chinese Democracy and Coldplay’s Prospekt. Coming soon to Synthesis.net

Apparently Maxim’s two-and-a-half star review of the Black Crowes new CD, Warpaint, was just an “educated guess.” From their web site:

How is it that a magazine can review an entire album–and assign a star rating to it–without actually hearing the album?

Case in point: the “review” of Warpaint–the new album by THE BLACK CROWES–in the March issue of Maxim magazine. 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.”

Incredulously, the magazine gave the album a two and a half star rating–although neither the writer nor the editor could have heard more than one song (the single “Goodbye Daughters of the Revolution”).

When approached for an explanation, the magazine described the review as “an educated guess preview.” Huh?

Black Crowes manager Pete Angelus says, “Maxim’s actions seem to completely lack journalistic integrity and intentionally mislead their readership. When confronted with the fact that they never heard the album they are claiming to ‘review’ in their music section–with a star rating, no less–they attempt to explain that it was an ‘educated guess.’ In an email correspondence, Maxim went on to state: ‘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.’”

Angelus continued, “It speaks directly to the lack of the publication’s credibility. 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?”

Here at Synthesis, we pride ourselves on listening to at least two songs of an album before giving it a disparaging review.