Michelle Branch in this month's Maxim

I gotta say I'm a little disappointed that she'd do it. Though she's a pop artist, I always thought of her has a credible pop artist. She writes her own songs, she actually plays an instrument....she's not just another talentless idiot who wears a headset mic and dances a lip-synch routine.

I didn't think she'd really go the way of Britney & Christina in the Maxim Instant Popularity Machine.

I'm not saying that a woman can't be a credible artist as well as sexy....but I dunno.....I think you lose a little cred when you pull a lowest common denominator stunt.

I was a bit dissapointed too, but that doesn't mean I won't buy it!
She's a great talent and sexy to boot....

Yeah, I saw that and was a little shocked myself. She did seem to have more respect for herself. Until now.

I havn't seen it, but I agree. She doesn't have to sell herself like that. She should be trying to seperate herself from the britneys of world

Who cares about what Britney does. MB will still write good songs and make great records. Sheryl Crow has been in the magazine. 40 years old, an accomplished songwriter / musician and extremely hot.

Lennon (SG) is a great musician doing her thing successfully and she poses here.....
She'll still be the same Lennon we all know and love forevah!!

No damaged cred in my opinion.....

hehheh, no kidding

they were making fun of Jewel for the same reason on Mad TV

I was just disappointed that Michelle lost the music challenge on Monday Night Football....

For those who don't watch football, MNF had a competition where they paired up a football player with a musical act, they were filmed performing songs together, and viewers voted for a winner. Michelle played a song with Atlanta Falcons rookie Bryan Scott (who played keys the first time, then drums the next) and they were pitted, in the finals, against Doug Flutie (also on drums) and Barenaked Ladies. The latter group won.

I friggin' hate Barenaked Ladies...

...anyway, Michelle in Maxim? It's tacky, but it doesn't anger or bother me so much as... I just don't see why one would waste their time with that mag.

Most likely she did this to escape the image most people have of her being some young kid. Kinda like Drew doing Poison Ivy.

I dunno.. but someone should tell her that her shorts have a rip in them.

[Edited on Dec 19, 2003 by Keith]

i give her more credit for taking her clothes off than i do her music.

Busted.

Well I was gonna say "Only if they're taking their clothes off to sell records." Then I remembered Lennon, and thought better of it, cuz she's awesome, and I have no idea what her reasons were for doing SG.

[Edited on Dec 19, 2003 by Keith]

Well I was just saying the difference is in intent, in my opinion. If you're a nude model who happens to be a musician, that's one thing, but if you're a musician who only poses nude to sell records, that's sortof another. Why? Because what you look like naked to the eyes shouldn't (in a perfect world) make people want to listen to your music with their ears. SG is different, in a way though, because being here is seen as a function of your overall awesomeness, as well as your physical beauty. I dunno. :shrug:

WORD!!!

I like this one...

the thing with michelle branch is she was always saying how she felt she didnt NEED to do something like this.....doing this sort of thing only mkaes you less credible if youve criticised others for doing it

so shes half naked...i still probably wont buy her CD(s), and i still will not be buying maxim, all my porn money goes to SG anyways.

What comes after Q, ARRRRR!!!!

Word to ya moms

michelle branch in a bikini said:
"if you want to get my attention, wear a pirate outfit"

well, let's keep in mind that this is only my opinion. I think it walks a fine line. Maybe a musician poses for a magazine or a website just because they want to. Well, that's their perogative and it's none of my fucking business.

It just seems to me that in this particular instance, it went against the image she has been putting out.

I also happen to think, and maybe I'm just biased, that there's a big difference between posing for Maxim and posing for SG. Though SG shows a lot more than Maxim, it's clear that the site is a female-oriented expression of sexuality. Maxim, on the other hand, panders to the "check out the cans on that one" crowd. To be honest, I subscribe to Maxim. I find it a fairly entertaining magazine. I just take it with a grain of salt.

So to answer your question...No. I don't think that the SGs who are musicians have any less cred for doing SG. That's the beauty of opinions, we're all allowed to have one.

Jesus Christ, grow up. I've been a fan of hers since day one. If anything, I like her even more. Music is a part of the visual media too- and it's naive to think sexuality doesn't or SHOULDN'T play a part in its marketing, whether you're as independent as Ani Difranco or Aimee Mann- or as mainstream as the woman who essentially taught the world everything they need know about sexuality, adopting the moniker of the Virgin Mary, playing on the cliched "whore-complex" brought about by the repression of Western civilization: Madonna.