Michelle Branch, a folk-rock singer of some note, is appearing on the cover of Maxim next month. This has caused some consternation among her fans, who thought she’d be above using her (fetching) body to sell CDs. I guess they hadn’t seen this Cartier ad, where she’s using her face to sell watches and so forth. I’m reminded of some fine lyrics by the venerable Neil Young:
I ain’t singing for Pepsi
I ain’t singing for Coke
I ain’t singing for nobody
Makes me look like a joke
But selling out really isn’t my point. After all, everybody from Bob Dylan to Moby has sold out these days–it’s par for the course.
I’m more interested in Michelle Branch’s butt crack.
You see, on the (big, barely safe for work image ahead) Maxim cover, we see that Ms. Branch appears to have the shortest ass in the history of buttology. This is only noteworthy because if you look at (smaller, but no more or less safe for work) this photo, originally from the Maxim Web site (I think), she’s got a normal dimple at the top of her short shorts. You can only draw one conclusion:
They Photoshopped her butt crack out.
Butt why (hee, hee)? Are American magazine standards such that that (lovely) inch of canyon makes the cover too raunchy? Who sets and evaluates these standards (because I want on that sub-committee)?
Alternately, maybe the designers at Maxim thought she was more attractive without it? In a butt-centric culture like ours–Jennifer Lopex, ‘Baby Got Back’, ‘I like Big Butts’, etc–why say no that bit of crack?
I may be obsessing here, but it piqued my interest. Incidentally, for my money, Ms. Branch is a lousy lyricist and, judging by her first album, only appears to know six chords.