Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Merck, today, has written the following letter to the editor of the NY Times.

Please feel free to share it around the Guns n'roses community

Sir,

I find it remarkable that the New York Times - a newspaper of some repute - has chosen to run an article on the making of the forthcoming
Guns N' Roses album Chinese Democracy without even bothering to talk to anyone who has actually been involved in the making of the album. You quote 5 people on the record all of whom with the exception of Tom Zutaut have been out of the picture for between 6 and 9 years and like the author of your article have never even heard the album! Tom Zutaut himself has not been involved for three years and has heard virtually none of the actual record. Your journalist Jeff Leeds - is this the return of Jayson Blair under a pseudonym? - contacted us last Thursday the 24th of February to inform us he had been working on an article about the "process" of making the album. I explained that it was not possible for him to write such a story as he had not spoken to the band, our 2 engineers, myself or most importantly Axl all of whom have been working on the actual album for the last two years and enquired how he could write an investigative report with any integrity without doing so. I also asked why if he was reporting on the "process" why we were the last people he was contacting as it was obvious from the discussion that he had been working on this for a number of weeks. Contrary to his blatant lie that he was told by "management" that W. Axl Rose "could not be reached for comment" I made it clear that we could not consider his request for an interview with either Axl or myself until we knew who the other people involved in the article were as we were not going to lend credibility to an article that was based on hearsay from people that have not only had nothing to do with the album but whose only agenda was to recapture their 15 minutes of fame in an industry that had cast them aside and left them unemployed many years ago. Mr Leeds told me he would call this week once he had considered our position so that we could discuss it further. This past Monday the 27th at 6 pm he left a message with my office saying that his deadline to file the story was 12 pm the following day. I called him immediately on receipt of the message the following morning and reminded him that we had made an agreement that he would consider whether he was going to divulge the people involved in the article following which I would then contact Axl and we could consider whether to participate and asked why he had not mentioned that he was working to a tight deadline when we had previously spoken. I also made the point that this piece was not "news" nor was it "fragile" and that surely if his article was to genuinely be about the "process" then he must speak to someone who was involved. After much discussion with Mr Leeds it was clear that both the writer and the Times had it's own agenda and that it was not only not interested in presenting an accurate view but both he and his editor refused my request for 24 hours to discuss the situation with Axl despite the fact that the story was scheduled to run 6 days later! It should also be mentioned that during our initial conversation the writer was offered the opportunity to hear the album in the studio when it was finished and talk to people who were directly involved and declined in favour of the article you have chosen to run. As one of the few people involved in the making of this album I can tell your readers the following. W, Axl Rose is not interested in fame, money, popularity or what the New York Times or any other paper for that matter might think of him. His only interest is making the best album he is capable of so that it can have a positive affect in 2005 on people who are enthusiasts of music and interested in Guns N' Roses. His artistic integrity is such that he has chosen to do so without compromise at great personal sacrifice which makes him a soft target for the sort of rubbish you have chosen to print. I believe he will have the last laugh.

Sincerely,

Merck Mercuriadis
Chief Executive Officer
The Sanctuary Group

If you feel strongly that the NY Times have treated the Guns n'roses camp badly in the writing of this article, please feel free to express yourself to the NY Times

This is my suggestion, not Mercks

Only fair that both sides are presented ... that said, I tend to believe the New York Times over the GNR management camp.

Nevertheless, thanks for posting Mysteron, it's good to hear GNR's side of this article, too.

Thanks for posting that Mysteron.

For the Dutch readers:  the translation you can find @ www.gunsnroses.nl

I'm serously not trying to be an ass, but they best way for GNR to disprove any of this article is to release an album ...

That said:  as a journalism student in college, the NY Times should publish this editorial, and let the public decide for themselves.

Well, Merck did say "a positive affect in 2005" - that sounds like a 'release year' to me.

Sad to have to extract something so basic through such a convoluted process, but hey, its there in black and white!   :rofl:

Umm, yay?

-darknemus

Here's hoping!  I'll drink to that!

P.S.  Effect!   : ok:

WHAT A DUMBASS !!!!!!!

he could've listened to the album. ?:o :o :o

I agree that it should be 'effect' - however, the letter used the incorrect spelling, so I reproduced that in my quote.

In fairness, though, the effect / affect mistake happens to alot of people.

-darknemus

No problem dude, I'm just the spelling nazi!  Fuck I can be an ass!

EDIT:  I should have corrected the spelling of the original poster, not darknemus.

WHEN it was finished. It's not finished yet.

hmmm that's still a first hand listen if you will... before the album had landed in stores.
A true fan would've picked that option.

This isn't the first half arsed article to be written about the band, axl or the creative process of putting together and album so why did the band's manager and sanctuary CEO openly insult (basically) the proffesionalism of a well respected and highly read newspaper?

Could it be he has something to back it up?

Probably not; but there must be some reason for this letter to have been written.....

I think you have answered your own question, this is not a cheesy teenage magazine, it's the new york post.

Merck goes up in my estimations every time he speaks.

I'm more than happy he's involved in this project.

I know, and i probably am clutching at straws, but it's still not the first time a media outlet with some integrity has failed to do it's homework on gn'r. (don't mean to nit-pick but it's the times, not the post. I don't know the NY papers that well, but the post is a tabloid right? Bah, ignore this bit, it's pointless)

Just like to add that i'm really beginning to like merck too. This guy does have integrity and is trying to protect the people he represents. Good on you mercky boy.

Thanks Mysteron and above all thanks Merck! Good stuff!!!

finally something from GNR side... but nothing new anyway  :hihi:

Merck seems pissed off, its only an article.

"Quality paper" doesn't mean "Straight info".  :P


seemingly it was going to be finished in the not too distant future.

: ok:

Just to say it was not the Post but the Times, two very different newspapers.

Anyway, the article was a very interesting read and the resulting letter doesn't surprise me. As Merck said, Axl is a soft target for such articles, but couldn't he change the situation by at least releasing some sort of new material (new GN'R DVD, radio single, EP, etc.?). That would shut everyone up.

i thought the article was pretty good even though it's obviousely bias, i can't see it as an Axl slam at all though. To be honest, if there's not going to be any CD alot of people would look really fuckin' stupid, not just Axl, and if that was the case someone whould have thrown that canfidential agreement of Axl out to the wolfs...

And if the company don't know how to control their bills, fuck'em...

And to talk about a gn'r reunion at this time is utterly rediculus, what, do you think this whole new gn'r was only a joke??? :-[

That said, gotto give cred to that leeds guy who just threw away the chance to actually make a decent article brilliant..

without a cd, merck's words are hard to believe.

Amen. Lets put this to peace, somebody wrote an article, Axl and Merck were pissed off. I say it was a good day!

Remember, Merck gets paid to make Axl look good and say nice things about him. ?You don't think Merck is thinking to himself, "Jesus Chirst Axl, just finish the album already." ?

On the good side, it seems there is a better the 50% chance the CD will see the light of day in 2005. ?I wouldn't put money on it or anything but it seems that some people around Axl seem optimistic. ?If it doesn't come out soon, I don't know how long the rest of the band members will stick around. ?I guess they could always get Chris Pittman...it's he mowing Axl's lawn or something? ?:hihi:

I love the end of the letter....about Axl having the last laugh! :beer:

I love the drama! This is like a soap opera...I find it very interesting about the inner workings of the music industry.

Thanks Mysteron.

hmmm ok , I'm from Europe. What's the difference between the ?NY post and he NY times? which one is more respectable ? Are you saying the times is a shitty one ?

How lovely to read that article! Fuck you New York Times and hopefully it will shut a few of the doubters up on this site, who claim the album will never come out!!

I actually feel the exact opposite. I think the spin keeps spinning from the GN'R community and still we, "the fans" are left with nothing.

First of all, why didn't Axl write this letter? It's not like he wouldn't have time for this. He's not doing mutiple interviews or anything.

Second, how could this reporter have talked to anyone else associated with the band and/or ablum? When we've known in the past that Axl has people sign confidentiality agreements. There's no way they could talk about anything regarding the album. The comment about Axl not agreeing to any comment or interview until they knew who the other people involved in the article were seems really pathetic. Which leads to my third question......

Third, what makes anyone think Axl would contibute to an article after he didn't have anything to say for the VH1 Behind The Music special? You think Axl would've stopped and made time for a silly Times article, but not a story for BTM? Are Slash and Duff not creditable?...come on!!!!

After all this time with all of us, the real GN'R fans wanting to know about this album and yet we hardly know anything. Could've been so easy to keep us informed. We don't have to have the entire story, but not let us continue to hang in limbo. And to think well maybe Axl and management cannot comment  because of lawsuits is highy ridiculous now to suggest. They wouldn't have replied to this Times reporter about an interview or comment especially regarding the "secret" album if they were afraid of lawsuits or more lawsuits.

Why not do an interview with Jarmo. This site is made up with unbelieveable fans! Who more than anyone else besides us are more interested in this new album? Why waste words on any newspaper, magazine, or with any other reporter from news outlets?

No, quite the contrary. The Times is believed to be a respectable newspaper. That's why one could be surprised they made such a mistake (even though it wouldn't be a first lol).

Merck is talking out of both sides of his mouth. It's easy to say you should ask to talk to those involved with the process......knowing no one truly involved with the process can or will say anything of substance about the process due to all the confidentiality bullshit associated with the band. This is just your typical PR spin from management to minimize the effect of the article on the public. I will believe the Times as they ae one of the most reputable news sources in the country. Merck can say whatever he wants about Axl being willing to talk with the paper. I don't believe that for a second.

OMG!!!!!!

Chinese Democracy starts.............................................................NOW!!!!!


 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Well not that DUMBASS you have to read the sentence til the end ... "when it was finished" !? ;)

What I've found actually interesting when I've translated the letter for French Gunner Temple (Will, you were too fast I couldn't match ;)  ;D) was when I came across the word "actual Chinese Democracy" ... For my understanding it means that Axl changed the whole thing during the last two years.  :o

Speaking about the article, well I haven't read something I haven't come accross before as a GNR fan for the last decade  ;D Interesting though that Merck begins to counter-attack !

and you have to read the whole thread til the end... :P

Well, who do you think urged Merck to write a letter?  Axl may not be interested in fame, but he still seems very aware of everything written about him, GnR, and Chinese Democracy.  I still find it interesting, the power Axl weilds in getting people to do things for him, when he's never delivered a product. 

i hope this will make anyone actually do what Merck says! Get an interview with the guys, hear the album and write a good article about it..

Jesus ... the message was sent and it wasn't just finished yet ! ?:P That's why I edit the whole thing ! Shit do happen ! ?:-X :P

Let's be realistic about this.

Merck made the comment about talking to Axl about the album when it was finished. If he can't even finish the album for the label, why in their right mind should the Times have thought Axl would have it done in the next month or so so they could write their article in a timely fashion? Also, if the album were truly that close to being done now, he could have let the reporter listen to what they have, make his comments, and give some semblence of an idea as to when it will be released. The fact he was obviously in a position to do none of the above can only lead someone to believe there is no way this thing is close to being ready to release.

Merck is attempting to "spin" this. It's what American political operatives make millions doing. I am sure Axl was given the opportunity to participate in the article. He chose not to, so after the fact Merck's job is to spin it and make it seem as little Axl's fault as possible. He is just trying to save what credibility Axl has left as at some point hopefully he is going to be in a position where he has to market him. This article paints Axl out to be a caricature of himself, and the Times is an incredibly journalistically respected paper so people are going to probably believe what it says, as it is the closest thing to a real GNR story we have gotten from a credible mainstream media source.

"I made it clear that we could not consider his request for an interview with either Axl or myself until we knew who the other people involved in the article were as we were not going to lend credibility to an article that was based on hearsay from people that have not only had nothing to do with the album but whose only agenda was to recapture their 15 minutes of fame in an industry that had cast them aside and left them unemployed many years ago."

Who is he refering to?

I just finished reading this Times article.? There's nothing in it that we haven't already read a gazzillion times before.
I don't get what? Merck is getting his panties in a knot over?? ???

Well - I can't wait to read this article - but at least the world now will realize that Axl is still releasing this album, many people afterall thought Guns N' Roses was over.

Hmmm, interesting. Maybe everybody is right as this maybe promotion for the new album.

The NY Times is usually a good quality newspaper. It normally prints fair and balanced articles

Unfortunately, the Guns n'roses article is based only on second hand information from people who have little overall knowledge about the entire Guns n'roses situation. This, therefore, render the story unfit for printing (unless you are Spin or Kerrang magazine). Also, the journalist who wrote the article conducted himself in a very unprofessional manner, as pointed out in Merck's letter.

This is brilliant on the part of Merck. The article makes some very interesting points, especially ehen it lists the number of musicians, producers, corporate entities and general changes in the music industry have transpiored since 1994-and how Axl has survived them all. That should never be ignored.

That being said, Merck has allied himself and most probably endeared himself to the band and Axl especially, as CEO of Sanctuary standing up to the media (Axl's favorite insitution) in the face of what should be considered a somewhat incomplete account of current events with the band. Good form, Merck.

Now, if record company's money ?go bye-bye, as the article suggests, then the album is probably closer than ever to being released. Axl will personally finance the project, I am sure, but not for very much longer. I beleieve he WILL have the last laugh because it is really insane how long this has gone on. Besides, at this point, it IS probably just maniacal perfectionism, which eventually reaches its limits, too. The album will be amazing, maybe even vindicate Axl in the face of all the naysayers, probably not change the face of music, but definately make a HUGE musical statement about GNR's relevance to popular, especially, rock music, and cement Axl Rose's legacy as one of this generation's most unique music celebrities. Baffling, flawed and narcissitic, but passionate, sublimely talented and perhaps brilliant.

...sorry about a couple of misspellings, guys. Been working on a paper all night and into today. This was my break!

Nice to see someone defending Axl...I love the last line when he says Axl Will Have The Last Laugh  :peace:

That's Merck's side of the story. ?In reality, the reporter could have been very professional. ?He probably was very professional. ?He probably called Axl's people and asked for an interview and they told him to screw. ?This is nothing more than a guy Axl pays to be in his corner and on his side conducting spin control for Axl. ? ?

Anyone who lives in the US and especially on the east coast will probably believe what was written in the NY Times. ?I just re-read the article myself and it is void of agenda really. ?All the quotes are believable and it is probably very accurate. ?I totaly believe that Axl conducts himself the way the article says, otherwise, we would have had 3 albuyms by now. ?I also believe he made a request to talk to Merck or Axl or someone currently involved and was denied. ?Merck's spin control is very transparent. ?As one poster said, if he wanted to really shut people up (and if the material was any good at all) he would release the album. ?

Ask yourselves why he hasn't released it yet. ?The only real explanation that I keep coming back to is that it probably isn't of the quality that Axl wants. ?He is (or at least has been in the recent past) obviously not that confident in the material.

Merck, nice job, but very transparent.

TyRod

Merck has every right to defend his client, it's one of his jobs to do.
There was contact between the two sides, NY times decided to go with the article, Merck responded, NY times should publish his letter, end of story.

Merck's account of the journalist was additional. Whether it be true or not, who cares

He's just also saying, there is no balance to the article. That is factual, there isn't. I could call you a murderer, but we could not get a fuller picture on that unless you were allowed to defend yourself.

He's also defends Axl and says he will have the last laugh

I completely agree. I also don't think these are such good news.

Well, if you dont give the newspapers any news... They make them up by themselves. :-\

What I've found actually interesting when I've translated the letter for French Gunner Temple (Will, you were too fast I couldn't match ;)? ;D) was when I came across the word "actual Chinese Democracy" ... For my understanding it means that Axl changed the whole thing during the last two years.? :o

Speaking about the article, well I haven't read something I haven't come accross before as a GNR fan for the last decade? ;D Interesting though that Merck begins to counter-attack !

the two most interesting aspects of Merck's letter. I would say that Axl was not that confident with the material after the 2002 tour or Bucket parts are out of the picture. If Merck found that necessary for this sort of response (they made a new enemy in the american press) i would say he's very confident in a fast release, at best a date from the record company - that's the one i want.
Here's what i think happend, the jornalist talked whith the people he new would accecpt an interview on the subject, as he works with a respected paper he then warned the management confident he would get a "no coment" from them as usual and could print his article whith out being considered bias, but ?Merck was very smart and gived him an oportuny to hear the album when it was finished and from this moment on he could get a way out:
1 - the jornalist accept's and god knows when the article would go out (a lot more complicated to a jornalist to diss someone when given this sort of opportunity specially with the blockout GNR gives the press);
2 - The jornalist goes ahead, and GNR camp can say they did not got their facts from us even when we gived them that chance.
Merck is one smart motherf 8)
As far as the "the Times as they are one of the most reputable news sources in the country", well crap being printed in tabloids is not a problem, everybody take's it with a grain of salt, but if it's a considered reliable source people will believe even if it's someone's opion based on past experience, ?and not even consider that they didn't get the facts checked. If it happens to a president in functions and future candidate it can happen to anybody. Not that i'm saying that they didn't do the best article they could with the options they had, but i've seen people where cheering for blood because whoever wrote or said the something, but as it was the NY Times, so most belive and don't go for the capital sentence.
Feb

I think it's cool that Merck responded.
However, if the content of the article was truly inaccurate, he - or Axl - should have agreed to be interviewed about it. They should have offered to give their side. This wasn't some fly-by-night publication. This was the NY Times.

Demanding a journalist reveal sources is just not fair. No reputable journalist will divulge "sources" that provide information. If they did that, they'd lose their credibility and trust in the industry. It's called integrity.

I think Merck and Axl should give their side now. I think they should pick a journalist and tell the world what's been happening -- IF, in fact, this story was wrong. Just my 2 cents.

its good to hear how much confidence he has in axl since he is one of the few who have heard CD and knows where things are at. 

It's hard to get first hand information on a band that doesn't grant interviews to the press ... furthermore I do not consider what I read to be "unfit for printing."


I agree with everything madison had to say.

Speaking as a giddy fan, this whole NYT saga seems to have taken the band and the album, should it ever be released, to a new level. In the past I've noticed that most major news outlets had no interest in this story. The biggest names to cover the band were, like, Rolling Stone, MTV, and Spin. Very large mainstream organizations, but still pretty specialized and more or less no-brainers to cover GNR every once in awhile. But this expanisve piece by the times really lifts the whole thing up to a new level. By pumping up the legend of the album, chronicling the controversy surrounding, and actually creating more controversy, it can only be a good thing publicity-wise (once again) SHOULD THE ALBUM ACTUALLY BE RELEASED.

As a jaded observer, I look at Merck's letter and think to myself, "I hope you're not another clueless stooge doing Axl's bidding."

I like that Merck is obviously passionate about this project, he seems to be very involved with it and that can only be a good thing. However, after reading this, I think the NY Times have the perfect rebuttal with "see how he is surrounding himself with yes men and people who do not put the blame on Axl"

The fact of the matter remains..lets say everything up till 2001 or 2002 was scrapped. Who is to say that the material in 2003 and 2004 wont be scrapped in later years? This process has happened a few times..the re recording of Freese and Tobias, Fortus adding new guitar parts, adding Buckethead..the probable re recording of Buckethead parts..what happens is Finck leaves tomorrow? What happends if Tommy leaves tomorrow? This album is on egg shells.

I hope that Merck was right in subtly giving a 2005 release I really do, but we cant get crazy over this, because if I were to tell you during the prime of the new band in 2002 that Chinese Democracy is still not out in 2005 all hell would have broken loose.

The biggest problem with Mercuriadis' comments that Axl is well known for not giving interviews. He only talks when the interviewer is an Axl-kisser or a fuckin' nobody who agrees not to ask those question Axl doesn't want to answer to. The whole 'letter to the editor' is based on bullshit - who could the reporter ask anybody from the current GN'R camp when they are not allowed to answer the question?

Some great posts on this topic.  But the one thing to think about is that for all we know, Merck is currently just the "replacement" for all of these other guys that were quoted in the article.  Yeah, they may not be relevant to what is going on NOW with CD, but they were at one time.

Merck's comment to Leeds about "hearing the album when it's completed" was nothing more of a smoke and mirrors stall-tactic to keep (part of) the story from being printed.

Hypothetical question: 

Let's say that two or three years from now, CD is still not out.  And Axl changes handlers/management/labels etc. again.  The NY Times comes out with an interview with Merck, who no longer would be backing Axl.  Would you believe him?

Answer:  Of course you would!  Just because he's "out of the picture," doesn't mean that he couldn't give us a glimpse of what went on in the past, much like the other people in this article did. 

There was NO balance at all!? I was contacted yesterday & was told to be prepared for a big let down & even to bring my "Box of tissues" by one fan. After reading, I said to myself what another waste of time I let myself get dragged into. If paid, I could have written that article in ONE DAY! The publishing is an embarrassment having "insiders" tell a story that us die hard fans already know! Management is in the practice to dealing with this & by Merck asking for sources & negotiating (lack of better word) to bring the fans something more veracious & worthwhile to a major NY & TRI STATE audience is simply A PATH TO GOOD ETHIC. The sad part is that most fans of Guns N' Roses are NOT on these forums in the majority & will hear half-truths & even truths MIXED about to a conclusion that meets the articles headlining & that is why the response from Sanctuary using common sense.

I sometimes goof about... but take this to heart folks.  I am debating if I should even put this up as news ?? cuzz If I do, it's just feeding the times more press?

-Sean (BP) gunsnroses.us // chinesedemocracy.com

I guess my post stating that the publicity the article is generating about the project is most likely a good thing.  But, does anyone know if the response ran in today's NY Times?

There's already a thread about Merck's response. Please read the board index and see if you can post in some thread related to what you wanna say before creating a new thread. Thanks.

Topics merged.

So in the meantime, as usual, Axl and Management can continue to ignore the fans on the forums and reach out and try to clear things up with the hopeful fan base that may or may not even exist. We fans here on the forums hear half-truths and mixed truths almost every day. Where's our response from Axl and Management? And it's not like anyone from the GN'R camp have to come on a forum and reply. Simply use the Guns N' Roses official website. Not every day, but some kind of communication on a regular basis. That's all we ask!

Axl & Co are not in the business of clearing up rumors. It is not in there best interest. If it were, it would be a full time job which leads to stress on everybody. When good marketing comes into play with the album, then sure, play with the press.

Axl in the past has been taken by the press & once you give in, the whole thing snowballs & can lead to something ugly.

-BP

Axl didnt do an interview for the unauthorized BTM because he didnt want to help promote VRs shit.

to me BTM was done to coincide more with VR and their cd and the VR special, so im glad he didnt participate

besides axl is finished with the old and has moved on, no sense in goin back.

I think that initial article was full of fallacies because i believe none of those guys are involved right now.

sure 6 or 7 years ago axl was that way but i dont believe he is always that way.

I think Axl and merck were tryin to trick the reporter into giving up his sources though

i dont think they had any intentions of letting him hear CD or do an interview, they tried to be sneaky and find out his anonymous sources.

so props to the reporter for not selling out his sources.

Kudos to Merck for speaking and sticking up for his client. Now if only his client would do him a favor and release the fucking thing...that's what would shut people up.

True. But All I'm saying is rumours come many times from just no news or word. As I said, just some update every now and then to let us fans no how the progress of the album is coming along. I'm not asking for song titles, release dates, or other direct confirmations and information about CD. Instead picking certain battles that Axl and Co. can fight out in the press, let the fans have some offical update by the GN'R website. Then we'll have something to stand on and so will reporters. This way we don't have to continue to go thru made up "fictional release dates" , "who is/isn't still in the band", or "CD news coming soon" from various posters on the forums.

That's the best response so far to what is obviously a poor attempt at damage control. Where in Merck's letter did he refute any of the points made in the article?

www.gnronline.com is Interscope's website for Guns N' Roses, I'd prefer to not have Axl's blog on there.  Who is he, Fred Durst?

I think the responses to Merck's letter goes to show how much faith the "fans" have lost in Axl and his ability to release this album.

Unfortunately I think that Merck...has no power about the album :-\. He seems to be a nice guy, but he is like tom zutaut and all the ex-managers/producers, It's not Merck who's going to decide when the album is released: it's Axl.

I agree with yall. Merck didnt refute one claim or justification. Why? Because he cant. Why not explain what has been going on then for the last 2-3years, dont just say they dont know what they are talking about..come out and say why they dont know what they are talking about.

So because Axl hasn't given you an album he, and his crew, have to be backed into a corner and pressurised into giving info. 'Axl must do this', 'Merck must do this'.....it's like Lord of the Flies  :nervous:

Axl has a plan, and I respect that as do alot of people here. The NY Times was a good tabloid read, but nothing more. When Axl has co. are ready to give their side of things, I will then look and reflect and judge....I'll probably think, wow, that was a mad journey, and the cool thing was that alot of us were part of that. There'll be some nasty bits I'm sure, but when there's passion on the sports field, you expect a few injuries

Again, If he and Merck didn't like the article they have absolutely no one to blame but themselves. They were invited to join the process.....and chose not to. Not sure how that makes the NY Times a tabloid rag in this case. If Merck thought that stuff they printed was BS, he should have participated in the article.

As far as their regulations for participating, Axl is going to have to grow up and realize that journalists are not going to always bend over for him and only ask questions he wants to hear. If he thinks in the future he is going to conduct interviews that don't harp on VR, and why he took so long to put his album out, and everything else he doesn't seem to want to talk about he is out of his mind. People are not going to play that game anymore I don't think. If he refuses to do interviews without those provisions, he may find himself not doing many interviews.

Him and Merck need to get with the program and make allies out of the press, and not adversaries. Being standoffish is fine, but then don't seem horrified when you see an article printed that you don't like that you refused to participate in when you could have given your side to provide the balance you think it's lacking.

Only true genius can inspire such deep devotion from Merck. :love:

About the interviews. No One Is obliged to answer Questions that he doesn't Want to Answer. That is his right. I personnaly Prefer Axl To be Asked Freely in intervies and just to reply eith No comment.

As Fas As New go It is Axl's Right Not togive any info if he doesn't want. Saying I believe Axl Should have respected us our Fans And Just Say " I will not give any info about CD until it is Done" That's it. No Misunderstanding there. But He chosed to Speak Very Little in Intervies and Press releases and things didn't Come True. By doing that he Must inform tha public what is going on. When he said that Hopefully
a Release date will be announced in Few Months and has passed almost a Year Since Then He Must Come And Inform Again.

All These Years He Hasn't set the record Straight for everyone to know about the
level of Communication he wants with the Fans/Press/Public....

Is Is Very Simple to me. If He publicly said " No Info/News On CD until It is Released" No One In Press/Fans Would have been Putting Pressure On Him.

He Keeps On giving small Tibits and wrong deadlines for CD over the years and Then He Doesn't Deal With Them.

If your note sure about the difference between a tabloidesque article and a broadsheet article, then it's probably best for your own sake not to comment

And again, there you are saying, "Axl is going to have to"...."Him and Merck need to"..... ?:nervous:

The Reason That we ask For News It The Axl haven't Set the Record Straight regarding his Communication.
When He Made A Statement about Announcing a release Date in the next Few Months And Since then it is almost a year without release Date then He Has To Come and Say Sth To Public And Fans. He Doesn't Have To Say a lot Just Sth.

As I said earlier If He Had Just Said To Us And Public. "Expect No Info Until I am Ready For Release" No One will expect things from Him.

Well, there's two schools of thought on what the effect would be from their participation in a story that they believe to be inaccurate.  One is that it might add some balance to the piece.  Another is that by participating at all, you are lending credence to the story and making its inaccuracies seem accurate to the general public.  Merck and Axl Rose have no say in how the story is edited and in what form it is chosen to be run by the Times.  I'm sure that Merck was well aware of this, and did not want to say anything when he knew that his comments might be only used in parts.  Even some snippet of a new quote from Merck in the ariticle would make it look like he agreed that the information presented in the article was factual.

Ali

Oh so its ok to write an article based on lies, conjucture and talking to people that are not involoved in the project anymore?
When are people going to learn that Axl does not care about the spotlight? Just because Axl likes to keep to himself does not mean that papers have the right to write BS articles about him.

Papers and magazines print crap stories about Guns every month, why has Merck felt the need to hit out against this one?

Still, if true, the last paragraph looks like a good sign for the future. :peace:

Because this Is the NEW YORK Times. Not Another Half Ass Magazine.

Merck might as well change his name to "Pollyanna". Can one really write a letter-to-the-editor based on an obituary column???

I hope the NY Times prints Merck's response. All the controversy could really be good for the band, it could help hype up CD even more.

Hype what? Wake up! The album ain't coming out. No more money!!!! Axl, though rich, doesn't have enough money to finish the album and finance a tour. Clear Channel isn't going to go down that road again. It's over. The sooner you realize that the better.

Didn't Merck say Axl would have the last laugh?

Where do you have proof that the author wrote lies or that what was written was BS? ?Are you taking what Merck says as truth and what the author says as lies? ?If so, why? ?I mean Merck has an agenda, and presumably this author does/did not. ?Is your site so blurred by blind loyalty to Axl that you don't see this?

Seems like the author did some research before going to print. ?He talked to those people who would participate who have worked with Axl on CD in the past. ?He asked to talk with Axl and current management, but got rejected. ?It appears he did his due diligence on this article. ?When asked by Merck to reveal his sources he said "fuck that" and went to print. ?You Axl ball washers act like Merck is some god with power. ?He is the mouth piece for a man who hides behind confidenciality agreements and "I will do your interview but only if you ask me nice questions" type of bullshit. ?For those of us that are not so blind to think Axl isn't fallible or Merck isn't some genius, we can see this for what is it...an opportunity for some free PR. ?It is my opinion that the article is probably quite accurate. ?Could it have benefited from hearing Axl's side...sure, but notheless I'm sure Axl acted/acts exactly as he is described in that article. ?I'm sure he shows up sporadically for work. ?I'm sure he fires people for little or no reason all the time. ?The man is a diva if there ever was one.

I am getting a kick out of everyone who thinks Merck is the best ever and this author must be a piece of shit. ?It's almost like you people who are doing this have no real concept of the GNR story or history. ?Very entertaining.

TyRod

The negative creeps, Whose side are you on? Anything but GN'R, huh?

simply sick. :puke:

Articles are made on this way: the reporter contacts various people from (hopefully) both sides and then he creates what he thinks to be the truth (or lies, but that's another case). In this situation Axl & Co didn't want to be involved - so the article had been made without them. Do you think that would have give a full interview to the newspaper just to share his view? I bet that the NY Times or every other newspaper would gladly accept that! But he's not interested in that either. So I don't see how anyone should/could write about the CD project before it comes out when the GN'R camp found out this 'magnificent strategy': not to communicate? But why, oh fuckin' why? What's wrong with giving some interviews? What'd be wrong with updating the website? The band can have their own site where they talk about the things they want. It's not risky like being asked about Slash or Stephanie Seymour or West Arkeen. But they don't use it. Hopefully CD'll be once released and Axl tells what his great philosophy and plan was behind not giving any updates.

yeah, i don't understand why people freak out when merck says things like this or that he "hopes gnr will tour this year"

i mean what the hell, obviously he wants them to tour.

nice to see him respond so quickly, and, what i'm most happy about, is he shared it with the gnr community immediately.

thanks mysteron, htgth, for getting this to all of us so quickly. there's a reason you guys got this exclusively sent to you :)

FUCK ALL YOU SONS OF BI*CHES WHO YESTERDAY POSTED THAT IT WAS THE FINAL NAIL IN THE COFFIN!

Sooo true, i agree ?:peace: and after readin mercks speaks and interviews, -
-i have a good impression of him too ?: ok:

I wonder if the members will mention this in interviews or ignore it... ?:P

Wrong, only th eprospect of making money can inspire that type of devotion.   :yes:

.

Oh so its ok to write an article based on lies, conjucture and talking to people that are not involoved in the project anymore?
When are people going to learn that Axl does not care about the spotlight? Just because Axl likes to keep to himself does not mean that papers have the right to write BS articles about him.


Ok Mr unreliable, point out to us the lies in the ariticle.

Naupis is right, the ariticle is written based on the information the author was able to gather from the only people who were allowed to talk, those who worked on CD and are no longer involved.

Again, it's the NY Times, the reporter undoubtedly asked to speak to the current cast who are working on the album and was obviously told it wouldn't happen or worse yet given the "old GNR run around". ?You know, tell us what you have and we might comment, which everyone (especially our old friend Mysteron) knows would never happen.

The article may be dated as far as updates but i don't think anyone can deny that the info is accurate and it still points to an axl who still can't show up for work and still can't focus enough to complete an album. ?

Thus the outrage from Merck, ?how dare the reporter tell the public how axl has wasted the last 10 years and millions of dollars on his project.

And for mysteron, you want people to be outraged and write to the NY TImes, typical bullshit from you. ?Axl and his half assed record company should deal with rumors and negative media with simple statements on their website just like every other artist does in the year 2005.

Did you bother 2 read mercks speaks?
He do this 4 the love of music and artist intregrity, and points thats why sanctuary is so fast growin  :)

-contraire to other music groups that do this 4 big money...  ;)
And he do share his confidence and support 4 such undeniable artists as axl rose  :beer:

Merck is a manager. ?To take anything he says seriously is kind of silly to me. ?Hes beginning to resemble Doug Goldstein when he kept popping up in articles years ago.

If Merck is going to condemn the New York Times for running an imbalanced/factually incorrect piece, then why doesnt he offer at least one substantial correction? ?Hes already printing up a response for public viewing, why not set the record straight?

When he offered the opportunity to hear the album when its finished, the author must have laughed and said "No, but seriously..." ?Like Naupis said, its all spin. ?"W, Axl Rose is not interested in fame, money, popularity or what the New York Times or any other paper for that matter might think of him. His only interest is making the best album he is capable of so that it can have a positive affect in 2005 on people who are enthusiasts of music and interested in Guns N' Roses. His artistic integrity is such that he has chosen to do so without compromise at great personal sacrifice which makes him a soft target for the sort of rubbish you have chosen to print. I believe he will have the last laugh." ?Thats spin. ?Instead of corrections or substantial refutations, thats what we get. ?So who should really be taken seriously here? ?If Merck has the nerve to call this writer "Jayson Blaire," the least he could do is correct him.

As for the last laugh bit, you would think this camp would know better than to be so cocky. ?Maybe they should check the Dec. 7th, 2002 newspapers before they get arrogant, or "misty-eyed" about getting the last laugh.

Well what concerns me is this

If the album was good Geffen/Interscope would force the release, they would call time on this charade and just force it through as they have the legal right to (Axl is after all in breach of contract)

That they don't means they think the album is rubbish and not worth the law suits that will follow

No one allows a potential money spinner to sit idle for 10 years, the only concievable reason is because the album is terrible or worse doesn't even exist.

It's laughable and pathetic to defend someone? Sheesh

Secondly, your post is a personal attack on Merck, so what does that say about you?

Absolutely right. What is Merck thinking?

I never said I think there is anything wrong with giving interviews or updating your website.

I'm just looking at from what I think Merck's perspective may be.  I believe he stated in his letter to the editor that he did not want to lend credence to something he believed to be factually incomplete or inaccurate, and that's why he refused to participate.  He was protecting Axl's interests, and doing so fiercely.   

Ali

I don't want people to do anything. I was just suggesting that if anyone disagreed with the article, to tell the NY Times

I really don't mind people disagreeing. I just like to see -good- and -valid- arguments

How do you know what the contract states? For all we know, it could say Axl can take as long as he wants to release the album. If they could force axl to release the album, dont you think they would have done it by now?

And AGAIN it has not been TEN ?years, Axl started working on this in bascially 1998/1999 and from what Merk said, it implies Axl scrapped all that and started over in 2002. ?

[/u]

Seems that Merck asked him to hold his story a mere 24 hours more to allow him to discuss it with Axl... ?BUT THEY REFUSED!
At the very least they should not have lied that "management" told them that Axl could not be reached for comment. ?:no:
Thier readers should know that ?THEY refused management's request for 24 hours to discuss the situation with Axl.
Now... will they print this? ?And if they do, what will their response be? ?

Either way, kudos to Merck for speaking up and letting us know the real deal. ? :beer:



The more I hear from Merck the more I really like this guy! ?:love:

haha!

Give 'em hell Merck! ?: ok:

edit: ?there is nothing to indicate that Merck was advised what the contents of the article were going to be - nor that he made any request to be so advised. ?He simply asked that they consider letting him know who else was participating/contributing to their research for the article. ?He asked that they consider it. ?And according to Merck's account and response the writer agreed to consider it and to get back to him to discuss it. ?Then made an 'about face' and contacted him with a virtual ultimatum the eve before putting the story to bed. ?How is that professional? ?Even then that morning Merck asked that he be allowed to present the situation (as is) to Axl befre they proceeded and the writer and editor refused to allow it. ?How is that good journalism?

What We And the Thousands of people Who Read The NEW YORK Times Want Is The true Side and Complete ?Side As Merck Believes that what It Was printed Was not accurate and Complete.

Come On Merck/Axl ?Prove The Writer Wrong By Stating The truth. Just sending a letter like that doesn't
change the stituation. Tell us What is Inacurate.

Until You prove the Writer Wrong with the Complete Story I am afraid the Public and Fans will tend to believe the writer in the New york Times Because He constructed his article based On People who wotked with C.D and He is Under The credibility Of The New York Times Name.

Also they Will Tend To Believe Him Than You Because You are Financially Gaining from Axl to defend him as his Manager.

The Writer doesn't seam to benefit from the outcome of the article if it is bad or good For Axl. He Just seems to try to write Facts to me. He doesn't seem to be in benefit of being against Axl rather than you Who benefits to take Axl's Side as his Manager.

Come On Then Expose As the Truth......
 

Read again - i explain why they wouldn't have.

Yeah, he got me on the team 2,  :beer:
as seem as doin this 4 the right reason and is supportive of axl rose and gnr for the right reasons 2  :love:

If you think the record company could force Axl to release the album you're crazy.

Well, I believe that he isn't stating the truth, or correcting what he believes to be factual inaccuracies, because he will not allow himself or his client, Axl Rose, to be backed into a corner and put in a position where they have to divulge information on someone else's terms. 

Ali

From What i understood from the article Merck Said That he was only considering an interview with Axl if the
Writer Exposed His Sources. Even that applies to the 24 Hours request.

The writer Obviously couldn't Reveal His Sources.

How do you figure? Last I checked they did pay for an album didn't they? People don't give you 13 million dollars out of the goodness of their heart. Remember, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

"The deal covers both future material and catalogue.............as are dozens of new tracks Rose has RECENTLY recorded for Universal Music."      ---Axl Rose Signs To Sanctuary Publishing,  26 January 2005

Doesn't the story say there were 30 people interviewed who couldn't be named? Isn't it a reasonable assumption that many of those 30 people had quite a bit of knowledge but were gagged by Merck and Axl? ?Its logical that they make absolutely everybody around them sign agreements so they can make these very claims.

That's fine and dandy, but then don't whine and complain about people printing inaccuracies about you when you are perfectly capable of making the situation better. Merck doesn't like the story, then correct it. If you choose not to correct it, stop whining as if you've been wronged when you had a chance to make it all better. It's like he wants his cake and wants to eat it too. He is willing to participate in an article where he can essentially censor what is said, but when a reporter does his job and doesn't bend over for Axl and considers things about the project they don't find flattering, then they get all bent out of shape and complain. Again, no one forced them not to participate, therefore they have no reason to complain.

They are like the people who complain and bitch about the president and government, but don't vote in elections to do anything about improving the situation.

"he who laughs last... laughs best" ;)

Do you feel strongly that they were treated badly?  I'm just curious in what way - do you mean there are outright lies in the article?  The only shocking thing to me was the bit about the enormous monthly salaries for some of the people involved, and all that money spent on renting specialized equipment.   

Other than that, it just took the same old cynical view about the album's release which is nothing new - so why are you so defensive?

Somewhere in there, the article says that Mr. Rose's audience still awaits his return, and indeed the story is on the Times' list of Most Emailed Articles: http://www.nytimes.com/gst/mostemailed.html

I don't think anywhere in his statement, he alluded to wanting to be able to censor what was said.  He said he wanted to know who the reporter had contacted to see whether or not it was going to be another Axl-bashing article or not. 

Furthermore, even if he had participated, that is no guarantee that the situation would have been made better.  Some snippet of one of his quotes could have been taken out of context very easily.  Even that snippet of an original quote from Merck would have made it look like concurred with the unfolding of events as the reporter presented them.

Ali

We all just hope that it is Axl laughing all the way when the new music is given to us.

People have been laughing at him, us, and everything Guns N' Roses for a long time now. And they will continue to laugh and have the "last laugh" if the new album is a complete joke and failure. It won't matter at all to us who's laughing, but if and when the rest of the world is laughing and the album bombs, they'll be laughing last. :-\ :-X

Yes But By Asking that to a Journalirt you know that he cannot reveal his sources. You either decide to participate or not.


Yes Maybe But If you take time to acuse a newspaper that they are saying lies, you have to state
what you believe it is the truth. Just complaining and saying they lie doesn't change the public perception.

Almost Every guilty person in public says I am innocent. You have to at least say your side of the story and then let people decide what it is true.

CD has been in the works for over 11 years ... it has cost over $13 mil ... there have been a lot of different producers ... there have been a lot of different musicians .... the music has been done over when new band members have come aboard .... and the part about Axl's work ethics/schedule is also something most of us believe to be true ... so what did this guy say that wasn't true?

actually , whats sad is that the writers will get the last laugh anyways. No matter how great the album will be there will be a slew of writers with reviews ready to print that were written years ago .. if you know what I mean. Theres writers just waiting with an agenda of doing nothing but slamming this album/band and axl no matter how they really feel about the album. Count on that.

I dont see axl getting a fair shake , I see some writers with morals actually reviewing the album with an open mind but IMHO for every one honest review we will get there will be atleast 5 BS reviews by jaded , pissed , agenda driven "journalists" who have every intention of slamming the album.

Merck, Axl, shut everyones mouth and just put out a release date ?: ok:

Til then, you have nothing to say about the most expensive album never released

With an honest guy like Merck behind them, Guns N' Roses can't fail to make an impact.

Too true

Some peoples lives are very empty

As I wrote in the article Jarmo started that stated the story in the times.

It will probably be another Axl bash-fest article.. Howard Stern is always complaining about the NY Post saying how bad they suck and never have any acurate information. I guess we'll have to wait and see what Sunday brings.

I think Merck\Axl\The Band needs to be on the phone to all New York radio stations in the morning clearing this article up. Becasue if not the morning shows are going to have a hay-day with this article.

Usurper has been rumored by an unidentified source to be an asshole looking after celebrity - how would you like that printed in the new york times?

As for the outcry of "what lies?" by some in this thread... ?How much credibility should the writer (and his 30 some odd un-named 'sources') be given when the writer himself ?blatantly lied ?that "management said (Axl) could not be reached for comment"?

so what say you all now? That Merck is lying? ?Making up the entire thing about the phonecalls and conversations that passed between them? ?Gimme a break. ?Merck is not making this up. ?The writer and editor simply wanted to avoid criticism for their decision to not even allow an opportunity for Axl to comment. ?Now they have been called on thier lie.

The NY Times has its reputation to consider - The NY Times editor should needs to address Merck's claim that he asked to be allowed a mere 24 hours to discuss the situation with Axl SIX days before the article went to press.

One helluva letter.

Well... I think this whole story is nothing but positive for Guns N' Roses. At the very least, the fact that the NY Times would dedicate virtually 3 full pages in its sacred Sunday edition to discuss GN'R, Axl and the album is very encouraging to say the least. How many of us would think something like that would ever be possible back in the "dark days" of the mid/late 90's when the legitimate press seemed intent on type-casting GN'R as an over-glorified version of Poison? It's funny, but I think the Greatest Hits album has turned out to be one of the best things to happen to GN'R. I think the media has been shocked at how well that album sold, did a little research and realized how well the old catalog continues to sell... and have come to terms with the fact that GN'R was a very legitimate and historically significant outfit. I agree that there are some critics out there with their scathing CD reviews already saved to their hard drive waiting for its release... but I think there are still many others now (not so in late 90's) willing to give Axl a fair shake when he gets this thing out. At the end of the day- the music industry is better off with artists (and newsmakers) like Axl Rose, Madonna, Michael Jackson, Eminem, etc. producing music and not hiding out in their mansions.

As far as the article itself goes. I thought it was relatively fair despite the lack of Axl and Merck's participation. They acknowledged GN'R's continued grip on the conscience of the music industry, they acknowledged that Axl remains as riveting and charismatic a figure today as he was 17 years ago... even depicting him as borderline genius. I think a lot of people will read that article and be intrigued/curious about GN'R again... there just aren't very many artists that capture people's imagination like that anymore. I suspect Merck's letter will be published as well- which also serves Guns' interest because it frames the debate and increases speculation and anticipation...

To clear up this whole mess, we need to hear a rebuttal from Axl and NOT anyone else.

It's time Axl. ?You need to speak up and we NEED to hear from you. :peace:

Well it was nice of Merck to comment on the article. But at the end of the day I don?t think it really did any good.

Now if this had came from Axl ,then it might of had a little more wight behind it . At least in my eyes anyway.

off hand I'd say that IMO Merck would not have replied if they had not made that "axl's mangement said he could not be reached for comment" comment

 :peace:

How is it a lie for them to say Management said Axl couldn't be reached for comment. Sounds like management said Axl wasn't participating unless certain conditions weren't meant. Those conditions weren't meant, hence his not participating. Not quite seeing the lie there.

Also, in regards to the un-named sources. People leaked information about government happenings every day on the condition of anynonmity. Just because someone is not named does not mean they are not a credible source. They just can't always be named for fear of legal fallout. It is a weak argument to assume that because the people weren't named that they were lying, had an agenda.

For those who are unfamiliar, The New York Times has a national edition. ?So people all over the country have had the pleasure of reading it with there bagels every Sunday. ?The national edition costs a whopping ?FIVE bucks!! ?I couldn't believe it when I picked it up today, I live in Florida, BTW. ?When did newspapers get so expensive.
 ?Anyway, the article made me really sad. ?Axl sounds miserable. ?Hopefull the whole "There's no such thing as bad press" saying holds true for the band. ?Cuz an article of this type on the front page of the Arts&Leisure section of the Sunday NY Times, could be a PR disaster.

I'm NOT calling Merck a liar but we all know that there's no way in hell Axl was gonna participate in any way with this story no matter how much notice was given.

it would be really funny if the idea of axl not giving interviews was false and no1 really came out and just asked for one. 

Do you know Axl personally to say he would not do  a story or interview. He has done them in the past, with Loder, ,the RS interview even in his own words on gnronline a few years ago.  I am sure Axl will be giving interviews when the album is ready and he wants to give his side.

I do not know Axl personally.? What I meant was that I do not believe that Axl would have participated with THIS story. ?Do you believe he really would have considering the storyline?

I gotta agree with GYpsy Soul

only reason Merck and Axl considered giving an interview was to obtain who violated the gag order

once they found out, that person's ass wouldve been in a sling and they wouldnt have gave an interview to this douche fuck

This is exactly the sentiment I hold, and posted yesterday. NOw the real fireworks will begin, and you must be foolish to think that Merck , Santuary as a whole and Axl and GNR dont know this.  Tell me what band ever has garnered this much attention because of an album, why would it be such a big deal, they are after all just a rock band .............right?
Why its so intersesting and compelling is that now those casual fans now will have GNR on the brain again, and interset to see how this unfolds, Thier popularity have been only gaining in the last few yrs, not dwindlling with music fans, many who are young and the driving force in sales. But now they are put on the world stage , cause yes the NY TImes is global. And Mercks letter IMO is jsut tje first step in setting the record straight , I dunno about you , but Im holding onto my seat now, cause, this thing is gonna start , flying. And I do believee as MErck says, AXl will have the last laugh!

Peace

I thought the publishing deal was a real step in the right direction, but nothing has happened (publicly) since.
I'm not sure if this is going to be any more of a momentum changer.
Still, I don't know what this article or Merck's response really means.
As others have said, until Axl speaks for himself and/or finishes the CD
and releases it, he's going to be a lightning rod for criticism.
Axl has his right to be silent and finish his CD, but with everyone left in the dark,
it sure would be nice to hear from him....no cliche or company drivel from Tommy, Dizzy
or the management. Let's hear something honest and sincere from the man himself.
Whenever you're ready, Axl.

That sums up the last ten years. ?Instead of focus and energy on the creative process and completion of music, the priority has been on lawsuits, scaring the pants off of people to shut them up, and otherwise playing "gotcha." ?Heck, all of the things Merck states in his letter are very obvious: ?"we want to know the names of the people you are going to quote so we can basically shut them up, or sue them." ?If there are NY Times writers going to prison for withholding sources names from the FBI regarding the Bush Administrations doctoring of evidence of WMD's, then does anyone for one second think the writer Leed's is going to fall for their sophomoric tactics? ?This episode is getting comical. ?I hope we get Chinese Democracy in our hand's before White Trash Wins Lotto is in the theatres.

If their claim that "management said he (Axl) couldn't be reached for comment" is not true - then what do you call it?

I believe a writer, knowingly making any inaccurate/imcomplete/untrue claims in his story, does bring his credibility into question.
If a writer knowlingly chooses to omit information or to 'twist' the truth on any account - then I think its fair game to question how much of his claims regarding 'unamed sources' is truthful...  and at the very least calls his willingness and ability to judge other's credibility into question. 

Readers of the press are often called onto to take a reporter at their word - especially when they claim anonymous sources.
I just think that if the guy chose to misrepresent what transpired between him and mangement (Merck), who knows what other creative choices he made?

The Times article paints the bleakest of pictures for Chinese Democracy; it essentially buries the career of Axl Rose and Nu-GnR as it ends with the band cut off financially by the label  with no completed album on the horizon. Merck's response was terse, objected to the reporter's lack of professionalism, and, brimming with the confidence of a man holding a million dollar poker hand, predicts that his client will have the last laugh. This letter was not meant as a fact by fact refutation of the article but rather served to categorically denounce the article for its out of the circle sources and the reporter for his failure to follow up on management's offer for a statement. If you were in Merck's position and you knew the piece was flawed, you could either give the reporter respectability by responding point by point or rather let the actions of the band do its own talking in the coming months.  Everyone involved in this project seems to believe they have something special, even Buckethead if you can believe his comments to Loder back in 2002. Why cower to the media's lowest denominator if you can prove them wrong with the most direct and public display of the truth. The one constant with Axl Rose over these last ten or so years is that he doesn't show his cards until he is ready to take everyone's chips from the table. 

Merck did what was necessary today.

Now all they have to do is deliver what we all have been waiting. Every GnR controversy in the last fifteen years  has been dependent on this one very significant event.

Excellent post.


and so i don't violate any rules here I'll add...

who thinks Geffen/Interscope will be pleased with this article raise your hand...

anyone...?

anyone at all..?

 :P

Well as much as I'd like to say something good here I just have to disagree with that statement KV. Axl showed his "cards" at the VMA's and everybody but the hardcore fans agree he was out of breath and did poorly with WTTJ and PC , however madagascar was kinda like his saving grace that night. he showed his cards by doing the 2002 tour and as we know , that tour ended up causing two riots for 2 missed shows , average reviews , very poor attendance and an abrupt pulling of the plug by clear channel because of either the last no show or poor ticket sales .. you take your pick. He showed his cards with the single OMG on the end of days soundtrack and it went nowhere , sadly. (I love that song). he showed his cards by putting a newly recorded version of SCOM as performed by the new band and nobody seemed to notice or care. Axl showed his cards with two lawsuits , to stop the GH's and the hollywood rose album .. both jaunts also failed.

The sad thing is , to me anyways , the last time axl won a "hand" was when the greatest hits came out and sold really damn good .. the irony is that was a game axl didnt even wanna play and somebody else played his cards for him.

I just hope to high hell that axl can find it within himself to get back in the game and I hope he has a full house and can walk away his the whole pot ... I hope he doesnt fold again and I hope he doesnt wait to show those cards after everyone else has gone home and bowed out of the game.

I'd like to see axl and Co. out there fighting for it .. competing with velvet revolver , metallica and all the hard rock acts (if new gnr are hard rock .. I dunno)

Axl can bring things to the table no other performer can or ever could .. but he needs to make sure to have himself dealt into the game .. prove he has the chips to run with the big boys.

 :peace:

true enough. I would argue that these were all minor events compared to what will be the defining moment for Axl Rose as a solo artist. My point was that he doesn't want to involve fans or media in the process, rather have the final project speak for itself. Critics can lament that the band is a mess and will never get its act together, but is there a real expectation that Axl would lower himself to release a statement in reaction to these type of articles? he has said a number of times that he would not seek attention for himself until he has something to promote. The constant in the equation is Axl's unwillingness to explain how and why he is doing what he is doing. He is waiting, to keep the card game analogy that has been beaten to death in the last two posts of ours, for the money game.

I do think the VMA moment was significant; despite your reaction to it, the performance was exciting to watch and geniunely shocked people. The tour had its moments but the small crowds during the early dates owed more to overbooking and lack of promotion. Boise idaho on a tuesday night???? yikes.  The end of the tour is still a mystery to everyone; we have some indication that the label and axl had a dispute which led to the rug being pulled out from under their feet. These events could never put down the GnR animal in the manner that an unsuccessful album could.

too much in this thread..

To compare Merck to a Doug Goldstein is pretty funny. One was a bodyguard/manager whereas the other has been moving up the music chain at a fast pace. Im pretty sure Merck a lot more things to do than just please Axl. BUt whatver.

So are you saying that chinese democracy isnt a band effort but rather an axl solo project?  ???  I cant agree with that if what I read from band members is correct.

Ok, it's fair to say that Axl hardly wouldn't give any comment on that article. But there's more people envolved right now with the album and the Leeds guy just talked with people who were dismissed by the crew years ago!
And if he wanted to really put the other side there, I'm sure Tommy Stinson would allow an interview to put out his thoughs about the whole story. Or Dizzy. Or anyone who is still with the band.
I am a journalist myself, I know how it works. It's quite obvious that Leeds wanted to just print some bizarre tales about Axl. Those kind of gossips sell a lot more than any fair view of the band and the project.

I think Merck's comments this week spoke volumes on that issue, saul. Axl didn't write songs with these guys, he had them noodle around until he heard something that he liked then directed them to embolden it. I think this is Axl's record, for good or for bad.

yeah, I see the release of Chinese Democracy as the moment when Axl 'shows his hand' ?: ok:

my chips are on the table... in Axl's corner...err... you all know what I mean! ;)


to summarize 'eva' style...

Merck said the writer lied when he claimed "managment said Axl could not be reached for comment"
then he went on to say that the people who quoted have not been involved with the process for many, many, years...
and finally he said that Axl is gonna have the last laugh. ?

so some people on the board were like "its never coming out ?:crying: "
and then some other people were like "yeah when cd comes out - you'll all see ?:rant:"
but some other people were like 'oh its never coming out" ?::)
and thens ome other people were like 'its is too coming out! ::)

um... yeah... so what did we learn?
oh yeah... ?Axl fucking rules and fuck the press ?: ok:
 ;D

Then I guess Tommy must lie out the side of his face.  ??? Tommy has said over and over how each and every song on this album is a total group effort and that everyone was encouraged to put their own stamp , their own piece of themselves into every song. Tommy has said that axl is a collabartor "to a fault" and that sometimes he (axl) "cant make a move" on his own.

So many conflicting stories from people supposably so close to this project. It baffles me.

One thing is for sure , 10 years or so down the road when gag orders expire and people involved in this whole .. this .. umm ... "situation" can finally write about and/or talk about honestly and openly all the things that went on it should make for one helluva read/story!

why must he be lying? I don't see why what tommy said is in conflict with what im saying. The project was a democratic effort in that each performer was given a crack at working out a particular section of music for each track. The band didn't write the music then turn it over to axl to finish off; axl directed what sound fragments were to be worked on. He listened to hours of taped jam sessions and isolated which sections he found to be the most interesting. Each band member was given the segment back to work on and embellish. This clearly isn't how the old GnR functioned; each member of the old group came in with their own ideas of the direction and through a combined effort, AFD and Illusions were born. Just remember, this album has to sound like Guns N Roses, not some amalgamation of Replacements, NIN, Deli Creeps, and Tool. Axl is the only one capable of providing this direction.

i don't doubt that tommy and the rest of the band contributed each of their own signatures to these songs, but axl was the general and dictated the direction of each piece. He could never play such a role with Slash, Duff, et al. This album is axl's vision, realized by the combined efforts of Tommy, Robin, Brain, Bucket, Dizzy, and Mother Goose. If he was as multi talented as Trent Reznor, perhaps he could create an album solely on his own. But I believe axl has taken the proper command of the project and ensured this sounds as every bit as much like Guns N Roses.

GREAT point ?: ok:

this would fit in with Merck's reference to 'their own agenda'...
he already had the line about 'axl's mangement said he could not be reached for comment' written WEEKS before he even spoke to Merck. ? Seems his calling Merck was an empty gesture and he was apparently full of shit when he said he would consider Merck's request/terms for an interview.

actually it's a fact the old band worked in this same vein while recording stuff for what would be the illusions. I remember a couple interviews from axl and slash where they talk about slash playing parts of music over the phone for axl and axl would comment on "this note and this riff" and then slash would go back and work from there. And I dont think this album has to or will sound like GNR of old .. not at all. Unless the new material thus far is very different then what the actual album will be? cause I hear nothing of the sound that was GNR in songs like Madagascar , Silk Worms and Oh My God. Not to say thats a bad thing per say , but those songs dont sound at all like "old" gnr.

i've heard that interview with axl, but what you are referring to is alot different than what is going on with new gnr. Axl dictates what Chinese Democracy sounds like; he writes the lyrics, produces the record, and directs the players what pieces of music he wants them to work on. This was not how UYI and AFD were made. That is a fact. Slash and Axl fine tuning UYI is not the same as Axl handing a fragment of tape to Buckethead to work out a melody and solo.

Axl said a long time ago that the record would sound more like GnR than anyone was anticapating. the rolling stone article and the loder interview, albeit dated, said as much. CD, Blues, Rhiad, and madagascar do sound  like UYI style Guns songs with a little modern kick.

kv,

that's probably how things worked in the making of the songs, but I don't think this would qualify it as an Axl solo album. What you described as Axl picking up something from a jam session is just the beginning of the process of making a song, and I'm sure the 8 people contributed a lot of their ideas to get from there (the start) to the end of each song.

Now I'm wondering who wrote "General" and what it's about.  :hihi:

As I said, this is how the process was described to us. You can argue about the conclusion that I am drawing, but you cannot argue about the redhead's expanded role in the creation of this record: producer, vocalist, sole lyricist, and most importantly general.

Like I said before, Axl DOES NOT want to be a rock star.  He wants to make a great record, and put it out for the fans of old/new.  This will completely satisfy him.  He's more satisfied with being out of the public spot light and making his monster of an album quietly.  I believe he will have the last laugh....

 :rant:
You all really have no idea about the album. You write your unjust comments like you actually do know something about the album, to fool your soul that you're apart of something great. The Guns N'Roses world is much larger than you could ever know. What Merck speaks is the truth. Axl and the GNR family only want to make the best record for you and the world. This makes the record a process. It's not some bullshit Velvet Revolver, recycling B sides of the past. This is the REAL DEAL. Axl is the last rock star in this world, the time will come. To make one of the best records of all time takes time and much effort, be patient and the time will come.   

John J.

This is obviously Merck's attempt at trying to move the focus away from this article by making his client look like the victim. As others have pointed out, Merck didn't bother refuting these claims. He just merely pointed out that these claims are from people who worked with the band in the past and claims they didn't take the time out to talk to anyone who is currently involved in the project. It's all just an attempt to shift the focus elsewhere.

Merck knows damn well that this guy could not hand over his sources to him because journalists are protected from doing this under the US Constitution. He knows this writer was not going put his sources in jeopardy since they violated their confidentiality agreement. This guy who have committed career suicide by doing such a thing. Merck thinks the rest of us will be impressed by his words and will forget this important information.

Some of you may think that article wasn't "balanced," but do you think it would have been any better with Axl and Merck's participation? No, because they would have wanted to control it so it painted a picture that they wanted us to see. They wouldn't have let anyone who is currently working on the project say anything unless they were saying what Axl and Merck would approve of them saying since they are under a confidentiality agreement.

The claim that he offered this writer to listen to Chinese Democracy is just laughable. It was just an attempt to stall this guy and his article by making him wait until the album was finished.

This article was laughable. ?It's so clearly one-sided, it's a joke.

Maybe Merck can't refute all the claims, but to act as if this is the end-all of the situation is just plain stupid. ?Whatever the reason that we haven't heard Axl's side of the story (uh.. maybe cause the album isn't done??), the fact remains that we haven't heard his side of the story. ?You could print all the negative's about Abraham Lincoln during his time, and his vision that ended slavery in America, and end up with just as negative of a picture. ?I know that's an extreme comparison, but the point that I'm making is valid. ?Whatever struggles Axl may have gone through, Geffen, etc. if Guns N' Roses releases a good album, none of it matters.

So, keep believing in the hearsay and the so-called journalist, those of you who choose. ?The New York Times has been bullshit to me for many years, and this only seals the coffin.

Let me say one thing
when I get old, let?s say, 60 years old, I think I won?t remember much what I did between 14 and 25 years old... of course I will remember some things about girls, fun, booze, parties, shows and etc.... but this whole GNR situation, rumors and histories... man ... I will never forget.
 :)


that part made me think.... Merck knowing that the guy had a "deadline" to finishing the article, do you think Merck was trying to say "Look, why write something like that if you can wait a "FEW MINUTES" and WRITE and HEAR the FINISHED ALBUM and make the "best" GNR article to NY TIMES?" ?

the best thing about this whole article and merck letter is that Axl don't give after for the press or preasure from fans or haters. fuck'em you know, he's the only gunner who have held the "fuck it fuck all" attitude which once made them famous alongside their great music of course. I really dig axl for this kind of attitude.

Axl is not about money nor fame, he's in it for the music. and like he stated in a del james interview many many years ago, he'll be satisfied even if it's only a small click of fans who really like the album and feels something for it.

I think this article tells us that Axl's absolute main pri. is to make this record awsome, hence he won't back down just because some ceo, or a "journalist" or some stupidass fans wants him too.

I also believe that most of the other rockers we know about including ex-gunners envy this about Axl. Some might throw shit at him, but it shines through that it only comes from green faces...

Did the NY TImes publish Merck's responce?

Hello everybody,

I have been reading the board for years, but never have had the desire to contribute myself. But in the recent months I noticed a change of climate in the board. People are getting more agressive and impatient all the time. Understandable after all the years of waiting, nontheless it would be great if minds were cooling off a little and everybody would exchange their opinions in a less moody way.

Personally I think the article in the New York Times (which might be Americas most respected newspaper) was quite interesting. The writer did his job and described the process of the Album making using the information he could get. And besides everything indicates that he is right in most of his points (the years of waiting; if we look at the last tours we do know that Mr. Rose is not exactly professionally organising his stuff; all the changes of producers, musicians, studios, labels...). Though Mr. Leeds did not find out dramatically new things, it was interesting to hear that Geffen cut Mr. Roses cash flow for producing. I do not know if this might be good (pressure to finish the album) or bad (Album is not gonna come out;Sanctuary Music might be too small to afford several years of producing an album this costly).

Mr. Mercuriadis was also doing his job. He was defending his client and indicating that Mr. Leeds could have propably had more actual information if he only waited a little longer. This you can believe or not, since we all know what the waiting game means. Since he was not correcting any substantial information I think we can assume that the NYT article is accurate but not complete in showing the most recent developments.

Personally I think that the article in the New York Times might be a great advertising possibility, since you could counter by releasing the most costly, most time in the making, myth ranking, most expected (which might also be very dangerous, since expectations are unlimited) album of all times.

Yours sincerly

God of Thunder

Nice post Thunder.  ;D  I agree...to me it just adds to the myth. It is free publicity. Why couldn't Axl just preview a few tracks? He didn't have to play the whole album. ???

I think because Axl doesn't trust the press not to go, "Hey cool!" and then write an article about how shit the songs are.  Maybe he wants the public to make their own decisions on the songs, not just read the opinions of some half-wit journalist.

I think it's obviously Merck's attempt to cater to Axl so he trusts him enough to give him the damn album.  I noticed he slipped '2005' into his response.  Good luck with that Merck.

Well with media the way it is today, that's going to be a hell of a battle for Axl. Because there are way more journalist then there are Axl Rose's. And Axl's not going to win any battles until there's a product for the public to hear. So until then, Axl has nothing to back up what everything's been said by band members and people who've listened or worked on Chinese Democracy and say how great of an album it is.

Despite your industry contacts, you really can't be sure that this report is based solely on "second hand information". The writer says he spoke to 30 some-odd people, who spoke on condition of anonymity. He very well could've been speaking to many people close to Axl. Merck is looking every bit the part of a Pollyanna. One question Merck - Name one thing that should keep the hard-core fans optimistic about 2005?

I also disagree that Merck's response to the article. Put up or shut up! He did nothing to dispell the rumors of Axl's poor work ethic or the constant delays, promises, and failures to deliver.  The problem with taking on the writer on those issues is that they are true.

the substance of the article was rather based on the label's viewpoint.
The rest of the story should be told from the bands side.

!. Oh yeah! Led Zeppelin was an absolute solo project of Jimmy Page. The majority of the bands in the world are the head persons' solos.
In that case, GN'R has been an Axl project from the day one.
Whatever. 

!. That wouldn't qualify Chinese Democracy as an Axl solo album. Tommy mentioned Axl's hell democratic attempt to function the band Better, which he assumed, because of his bitter experience with the old band.   
!. The Musicians would know how things worked in the making of the songs in the studio more than the manager let alone the fans.
!. The other client of Merck, Morrissey doesn't play any instrumental but was the heart, soul and passion of The Smith.

The heart, soul and passion need the body(Band) to materialize.
A Sound mind in a sound body. : ok:


BTW, Hi, welcome god of thunder. cool inputs mates. : ok:

Equating how Led Zeppelin and Nu-GnR recorded their albums isn't a fair comparison; neither is comparing the manner AFD and UYI were created to this project. CD's direction has been controlled by Mr. Rose. The players no doubt all were given equal opportunities to put their signature on the material they recorded, but if axl didn't like a melody, solo, or even a note, it wouldn't be on the album. This project is his canvas; he controls what colors to use, but the beauty of the painting is through the fusion of the different elements. We maybe saying the same thing here, but when CD drops, there is only one person who will be held accountable for its success or failure.

john j rambo seems to be very sure of the situation.

hes wrong on the following statement. >:(


killingvector seems to be very sure as well.

I'm talking about the body. Axl is the head.
What if he was asking everyone if they liked a melody, solo, or even a note, if every time a one of them seemed unhappy with any small bit he went back to his basement to work it out and if each listening caused one more delay? :hihi:

No one nose about the rest of the story. We'll see soon. : ok:

i'm on your side ppbebe. I want this project to succeed. Whether its called GnR or W.A.R I could care less; I know that the time will be well spent. I agree that none of us knows exactly what is going on with this record, but I think Axl will be the only judged in the media and the public when this record drops. The band has very little to lose actually; a good payday and lots of exposure.

Anyway, i'm very happy with Merck's response provided his 2005 resolution is accurate and honored.

Yeah , obviously the media wont compare the new band to the old band. Robin wont be compared to slash. NAH!!!!

 ::)

Ahhh........
I have nothing to add, except that I am sick of this sort of thing, everyday some magazine, newspaper or whatever post this kind of shit about GnR (AXL), and then fans come here and say: "Oh Yeah, they have no idea about that". All I say is that no one, except who is involved in the project has a clue about what's going on in that studio... ?They will always criticize Axl, with or without Chinese Democracy out there. So, I'm not even gonna say that New York Time is this or that, because now, we know about that coz New York Times is a famous newspaper, but as I said, magazines, websites from all over the world keep doing that, nothing will stop them, you can stop two or three, but you can't stop all of them.

of course, they will. But ultimately the success or failure of Chinese Democracy will determine the success or failure of Axl Rose's post old GnR career. He has everything on the line for this record; robin's career will be unaffected if this project flops.



He will, but if it doesn't work, they won't skewer robin. They will criticize axl for his choices.

If the album flops and critics think the music STINKS the blame will go to the musicans who WROTE the music. Why would anyone want to work with Robin if his work on the new album is utter rubbish? Robin seems to have allready closed some doors by staying with this project IE:NIN.

KV , you seem to put all this on Axl when in reality theres ALOT of people who have high stakes on the line with this album. The success or failure of this album will affect all the current members of the band very very much so .. much more then you believe it will.

The music obviously won't stink; this isn't an outfit of amateurs, but compared to the world shaking efforts of the old band, this new outfit will have huge shoes to fill.  If Robin plays like rubbish as you say, then he deserves all the criticism in the world, but of course he is a very talented player who could find work tomorrow if he decided to leave guns.

You are taking an extreme scenario and forming your argument around it. Taking a more modest view that the music sounds fine but doesn't live up to expectation, the lion's share of the criticism will fall on axl; his role in this record exceeds anyone else in the band. He brought the name, dictated the direction, chose the players and if the sound doesn't work, he will get the blame. Conversely, if he achieves the success that everyone around this record anticipates, he will stand to trump the critics who have attempted to subjugate his talents from the day the old band ended.

in the end, the players have a great deal here; they will reap the benefits of a great album and avoid a great deal of criticism if it fails simply because the public and media perception is that this is axl's baby. His choices and his direction. Tommy said as much after one of his solo shows; he expressed how axl realized that the pressure was on him, that he would be judged the most harshly if he failed. I am excite by the recent reports even the Times piece, because it demontrates that Axl isn't cowering before the business side of the industry, instead he is focused on fulfiling promises and expectations.

I'llstick by my opinion that these players have alot at stake here. More then you are willing to admit they do.

Good on ya Merck!

But lets get this album out already.....
I know - i just know it will meet all of our expectations.

Merck talkin' tough, good for him. Its good to see there's some ppl in the industry coming out to publicly defend Axl. Its funny though because once again this is somewhat of a reason to finish this thing off for good and release it this year.

I mean I havent heard this much press on GnR since the 2002 VMA's  :peace:

The media only looks for negatives? What a lame excuse. The media would jump on the chance if Axl was willing to give them an exclusive story about Chinese Democracy.

If confidentiality agreements didn't exist we would have heard a lot more about Chinese Democracy than we have because of the number of people involved with the project. Of course there is a confidentiality agreement so it doesn't leak. You are naive if you think one doesn't exist.



People like you have been making statements like that for years, but it hasn't happened. Talk is cheap. Axl and co has been talking the talk for years. Let's see some actions for once.

The album also wouldnt be as mysterious and mythical as it is now if we knew much more.

In all fairness, Leeds was offered a chance to hear the finished album, and that was refused.  I think that would qualify as an exclusive, but apparently Mr. Leeds and the Times didn't think so.

Ali

Just remember, an article about CD being released this year doesn't have the same effect as a $13million black hole. If Leeds had sources that backed up the latter claim, he can find that seam in the journalist code and go with it. And go with it he did. He can ride into history with the likes of Blair and Glass for all I care.

NP Saul. I can respect your opinion. I hope CD is a runaway hit and we don't ever have to know the answer to that question.

All these mags and papers that are bashing Axl  now will be kissing his ass when CD drops and when its a hit.

Come on Merck is just trying to save their a$$ that is all.  I am sure Axl flipped when he read the artilce in the paper (or heard about it) and Merck sent this sh*t to keep a job.  Classic political move. 

They didnt think so because its really not. ?Who knows how long he would have had to wait for the "finished album." ?More importantly, Leeds had written a story about the history of the album, not an album review. ?What would listening to the album have to do with Leeds' original story? ?He hardly touched on the actual content of the record. ?

In 2000, the album was completed "90% musically, 70% vocally" according to Axls manager. ?It was also supposedly up for release during that year. ?Its a good thing those journalists didnt wait for a finished album listening.

Yeah he wrote a story on the album that only interviewed people that have not dealt with the album since 2001.

Also, it seems the album that was done or close to being done in 2000 has been scrapped and they started over. I am sure a few songs will carry over but it seems most were put on the back burner.

I think that Mercks point is that although some of the info might be true, that the state of the album and GNR are much different now than it was back during that time period.

As the article sates, Zutat was close in getting Axl to release the album...probably 2000 like Doug mentioned and you brought up. But things have undoubtely changed since then. ANd Merck is saying that as a result the article doesnt really resemble the last few years of the making of CD and how CD is today.

It portrays it to be the whole process of the making of Cd when it really is not. Especially when talking about the music and the direction of the band. It portrays it as being chaotic, etc which was certainly the case. But it should have made it clear that it was opnly during a period of time not to this day. The casual fan/reader will think CD is in shambles and has no direction to this day! And I think that isnt the case and clearly I think that is what Merck was trying to express. Si from that perspective I think the article consisted of shoddy journalism. BUt other than that I though it was a cool read. But i could understand why Merck thinks that it gives the wrong interpretation of the current band and album

I doubt there will be any type of universal "ass kissing" by any means. ?

Some journalists/media members will like it and give Axl kudos, while others dismiss it and continue the rough treatment.

I expect the older jurnalists like Loder, David Fricke and the like to sing Axl's praises while the younger types that grew up and aquired their musical viewpoints during the early 90's will rake him over the coals. ?None mutually exclusive of course, just speaking in general terms.

Either way it'll be interesting as hell to follow, there's not a lot of inbetween when it comes to the redhead...

I think that's the case as well.

Just like the guy on "Behind The Music" said, Axl's tried to create music that's current in the times particular stylistic landscape.  In taking so long, it's highly likely whatever direction he was going in at that particular time fell by the wayside, keeping Axl a step or 2 behind.

I think his desire to be relevent but lack of timeliness in doing so has morphed whatever songs slated for Chinese Democracy into only he knows what...

To an extent I think it has to do with the sound of the music and staying with the trends. But I think that goes in with when the company kept forcing Axl to release somehting in the late 90's.
 I think over the past few years it hasnt been much of that. More of just working on old material and creating new music and then "perfecting" that more than whats hot at the moment. Of cousre they could be influenced by current trends but not to the extent that I think they were earlier in the project.

To diss Axl{not you Falcon} about staying with the trends is kind of wrong because hes always been interested and a fan of newer nusic. JA,NIN, etc for example. Before these acts were even huge. SO if he tries to INCORPORATE those aspects of music into his own I think thats fine and shouldnt be a reason to say "oh hes trying to fit in". If the whole labum is a NIN/WHite Zobie/MM/nin type album, every song then yes, that characterization and criticism is valid.

Excellent post younggunner. I think Merck is only really concerned with Guns' image since he took over for them a few years ago. I'm sure he believes that he has Axl back on track, it's a much more disciplined ship and the finish line is in sight. He probably really has little beef with what the article had to say about the 94-02 era of GN'R, but he resents the 03-Present era being painted with that brush.

Just so everybody knows .... Merck's response letter is NOT in today's (March 7th) NY Times.? :no:
The "letters to the editor" that are there are dated March 1, 2, 3 & 4.

Booker, your missing the point I was trying to make.  Acquiesce said that any journalist would jump on the opportunity to have an exclusive story on Chinese Democracy.  I was saying that listening to the finished album would qualify as exclusive, but this reporter passed on it.  I didn't say that it had anything to do with writing an article on the history of the album.  I was just saying that it isn't necessarily true that a journalist would jump on a Chinese Democracy exclusive being that this one didn't.

Ali

I think "trying to fit in" is too broad a generalization, unfair as well.

That said, he tried to hire Navarro and did hire Finck, obvious gestures in creating the possibility of the perception of current relevence.

That's the biggest possible element of "Chinese Democracy" that has always intrigued me.

Axl wants to make the "greatest record ever made" right? ?

Well for that to even be possible, each and every song on the album would not only have to be a masterpiece in itself, but ?timeless ones at that.

I would say the "new or organized" era of new gnr beagn in late 2001/02.

Like I said, I think earlier in the project he was much more conscious about that..hence Navvarro...

Finck I disagree. Hes not a houslhold name plus hes not a superstar. I think Axl sees his potential and has a good friendship with him more than thinking he would be a key asset to have to get the Industrial scene on his side or whatver.

If you really want to call Leeds' article a story on the making of the album, it is a fundamentally flawed and incomplete one at that.  None of the people he quoted have been involved since 2001 in the making of the album, as Merck pointed out.  Therefore, those people, like Tom Zutuat, have no idea how much the album has changed since the time that they were around the GN'R camp.

Ali

He first went after Finck when Sorum was in the band so that would be somewhere in '96-97, right? 
At that time (and for the most part it remains true today), Robin hadn't/hasn't had much creative input on anything to speak of so it's hard to explain his involvement based on friendship or potential at that point in time. 

I see Finck as much more obvious "reach out" than Navarro.

I'm really baffled by everything regarding GNR at this point in time, but it's been really great to see the wide spectrum of responses in this thread...
For me personally, while I commend Merck for coming to Axl's defence (and earning his salary), any words coming from that camp at this point seem to ring hollow in my ears.  Kudos to the journalist for not selling his sources down the river.  This is just another example of Axl and co's determination to control beyond control.  At the end of the day, this is the tale of a meglomaniacal artist consistantly overestimating his own importance, regardless of how much of a genius we believe him to be.  I do not expect a point by point repudiation of the information in the article, but if they are so indignant over the whole thing, let's hear the whole story from the only people that they seem to deem worthy of telling it.  Once again, the energy and focus is completely misguided.  Controlling through veiled threats, harsh words, legalities, and brute force has been the MO for years now.  Going by past events, I have to assume that the "offer" to hear CD was yet another attempt to hold people at bay, or at the very least, to delay the publishig of an article which Axl might have suspiciously suspected may not paint him using the brightest of colors.  24 hours, 48 hours, irrelevant.  We ALL know Axl would have redacted the hell out of that article, most likely persuing legal action against those who exercised their right to speak.  In all honesty, I think it was just a matter of the journalist hitting too close to a nerve, however, in Axl's defence, most of the "info" was certainly outdated, and at the very least, probably irrelevant to current circumstances.
It's like a trial by jury.  If the defendant does nothing to refute the charges against them except shift focus and point fingers, you would have to logically make the assumption that by choosing not to prove the charges against them inaccurate through fact that they are conceding that there is some level of truth to the charges, and may, in fact, be indirectly lending creedence to these assumptions through lack of an alternative...I'll stop now

]

How is it flawed? Leeds was upront that these people had worked on the album in the past. He never claimed that this stuff is currently going on. Sure, it would have been nice if he had information as to what is going on today, but he couldn't do that without Axl and Merck's permission to speak to people under contract. They weren't going to give that permission unless this story painted the picture that they wanted everyone to see. Why should he cave into their demands? That is not what journalism is about.

To go along with many posters, ?I don't really see any of this as negative with regards to the future of nu-G-n-fuckin-R!!! ?If anything it is more of a rip on Geffen and the music industry itself. ?So they blew through 13 million....Geffen gave them the money cause they obviously respect Axl and his talents. ?They could have stopped the drain or changed the process way before; but they chose not to....Why? ?because it is W.A.R. and GnR. ?Together they sold millions of fuckin records and continue to sell year after fuckin year. ?The record company isn't losing anything....13 mil is nothing to them especially when there is a viable product at the end of all of this..

The NY times, Merck's response, 23 pages of post show me only one thing and that is "Relevance". ? In the 90's we heard nothing of GnR but now...fucking Sunday NY Times...the most read paper in the United States. ?It just creates more anticipation and fosters the mysterious persona of my personal Guruji.....Along with the younggunner I believe this is all part of the plan...a fucking elaborate plan to once again feel the magic of 87-92 when music fuckin mattered...I truly believe that all Axl wants is to make music that hits hard and deep. ?The world and maybe Axl were not ready in the 90's or early 00's but the time is now and I can feel it it all around....I personally expect nothing from Guruji as he has and continues to shape the person I am today....that is a person that feels......anything now is just a treat for the ears and hopefully eyes!! ? Off topic: ?Saw Tommy Stinson at the Hotel Cafe on Friday Night....he is true Rock-n-Roll!!

Peace

 :yes:

You are easily one of the most reasonable, on-point posters on the board.

It would be Axl's case, that they did not have this 'right to speak' as they accepted employment under terms of confidentiality. ?;)

And I think we could be overlooking that Leeds and his editor could have told Merck the names of the persons involved that permitted their names to be used in the article (such as Zutaut).... that is if they truely had any interest in Merck or Axl's contributions (which I don't think they did as they already had their 'story' and knew it wasn't something that Axl or Merck would contribute to.)

Why exactly would Merck or Axl participate in an article that paints them in a bad light? Would slash or scott act different from guns managment? I just don't see the criticism here. The reporter chose to respect the integrity of his five year old sources when he could have gotten a bigger scoop on CD. I can respect that choice but he missed out on a bigger story in my opinion. Merck's response is point on IF it is followed up with action!

As much as some want to complain about Axl's remaining quiet and speaking only on his terms - it is no less than they would want for themselves.

To think that Finck is not heavily involved with Axl and this whole process is just not accurate. Finck himself ha shad arguments with Axl on material and direction of the material. Finck has left the band and come back. So obiviously there is something there between them. And being that he is one of the lead guitar players Im sure he will have a lot of creative input. Just becuase we havnt heard a peep from him doesnt mean he just sits there and isnt a force. Of course it remains true till this day because we havnt hear the album yet. You can say the same for all the members including Axl on that.

Ill take Tommys word when he says all the members have had their fair share of creative input.

You can think Finck is a reach out all you want but you drop his name on the street and no1 would have a clue. Hes not a superstar in any genre. Axl sees whatver potential in him and has developed a solid friendship with him. Its pretty obivious.

I dont think this article exactly did that. ?I think it discussed the albums history in a generally accurate, fair way. ?I think that, considering the reality of this situation, its impossible for the article to not contain any negativity. ?


The criticism is that while Merck assails this writers credibility and even compares him to Jayson Blaire, he offers no corrections. ?He doesnt reference anything from the story that might be inaccurate. ?That fact alone is enough to disregard Mercks comments as nothing more than textbook managerial spin. ?

"...like the author of your article have never even heard the album." - What does hearing the album have to do with this article? ?

Merck says "I explained that it was not possible for him to write such a story as he had not spoken to the band, our 2 engineers, myself or most importantly Axl all of whom have been working on the actual album for the last two years..." ?Well, if the article was about what the band did in the last two years, maybe hed be on to something. ?I think Merck fails to realize that the writer wasnt interested in writing a GNR press release, so waiting for a finished album - on Axl Roses schedule - isnt worth it. ?


Who knows who is unnamed sources are? ?Maybe theyre closer to the project then you think...

And hes absolutely right to protect his sources. ?


Like what? ?Assuming the album is actually finished sometime soon, it will likely already be ready for a release date and Axl & Co. will promote it. ?


What story is that?


Mercks response is a typical, hyper-defensive PR piece. ?Its only purpose is to confuse people into thinking hes got a point and aggrandize his client. ?Basically, hes Doug Goldstein with a longer name.

How can you be generally accurate or fair if you don't talk to the people working on the album at the moment, or for the past 4 years for that matter? That's one of the things Merck was saying in his letter.

I said "that" point in time, 96-97.

Its nice that some guy that has not association with the album knows what Axls wants. ?

It discussed a part of the albums history. It hasnt mentioned anything about the recent past or present in regards to the musical content. And I think that is what Mercks biggest gripe was about.
Again if a casual reader or fan read this they would think that the musical content is still a chaotic mess as it was in the late 90's that the article talked about. Where is the fair and balanced accurate account of the full making/process of the album?


Its not Mercks responsibilty to police shoddy journalism either. How can the jounralist write an accurate, detailed description of the process of making Cd if he only talks about a certain time period?

He doesnt know what, if any have changed along the way in making CD.

Its like getting a late piece of intelligence. You find out what went on during a period of time but once you get it they have already moved on to something else. Same thing here. And thats what Merck is saying.

How the hell does this jounrnalist portray a full accurate description of what went on in the 2000's and where everythign stands today without contacting the people who are involved in that period?

But lack of positivity can be construed as negativity. If Merck is right and this album is close to being done, the meat of his piece would be neutralized. Of course it's a big assumption that Merck is being honest about all of this. This is why I think we can only judge the response favorably if it is followed by action.


I can see what you are saying but Merck could be rejecting the article's merits from the catbird seat so to speak. If you discover that someone is calling you a liar and a cheater to your friends for not paying off a debt, you can either correct him on the spot or if you know that your debt was already paid, wait for said individual to discover the error of his own investigation. Merck may simply know that Axl is set to deliver the album and refrains from responding to such base allegations. Of course, he could equally have nothing to refute as you say. Time will tell on this issue.


For me the bigger scoop is the delivery of CD to the label and the preparation for a release. It might not seem that way to the NYT and its readers.


the quality of the tracks, the delivery of the album, the release date


possibly, but you are making an assumption that he had nothing to say because there was simply nothing to say. It's equally possible he has more to say but wants to respond with action at a sooner than later time, hence the 2005 comment.

I understand why it's easier to assume the former, but i'm not convinced yet.

How much of that article concerns the process after 2002? ?Thats why Merck is confusing people into beieving thats a relevant point, because the article really doesnt touch on very recent times as it pertains to the albums process.

Thats the whole point . How can something describe the full process if in reality it only describes a certain period.

The fact that the article doesnt touch on the 2000's and how and what affects the album in this time period is leaving out a pretty important piece of info if you ask me.

The article is implying that the process is up to a certain point in time. When in reality its not. Things have changed and because the writer didnt follow up on things we will not know about them until later on. Hence the article is half assed not complete. Great article on a certain period of time but doesnt deliever the rest of the story. As a result it doesnt cover the full process of CD and the making of it.

Isn't 'news' also known as current events  and updates...? as in current and up-to-date?





(edited to correct formatting)

Right, and that about sums up GNR up to this point. ?Not a whole lot of positivity.

However, this article is not devoid of positivity.

"Mr. Rose is reportedly working on the album even now in a San Fernando Valley studio. "The 'Chinese Democracy' album is very close to being completed," Merck Mercuriadis, the chief executive officer of Sanctuary Group, which manages Mr. Rose, wrote in a recent statement."

"Released in March of 2004, it turned out to be a surprisingly strong seller, racking up sales of more than 1.8 million copies even without any new music or promotional efforts by the original band. The original band's debut, "Appetite for Destruction," which has sold 15 million copies, remains popular and racked up sales of another 192,000 copies last year, according to Nielsen SoundScan. It is a sign that Mr. Rose's audience still waits."

These are fair statements, and they reflect the appropriate level of positivity present in modern-day GNR.


How so? ?No release date from this point on would erase any of information in that article.


In which case he should keep quiet, because as it stands at this moment, his statement is meaningless.


Thats the only way to take it right now. ?He has a public forum, and the opportunity to set things straight. ?He took the time to write a response, and he addressed not one single issue from the piece. ?He didnt question one fact. ?That says it all to me.


I dont see that as a big scoop, because, assuming this album were to ever truly be finished, it will all be out there anyway. ?And hed just doing a fluff piece on the just-finished GNR album, rather than finish what he obviously meant to do, and discuss the history of the album.

And truthfully, I dont think youre getting the hard truth from that side of the fence. ?Youre gettnig the company line, which is what Merck specializes in, and what every reporter will get when the albums ready. ?Leeds obviously trusted his sources, named and unnamed, to give honest accounts of their experiences. ?And I dont think he failed to make that fact clear.


I highly doubt the company/band is going to rely on the NY Times to give the release date. ?Regardless, anything pertaining to the quality will undoubtedly be taken care of in an album review - one in which theyre not writing with Axls management peering over their shoulders.

The article was written about the albums history, and is written within the context that its still unreleased. ?Its not about a finished album. ?Its written for this moment, not months from now when it might be finished. ?


Im simply going off of what hes given. ?He went through the bother to make a response, and its a terribly weak one. ?If he is waiting (and I doubt he is), then he should do just that - wait. ?Dont make claims without any back-up, because hes the one who looks foolish.

Thanks! The same can be said about yourself. ?: ok:

The article would have obviously taken a different direction had they participated. Axl would have been given the chance to explain his side of the story and make any corrections if necessary. He could have informed us what was going on in most recent years and gave us an update on the status. If he was just willing to roll with the punches and answer questions honestly and sincerely then he could have easily turned this piece into something that was more favorable to him.

It's not as if this writer just went in with the intention to bash Axl. He wanted to know the story behind Chinese Democracy and why it hasn't seen the light of day.  He wrote about what he was told by the people who worked on this album. Unfortunately, the information he was given wasn't that flattering to Axl, but like I said that could have easily changed had Axl participated.

I also want to add that this notion that this writer shouldn't have wrote the piece because Axl did not tell his side of the story is absolutely ludicrous. If journalists were held to that rule there would be little to write about. A responsible journalist will ask all parties to participate, but if a person declines that is solely on them.

Sure, this guy could have gotten the scoop on Chinese Democracy, but how long would have he had to waited? I would think he would have taken up the offer it there was a finished product to listen to at the time he was writing his piece because he would have had a world exclusive. Then again, I doubt they would let him hear it unless his article was going to come out favorable to them. Why would he put his integrity on the line for someone who is afraid to get in the ring?

Who said anything about the "full process"? ?


If the article discusses 1994-2000, then thats what the articles about. ?It makes no illusions about being knowlegable about the "full process," and what took place in the studio between 2002 and 2004. ?Therefore, Mercks point is irrelevant.


Okay. ?It still doesnt negate what was written about everything prior, which I recall you describing as "fascinating."


Im not even sure what youre talking about here. ?

The article covers what it covers. ?Merck pointed to nothing that would suggest inaccuracy. ?

"Mr. Rose is reportedly working on the album even now in a San Fernando Valley studio. "The 'Chinese Democracy' album is very close to being completed," Merck Mercuriadis, the chief executive officer of Sanctuary Group, which manages Mr. Rose, wrote in a recent statement."

That about covers the recent activity. ?The author sums it up there, and doesnt pretend to know much more. ?

Naupis and Booker, why dont' you just say "If you want to hear real RnR listen VR."

Anyway talking about this reply to the New York Post, now Mr. Mercuriadis has put the year on the table (this time there's no maybe or hopefully nowhere) so I think, that they better deliver this year or Mr. Mercuriadis is going to look pretty bad, even though is about music and art. Still, I hope it happens this year.  :peace:

 ???

Because I dont assume everybody is as simple you appear to be, if thats how youve interpreted my posts (and I dont think it is; youre just once again trying to be clever - and missing the mark).

No matter what anyone says about this mess, every member here @ HTGTH should truly realize, that Merck did basically say that the album was pretty much going to be released this year and that's what Axl's been doing for the last couple of years.

Actually working on the album(s).

I hope that's what finally happens, as I'm very anxious to hear 'Axl's Fucking Freakshow Of A Monstrosity'. :nervous:

I understand what you are saying but Axl would never respond to the media's request for a statement under penalty of bad exposure. Doing so, opens door for other journalists to practice a brand of pseuo-blackmail with the band. Do an interview or we will spread the innuendo from someone who hadn't worked on the album in five years.  I am simply playing devil's advocate here in an attempt to understand Axl and managment's perspective on this article.

From my understanding of the situation, Axl may not be in a position to promise anything or would rather wait for a time in which he's ready to make some sort of statement. Axl has divested himself from the media due to the bad behavior of a few knuckleheads. It's possible he is viewing the entire establishment in this negative light and would rather not be pressured into a response.



Not so much the backstory behind the album's rocky conception, but at least it would alleviate the fears of fans who are left with the impression that axl has lost financial backing, lost the confidence of the label, and has continue dribbling away money, which is now his own, in some danky recording studio in the valley. Plus Leeds mentions how no one from the label has seen him in over a year.

I wouldn't expect a release date announcement, although I wouldn't disown one either if it were offered to me. But the input of someone from management or the band could have disfused alot of the desperation evident from the end of the article.



As I said, Merck did enough to get by. He claims the piece is inaccurate; since we don't know the source of Leeds information, it is possible that it contains false details. Who knows. Not anyone here, that is for sure. I do believe that the band wants to make their statement on their own terms, when they are ready. It is the only action they can take to allay the bleak picture painted by Mr. Leeds.

The article was titled, "The Most Expensive Album Never Made"

Sounds pretty complete to me.

Its a play on words, and obviously doesnt have much bearing on the article itself. 

"The 'Chinese Democracy' album is very close to being completed," Merck Mercuriadis, the chief executive officer of Sanctuary Group, which manages Mr. Rose, wrote in a recent statement."

Nowhere does the writer say the album has been cancelled and is never coming out.  Nor does he mention the "full process."

If you take Merck's comment as spin, the piece does imply that the process has been and continues to be neverending.

I didn't absorb too much hope for the future after reading the Leeds article, although Merck's timely letter did pick me up a bit.

For starters...the title of the article.



With the content of the article and the title, one might think that the band and Axl never got it worked out and well...will NEVER come out.

Mercks point is completely relevant. Forget Merck for a second. How bout me the reader. If he is going to go in detail about a certain period of time why is he portraying it as the whole process.

He decided to give half the story ?instead of te full story.

It was a fascinating article. Im not debating or questioning what was said. Im saying that its a half assed job though. He gave us one great half of detailed accounts and didnt follow up the story.

Yea you can says hes not obligated to follow up, but then why is he even writing the article then?


But in the beginning he says..
It's a story that applies to the creation of almost every major album. But in the case of "Chinese Democracy," it has a stark ending:

How come the author provide detailed accounts of the direction, or lack thereof, for one period of time but doesnt provide detailed accounts for the scond half. No shit, Mr fukin Rose is still working on the album.
But what has changed since 2001 content wise. Label wise. Why did Bucket quit? Will he be replaced? WHat insignts can you provide liek you did in the 1st half?

Will Axl be funding the project on his own now? Or has he decided to call it quits because of no cash flow?

How come we havnt heard of any release dats in the recent past like we did in the late 90's?

Whos overseeing/producing the album now? He made sure he told us that there were countless producers back then what about now?

how do the current bandmembers feel about it still not being out? Heck besides brain and bucket whos in the band these days? He told us how the old members got fed up. What about the current?

It was a great half ass job. Didnt cover the full story of the making of CD like he implys it does. As a result it was poorly done. Kind of rushed. Other than that a great read if you understand the gnr situation

the guy had his story... as much as he was able to get from whoever he was able to get it from.
if he knew (as many say is obvious and i agree) that Axl would not participate then why did he contact Merck just so he could include the ol' "could not be reached for comment' bit? ?

i think merck is pissed cuz this guy was playing games with him
saying he would consider merck's request when he obviously had no intention to
the guy HAD his story
it was not ever going to include Axl's input
he just HAD to check the box (so to speak) that said "Axl could not be reached for comment' so he made the obligatory call.
he called Merck on the thursday... didn't tell him he had a tuesday deadline...
merck does not seem to be the type that appreciates being toyed with
i think he took the guy's call seriously and it was not the case
merck offered what he could
it didn't matter
nothng was going to keep the guy from going with the story he already had complete with the juicy bits he collected prior to contacting Merck
not even an interview with Axl
he figures/knows that once the album is done/announced/out everything he had collected would be MOOT
so he had to put it to use now
just like geffen had to make sure they put out a GH before the new album would be released
it was thier agenda to get in on the CD mystery/controversy while one still exists
and show what they were able to dig up (stuff no one else has previously offered and certainly no one with the NYT credentials)
so he calls the Merck on ?thursday - leads Merck to believe his offer is being considered and that he will get back to him
then calls Merck back at 6PM ?( after business hours ) on Monday saying his deadline is the next day at noon?!

YOU'D be pissed too if someone who is supposed to be a professional at such a resputable news organization treated YOU like that. ?Get in the ring someone quoted? ?Merck is no lightweight. ?He's the CEO of a multi billion dollar organization for crying out loud! I think he has responded as should be expected for someone who is in his situation. ?

What would YOU have done, hm?

I think Booker would ask Merck what parts of the article were misleading. If Leeds is the Entertainment section equivalent of Jayson Blair, where does the truth end and the lie begin.

I'm not sure that there is much inaccurate with the article but there are a number of questionable items: did Axl get cut off by the label ? was he tossed out from his recording studio?  (which of course calls to mind the scene from Boogie Nights where Dirk and Reid attempt to recover their essential masters: Now you are talking over my head. YP, MP I'm not familar with this industry jargon....) and is Axl still working on this album?

If Booker is right and Merck just issued a non denial denial after his failure to ferret out the sources in  Leeds piece, then the Sanctuary CEO just lost massive amounts of credibility. HUGE.

Pseudo-Blackmail? Are you serious? Is it also pseudo-blackmail when Axl tells writers that he will not do an interview unless they do it his way? I think it's ridiculous to think that journalists will start "blackmailing" Axl if he decides to participate in an article. I think it's even more ridiculous to think that Axl is afraid to defend himself because he fears he will be blackmailed because he decided to defend himself. Besides, if Axl explained everything it would be pointless for anyone to blackmail him with something that is already known to the public!

I'm not saying Axl should promise anything. I'm saying that Axl could have improved his image by telling his side of the story and showing he has nothing to hide by answering questions. Axl and Merck shouldn't be complaining when they refused to participate.

Given Axl's past behavior and characterization of the media, what is the most logical reaction of the redhed toward a less than complimentary review of the album's progress:

1. Correct the piece by offering his side of it through interview or statement
2. Offer nothing and condemn the reporter for not doing his job

you may find my speculation ridiculous but i was simply trying to get into the heads of  people at the GnR end. They as a rule do not respond when confronted with a less than flattering article. when was the last time anyone set the record straight? I am more inclined to believe that Merck wanted the names of the leaks and, when not given that information, he decided to attack the reporter.

" Is it also pseudo-blackmail when Axl tells writers that he will not do an interview unless they do it his way?"

Once again, try and swim around inside the redhead's mind for a second. Given his tempestual relationship with the media, do you think he would hesitant to make such a demand?

99% musically and 80% vocally, to be accurate.

I don't understand why there's such a confrontation regarding merck's response to the post. He's axl's personal manager, he will even say chinese democracy was released 5 years ago (only in japan) if that would save axl's ass, and i'm not saying it needs to be saved, ' cause i don't believe he has done nothing wrong.

Sure, he is taking more time to complete an album than it'll take the chicago bulls to win another nba title, but he doesn't owe us anything. If his record label is furious at him and if a breach of contract has occured, that's another thing. But the fans can't file a law suit against axl for not releasing the album, can they? so common, relax and enjoy. It will come out eventually, I think it will in 2005, but i'd rather put my money in the bulls chances..... ;D

But does it make sense for him to talk about an album that, right now, doesn't have a release date?

He's done it in the past and some people have always gotten pissed off at him for getting the hopes up.

He'll probably talk about the album once it's ready for release and then get called a liar.




/jarmo

If by simple you mean somebody that hasn't has grudges to a guy that owe you something or in your opinion destroy Our favorite band or live on the past; Yes, I'm simple. Since Mr. Mercuriadis is trying to save Axl's face in your opinion, well what can I say. Did you finish to read the rest of my post. Well, I don't think so. You see in this forum I had found some interesting people like Davegnrfk("Axl is God") and You("If you believe Axl, you are stupid, besides you got no points whatsoever.") Since many people post their opinion, and they don't match yours; you can't come here and say "you don't have a point" or "your post just come from your silly imagination" or "you're trying to be clever and missing the mark." What mark?
Sorry, but as you know Mr. Mercuriadis knows of what is going on with the album, and the two engineers, etc.;not me not you.
The reporter must have some points of the past; but not of CD.
And like I say last time Mr. Mercuriadis has said year 2005; so if GNR doesn't deliver  not only GNR is going to lose credibility but also Mr. Mercuriadis, and I bet he doesn't want to lose that. Am I missing the mark? Do I have no points whatsoever? Is my silly imagination making write this? Am I wrong? Should I call you Mr. Right?
Peace out.  :peace:  :smoking:

I think it's flawed because he had absolutely no contact with anyone directly involved in the making of the album.  No one from the band, no producer and no engineer.  It's incomplete, because the people he quoted ceased to be involved as of 2001.  The album may have changed dramatically since then.

As far as getting Axl and Merck's permission to talk to people under contract, that was never going to happen or else there would have been no point in having the confidentiality agreements in the first place.  Second, he did talk to people who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they had signed confidentiality agreements.  They broke those agreements by talking to Leeds.

I guess we have different interpretations of Merck's motives for asking who Leeds had been talking to.  Some people might see it as Merck's way of trying to get editorial control over the content of the article.  I see it as Merck protecting Axl's interests by trying to gauge whether or not the article was going to be another piece where people were taking pot-shots at Axl.  If it was another of those type of articles, I think Merck's refusal to comment was out of a desire to not lend credibility to an article that was slamming his client.

I didn't say that Leeds should have caved into their demands.  I merely said that he passed up an opportunity to have an exclusive preview of the album to run his story instead.  He made a choice, and one of the consequences of that choice is that he came away with an incomplete and flawed article on the "process" of making the album that Chinese Democracy is today.

Ali

Axl was not going to be a part of this article because the truth paints him as a Syd Barrett like lunatic.What was he going to say that the writer wasn't? "I'am still working on the record" said a perplexed Rose when I spoke to him last week.Axl should have dropped the bomb on this guy, giving him the release date and some crazy ass quote to go along with it.

Axl can't give a release-date to anyone right now because the record isn't totally finished yet. I think he will when it's done.

Hehe, I know. And I know you and Saul are bosom buddies, yes?  :hihi: We, all the virus-frees want to back the band. I prefer band acts than solo. That wasn't mean to be an attack. I like constructive discussion. Brainstorming deepens our thoughts.  :peace:

Anyway, I don't figure Axl as a dictator Kim Jon Ill (Sp?) but a struggling idealist. It may also be the impression people get from the article combined with Merck's comment. I hope each reader of NY times reads them this way and looks forward to hearing the continuation of this story.

Any opinions me and KV share or disagree about really has no relevance on this thread whatsoever. Like many people here I fully support axl and the new band 110% and awaken every day in hope of concrete news concerning the album and a release date. I've waited for a new GNR disc since TSI? came out. I've followed GNR online since the day I myself got online. So please , dont miscontrue some of my statements as "hating" gnr/axl ....  Theres tons of things concerning this new band  I just dont agree with , maybe even dont like but thats not to say I'm not still in their corner and wanting them to succeed.

It is no coincidence that many of our own board members came away from this article with grim feelings.

The writer's conclusion is stated in the beginning when he uses the words "it has a stark ending"
In mentioning that fans still wait he says nothing to indicate that they have reason to.
His mentioning that Axl is reportedly working on the album even now and citing a recent statement from Merck that the album is very close to being completed does not negate his overall theme/angle that all his 'sources' support -  thst it was/has been a disasterous unproductive 'process'.... leading to his intially stated conclusion of a 'stark ending'.

"Stark ending" as in blunt, harsh, and - grim absolute ending.   (yes, I love dictionary.com  ;) )

The article does not include any statements that have been made from people that freely gave their name when praising what they have personally heard of the album nor of any positive accounts of those who have expressed admiration or any respect for any of the 'process'.

why has he not included any of the statements freely made by the likes of Tommy Stinson on numerous occasions to the press regarding his experience and feelings about working with Axl and the other band members on the album?  And if he went back as far as 6 or 9 years with some of these sources, why not include the praise that Brian May gave to what he had heard.  Why not include about Marco Beltrami's or Paul Buckmasters involvement?  Why not include (as yg pointed out) that Axl has taken over as producer? 

my belief is that these would not have 'fit' in with his angle.  His 'take' on the process and status of CD is not positive.
The mention of Axl's ambition to do a trilogy is at best scoffed at in the context of the disasterous process outlined.

Just as he only obligatorily threw in 'mangement said (Axl) couldn't be reached for comment'  - which was a lie, anyway....
He also only obligatorily included  'axl is reportedly still working on the album' ... his management said its very close to completion.
THERE IS NOTHING in his article to give the reader any reason to believe it to be true... though there IS much to support his initially stated CONCLUSION - that the story has a 'stark ending'.

As Merck stated - the writer had his own agenda.  they ALREADY had this story PLANNED just the way it went to press.

His contacting Merck was just so he could include the line "axl could not be reached for comment"
When Merck presented an offer and terms to actually be involved in the piece - I believe it was not something they expected or considered.  In any event IT WAS IGNORED...  The writer should have just said right there and then during the Thursday phonecall that there was no way no how he would consider it.   Yet he jerked Merck around saying he would consider it and call back to discuss it... and made no mention of his impending deadline.  I think he was only biding time to get as close as he could to his deadline without Axl's involvement or being advised.   His calling back after business hours leaving a message that 'its going to press tomorrow at noon was an empty gesture.  Even then, in an effort to best represent and serve his client's interest, Merck subjected himself to further interaction with Leed's... and his editor.  At that point it seems they let on that they had no intention of naming thier sources.  Even then Merck, after fianlly having got the answer to his question/offer posed days earlier, still made them an offer that he would consult with Axl on the situaiton.  Even at this point when he was advised they weren't divulging their sources - Why would he have asked them this? and why did they refuse?

I'll offer what I believe explains this, but as my post is quite lengthy at this time - I'll allow some others to offer their opinions on what I have posted thus far - including the question I just raised.

 

Does anyone have the address (letter to the editor) or email of whom we should express our opinions of this article to if we care to write to the NY times?

Sorry?   ???  no relevance on this thread but I don't think I've ever misconstrued your or KV's words as "hating" gnr/axl. I think you misconstrued my post. I really thought you 2 were friends. And I meant,  like KV's friend(you)did,  I just wanted to tell him my opinion.

On topic,
Not trying to get in on the heat of this debate, I add a couple of casual ideas off the top of my head.

maybe it wasn't necessary and maybe Axl isn't really complaining?
When CD comes out, the continuation of this story will be told from the band's point of view, hopefully on a quality paper again. the flaws in the prologue will be corrected. Publish and be damned?
Merck stated it's this year. It's promoted on the NY Times. it's nevertheless a good news.

Besides, The article shows just Interscopes view.  it's only natural that Sanctuary complains.
Companies have important matters such as the reputation, credit, shares, shareholders and so on.

A small update

The New York Times did respond to Merck. They have asked him to shorten his response to 300 words or less.  :hihi:

Finck may not be a household name and may not be the most well known guitarist out there.  but I've seen him myself and I can tell you he simply hasn't been given the opportunity to shine yet, you'll see ;)

He is every bit as capable as $lash, plays with every bit as much emotion, the big difference is his style is much more modern and more versitle  : ok:

Axl Rose would not work with anything but the best of the best in the business.   Finck gets shit on all the time by $lash cocksucking fanboys for the mere reason that he replaced $lash.  Watch the Boston-3cam DVD, watch MSG DVD, watch Columbus.. Robin Finck is no fucking joke

No problem. I think I just misread what you wrote or whatever. No harm done.

p.s. , I dont think I have bosums ... yet.  :peace:

The 'yet' aspect is worrying  :hihi:

Dudes dudes...chill. The album will be out soon.

I am sure Axl is already well on his way to laying down some vocals on at least the third track by now. Then, there is just the final mix and the mastering. So, we will have it in no time. :yes:

Raising money for the surgery is hard work man.    :rant:  ;D

I also heard a new rumor today , maybe you could confirm or deny this Mysteron ... I've heard from various sources that Axl handed over Democracy during the middle of febuary to the label and the label rejected it. they sent it back to axl with a note saying "needs more cowbell"

any truth to this?

 :peace:

I don't know for sure  ;D

But if CD is gonna sell more than 10 Mill copies., it's gonna need some cowbell on it

hey, just a Q:
I got my mom to buy the NY Times (sunday edition...and man it cost $10!  I'm from Canada!) but I would like to know somethin since I haven't seen it yet (I live away from home)....

-how many pgs is this article? 
-is Merck's letter published in the NY times as well (if so and u have it, and don't want it--send it to me :)...or any other gnr-related articles---will compensate  : ok: )

thanks so much...and my 2 cents on this whole thing:
Its great gnr publicity, and it just goes to show that they sorta still matter to the GENERAL public (like I mean, NY times is huge).

what is a "cowbell"? ???

roflmao! No matter how much cowbell you put on there it wont be enough. An artist can equate every 10 seconds of cowbell = 10 thousand copies sold.  :hihi:

Nesquick : are you being sarcastic about not knowing what a cowbell is? If you are serious you really need to point your browser to http://www.morecowbell.net/   : ok:

I was serious. English is not my native language. Sometimes there are words I don't understand.  :peace:

adler opens nightrain with a 4 nice strokes on the cowbell i.e. :peace:

if your not sarcastic eh....

Will Farrell was funny as hell with the cowbell on don't fear the reaper. :hihi:

As ususal, I'm confused.? Are you serious here?? Did they really ask him to shorten his response?

I know his response hasn't been posted in the paper yet (Monday or Tuesday's editions) but I thought that maybe they were waiting until the Sunday edition because the readership volume is so much higher and that was the edition the article was posted in.

When you put that smilie on the end of your post, I wasn't sure if it meant you think it's funny they asked him to shorten his response? or if it means you're being jokingly sarcastic because this thread is now 14 pages long.

Ok cool. Hope I didnt offend you. I honestly thought you were being sarcastic. Peace bro.  :peace:

p.s. , if you ever start your own band make sure your drummer HAS a cowbell and make sure he OVERuses it. Cowbell gets chicks.

offend me? No, don't worry you didn't offend me at all. I'm a very cool guy.?No problemo. :peace:

I think it would be best if you'd let other people say that...

I think it would be best if you'd let him be.

I think you should have a better sense of humour but unfortunately you don't. So shut up.

It is understandable that the album hasn't been released yet : Axl is surrounded by stupid people like this thing called "Merck"...
Milking Axl seems to be their way of life !
This Merck is a liar when he says the album is almost done. If it was true there would be a release date ! But there isn't.

Or maybe the album has been completed a long time ago (May 2002) but after what happened during the US tour, Axl and Geffen are afraid it won't sell a lot. So they are waiting for a better moment...

Moreover, people like Stinson or Finck aren't even mentioned in the NY article... That tells a lot... :P

Try to get back on topic there guys.  : ok:  :hihi:

So , does anyone know if Merck letter to the times got printed in part or in full.

I think you should try to be funny next time if you want me to find your post humorous, but unfortunately it's not likely.
So shut up.  : ok:

 As some others have already posted, I too, suspect the NY Times article and Mercks' response are the beginings of a promotional push for the album. Or it is a last gasp effort, by the record company, to coax Axl to release the album, by publicly "calling him on the carpet". If you read the Times article, there is really nothing new or all that damaging said. It basically just collates all the different anecdotes we've all heard over the years, into one article. It even contributes to the Axl "legend" with the stories about driving over the cd's and having Zutaut thrown off the project for merely suggesting that he "bear down" and finish the album.It also refers to the 2002 tour as a success, when most national media coverage ?called it a failure. {personally, I went to the Cleveland show and it was great.and it was well-reviewed.} The article paints the picture of a troubled, talented artist, with the best of intentions and the worst work ethic. Ever. ?Yeah, stop the presses, Axl is an asshole.

 ? ? The curious thing to me is that nowhere in the article does anyone comment on the quality of the music. This reporter allegedly speaks to forty people involved in the project, and no one says they think it sucks or it's great? Of course some of these people said what they thought, but it wasn't included in the article. Why is that?


 ? ? Mercks' response is predictable, he vehemently defends his artist while pleading for the public to be a little more patient. That it isn't unusual for an artist to take this long with an album. He benefits from someone else publically calling Axl out on whether he'll ever get his shit together and move forward with his career. Another telling sign, to me anyway, is that the record company had the faith in the material to continually bend over backward to acomodate Axl. There must be some good music waiting to be released.


 ? ? I personally can't wait for the album to come out because I'm sure I'LL love it. I get the feeling we might end up with something that is overproduced and captures none of the spontanaety of "Appetite" tho. Remember "Sweet Child of Mine" was recorded in one take.
Axl has painted himself into a corner. This album has to be earth- shattering in its impact or else he will consider it a failure. All that is at risk is his legacy. If there is one guy who can pull it off tho, its Axl.

Are you kids done yet?  ::)




/jarmo

I think you're right.

I prefer songs that are a bit rough, if you know what I mean. But we'll see.

Could anybody post here the article? I wish I could read exactly what it said.

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=19183.0

Welcome to the hell, dodge and a Good point.  : ok:

That's perhaps None of the alleged forty are relevant to the real thing. I guess the main part is not supposed to be told in the prologue. The same is true of the current members. It's sad to see BH mention in the article.  It probably means he's really done with Gn'R.  Unlike the rest, He won't make an appearance in the main part of the story. :crying: Bah! a heartwarming episode tho.

Indeed.  :crying:

perhaps because everything we've heard from anyone who has heard any of the music is positive and promising...
and that would not have fit in with the disasterous, unproductive 'process' described in this article.

True, and after reading the article I felt like the author didn't have any 'real' insiders in Axl's camp. Everything that is detailed and elucidated regards the business side of the story, on the other hand, what has been going on within Axl's camp (or for that matter private live) seems based on a very superficial knowledge. It seems to me that the people he was able to speak to were almost exclusively former/current Geffen/Universal employees/managers, not the producers, technicians, musicians etc.

does anyone know where i can read this ny times article

Man, the link is four posts above yours.......

i'm not surprised that some of our board members are not recognizing the title of the article "the most expensive album never made" sounds like one of those posts... by one of those posters...    :hihi:
you know what i mean!
based on its title and the amount of pages, the thread is probably being skipped over by some of our posters who would rather not hear all about how some people think its never coming out and how expensive its been

they prob shook their head, wondered why it wasn't in dead horse, and decided to click/read elsewhere!   ;)

Isn't this thread about merck's letter to the NY Times?

No it's about defending Axl & his non existing album no matter what & bashing the NY Times & anyone else who doesn't fawn over Axl.

Apparently it's now about you being a stupid bastard.

Well excuuuuuuuuuuuse Merck, CEO of Sanctuary Music Group - a MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR company - and GN'R's and Axl's manager for defending his client.
and excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse us fans who believe in Axl and Guns N' Roses and thier efforts and admire Merck's loyalty to his client from saying "Bravo!"

You and hundreds of thousands of others are taking everything Leed's has published as FACT,
while dismissing even consideraton to the contrary - and certainly not giving any consideration whatsoever to what Merck relates transpired between he and Leeds.
Leeds has not denied ANY of what Merck said. ?Leeds HIMSELF even indicates that he only gave them 'sufficient time to respond to the fact that the article was going to be published"... which is in direct contradiction to the very next words that come out of his mouth "i very much hoped axl would contribute"

its such BULLSHIT. ?publish your article based on THREE HUNDRED unnames sources if you will. ?Fine. ?But don't try to run that shit by us about "managment was unable to reach Axl for comment" when it is THE WRITER who CHOSE not to involve contribution by Axl by refusing Merck's request for a day to discuss it with Axl.

AS MERCK SAID - The writer had his own agenda... He ALREADY had the article done when he contacted Merck... ?he already had his own plan and it didn't include Axl's input.
Fine, like I said, Fine free press etc. ?blah blah blah. ?But be fucking honest about it and don't jerk Merck around. ?

THAT IS HORSESHIT ?

so in other words it's about defending Axl & his non existing album no matter what & bashing the NY Times & anyone else who doesn't fawn over Axl.

what doesn't exist is a reply from you to said 'defending' that actually contributes to the thread.

I'm honestly not sure who or what to defend. But there's alot of frustration to go around for both sides. It's frustrating how easily it was to get a comment from Axl & Management regarding this article. A reporter that may/may not have had his on agenda. That right there simply sucks! How is this reporter more important than all of us GN'R fans? Does Axl prefer to have publicity from the media rather than true and loving fans. It seems imo, the media is much more imortant.

what makes this reporter different from us?  He has the ability to reach hundreds of thousands of people worldwide with this article in the new york times which is already circulating and being republished world wide.  And its not like Merck came out of nowwhere to give Leeds the time of day.  Leed's contacted him (as Leed's OWN STATEMENT relates) TO ADVISE THEM OF THE FACT IT WAS BEING PUBLISHED. 

this reporter contacted Merck 2 days before to let him know it was being published. there was no intent on his part to allow Axl to contribute.  He already had his own agenda - he had his own plan.  Leeds:  "I'm not bound by his priorities or those of his management".  Of course he wasn't - there was no need for him to even attempt to accommodate Merck's request because he had no use for their involvement -  HIS ARTICLE WAS ALREADY FINSIHED BEFORE HE EVEN CONTACTED MERCK.

Hey! This will delay Chinese Democracy, Axl gotta make a new Get In The Ring!   LOL  :rofl:

I am not sure what to think about the article, or MErck's response.  Sounds like two enitities that didn't work together on an article.  Neither side cooperated with each other, and niether side shed any light on some real news.

It's quite apparent Leeds had no intention of 'working on' the article with Merck or Axl... that's why he only contacted Merck 2 stinkin' days before he put it to bed!  Merck was open to communication but Leeds was just jerking him around.

As for news - it is Leed's who present's his comments as 'news'...
Merck's reply was just that - a reply to Leed's article.

Do you honestly believe, after all this time, the shroud of secrecy, endless delays and the stubborness of Axl and his management team to communicate with anyone other than 'the inner circle', that Merck/Axl would have invited a reporter to listen to the album and give them an exclusive interview?

I'm sure there's lots of reporters who have been requesting this from Sanctuary, and consequently been denied.

I'm not sayin the reporter was right, and maybe he should have waited for a reply, but I don't believe they would have followed through with their invitation.

Fuck, we didn't even get a reply to the 10 carefully worded questions to Axl.  :rant:

 

I believe that what Merck related is what transpired.
Leed's responses to sp1at.com's interview corroborates and even confirms what Merck related in his reply to the article about what transpired.

Eva, you go girl! : ok:

I'm not disagreeing with what transpired, or Leed's intentions. But I don't believe for one minute that the GNR camp / Axl would have given into this reporter's requests. The offer was a bluff to try to prevent or delay the release of the article.

If Leeds is a fan, maybe he also believed this, and consequently thought what the hell and released it.

Just my thoughts. ?: ok:

I sincerely hope that Merck/Axl realise that they need their fanbase more than ever, and that some positive communication in the forthcoming month or two would be a smart move and a kind gesture. I don't even think they need to announce a release date, just provide some reassurance that everyone is still really serious about this project. As sceptical as I may sound, I believe and genuinely hope we will hear something soon.

You or I can speculate on what we believe or don't believe Axl would or would not consider.
Our jobs do not call on us to consider offers and/or requests from the managment representatives of musical artists.
You or I can speculate til the cows come home. 
That is the difference between you/me and Leed's who has chosen a career as a journalist writing for the likes of The New York Times.

Another difference I will assume is that neither your nor I would pretend to be interested in having Axl involved in an article, while we were jerking his manager around on the phone 2 days before putting the article to bed - an article that had been in the works for several weeks prior.


Fine, say 'what the hell' ... freedom of the press.  He didn't need Axl's involvement to print the story he wanted to print.
But don't LIE about what transpired when you contacted Axl's managment and don't attempt to pretend you wanted Axl's involvement when you only contacted them 2 days before putting the story to bed...  Have you read what he said in the Sp1at.com interview?
Leed's HIMSELF said he 'gave them enough time to think about the fact that this article was going to be published"
That right there shows that he did not consider giving them enough time to actively CONTRIBUTE or be involved....
he called them just to LET THEM KNOW that he was printing this.... Period.  Then he inserted the standard "could not be reached for comment" line.



Same here.... Just my thoughts ;)


And I sincerely hope that the fans realize that their continued support and belief in Guns N' Roses album expressed thoguhout the GN'R community is not for naught.  For those with faith in the intentons, ability, and dedication of GN'R there is no lack of reassurance from various members of the GN'R camp that they're very serious about this project.  Others who lack faith won't believe it until they see it... regardless of any reassurances offered from the GN'R camp. 

Glad to hear you are a believer Scabbie.  ;)

Eva, i appreciate your dedication to axl but your comments are pure speculation and well, pure unproven bullshit

 

Perhaps you would like to elaborate on that?

First of all already I SAID these were my THOUGHTS.?




So what IS your point in stating that I've offered speculation?


And second of all if you are going to describe my comments as "pure unproven bullshit" you gotta explain what you are referring to.
I have no problem addressing what you're referring to - if you say what it is.? I have explained my views and my take on this topic exrensively and pointedly.? So for you to make a broad statement like you just did is rather weak and meaningless.

The guy's name is Jeff Leeds.

Merck is still Merck though.  ;)




That can be said about most things posted on this board. We weren't there when the band broke up, the tour was cancelled or when they recorded CD, so all we can do is speculate.





/jarmo

Not sure, they asked him to edit his piece to under 300 words, and he's not heard anything since

We'll have to wait and see

The best reply Merck could give?

Dear NY Times,

Fuck You.

Sincerely,

Merck Mercuriadis

P.S.? The release date for Chinese Democracy is --/--/--

 : ok: (well under 300 words...)

 :rofl:
THAT will rock!

Amen

does anyone ever get the feeling that people on here are very close to the band in some way and know exactly when it's coming?  I feel more than ever Axl is on here and Merk or whoever.  I dont know.  It''s just a feeling I get and silence along with things not said really makes me think that the people with all the answers are right here.  We are all really close to the main source.  I could just be really stoned though.

As a sidenote, I'd like Axl to personally announce the release date over the internet via webcast, directly to the fans. Hold the CD to the screen and explain whats been going on. Let the press come to him as opposed to him going to the press. Fuckwits

Fine i'll be happy to elaborate.

You're claims of Leeds jerking merck and axl around two days before the article was put to bed.  As yarmo pointed out we aren't privy to the conversation or any details concerning GNR so how can you say leeds was the one jerking people around ?  Maybe he did do this and maybe he didn't, maybe merck and axl were the ones doing the jerking him around by trying to negotiate terms in which they'd be interviewed.  I don't know and i certainly wouldn't call leed's integrity into question based on merck's comments as you have several times in your lengthy extrememly biased posts.

As long as axl refuses to be interviewed, he deserves all the rumors and speculation surrounding his tight lipped, secret handshake project that he's working on.  How do you defend one of the most famous artists in the worlds privacy ?  The answer is you don't and when you find out that everything is cloak and dagger in the GNR world, you write the best piece you can with the only people who will talk to you. 

Some of these people who wanted to remain anonymous probably are afraid of the Mr litigious coming after them for breaking down and talking to the world about the ever clever and secret project that is Chinese Democracy.

Leeds doesn't deserve to be attacked and probably doesn't deserve any cudos for the dated article he wrote but it's probably the best article anyone could produce considering the subject and the resources available.

Well maybe if us fans published an article in the NY Times, then GNR would respond?   :-\

My claims of Leeds jerking Merck around 2 days before the article was tobe put to bed... what?
are pure speculation and pure bullshit?

First off - it is my belief and opinion based on what Merck related in his letter to the NY Times. ?
I am not speculating on what occured. ?I am basing an opinon on accounts related.

And secondly - you yourself say in your above quoted post - maybe he did (jerk merck around).
So how is it pure bullshit if it is a reasonable conclusion and opinon that can be drawn based on the account related?




Even if Axl granted interviews (as he did well throughout the AFD and Illusions era) he would still be subject to rumours and speculation (as he was throught the AFD and Illusions era). ?

Sure, there are many journalists who would love to be able to report on what is going on... because there is much interest in what Axl Rose does (as there always has been.)... ?but, as you point out they are not so enabled because they simply are not privy to what is going on. ?"Cloak and Dagger" would be a better description of the activities of those attempting to obtain info on GN'R rather than a description of GN'R's activities.
GN'R are simply going about their business, in the manner in which they find is best for them.

You ask (this is the only way I could make sense of your question) "How do you defend the privacy of one of the world's most famous artists?
Are you asking how can I think it is right that one of the world's most famous artists thinks he has a right to privacy?
Could you really be saying that as one of the world's most famous artists that he is not entitled to his privacy?

Or or you asking how could I expect that his privacy would not be violated, since he is so famous?

In either case, it is up to the individual artist to decide on what level of privacy he wants - for either his private life OR his artistic pursuits and the process of his creating his art. ? It is his right...


...In attempting to safeguard that right assurances of confidentiality are requested before allowing someone into a position which might enable them to violate said privacy. ?Consider for a moment or two - what would motivate someone to violate that confidence? ?Why do these 'un-named sources' violate the confidence that they agreed to? ?What? ?I can not think of a noble reason at all for them to have done so.


blabbermouth could have run the same 'scoops' over a period of time and no one would be so impressed.

"according to unnamed sources Geffen cut Axl loose!!!"
"according to unnamed sources there is a piece of equipment in the studio that costs a million dollars!!!"
"according to (whoever) the recording process is an unorganized mess and there's hundreds of thousands of hours of recordings all in pieces!!!"
"the parking lot attendant at Geffen saw Axl leaving in his silver ferrari!!!"

 :rofl:

sorry *ahem* but since Leeds story was as dramatic without the use of a thousand exclamation points... ?
and well plotted/themed throughout (the theme being stated in the title and the plot laid out in the opening)...
since it was so well packaged... ?it merited being run in the New York Times.

The New York Times folks! ? man, the Post has got ta be pissed! ?:hihi:
"We wuz robbed! ?Quick! ? Someone get out to Malibu and get a pic of Axl in those crazy braids!
Are you guys listening!? ?Times a wastin! ?Book me a flight! ?*grabs camera and runs for door*"

Chinese Democracy is coming! ?;D

Ok ,i give, since you didn't respond to any of the statements i made,  i give.   ???

Here's a thought, the next time you tell one of these stories - have a point.   :confused:

You did nothing but ignore what i said and instead used the thread to do some more of that fine axl protecting you do so well. 

what the...?? ???

you apparently need to 'give' because you either:

a) lack a level of reading comprehension sufficient to grasp that I DID respond to your comments

or

b) realize your initial reply to my post as "pure speculation and pure bullshit" was unsubstantiated

Your claim that I am unable to make a point is likewise baseless.? As is your clain that I ignored what you said.?

Despite the respectful manner which I considered your comments, the tone of your above quoted reply makes it apparent that you have a problem with / personal dislike for my views and how I express them.? Regardless of that, I will continue to express my views on this board in the manner which I am accustomed and find enjoyable.? I have no remedy to offer you.

EDITED TO ADD:  My apologies for allowing noizzynofuture to get me off topic.

BACK ON TOPIC:  I'm glad Merck wrote that letter to the NY Times.   : ok:

Getting a bit out of hand, no?  Settle down folks...Truth is, no one here was privy to the phone conversations...let it go... the earth will continue to rotate, largely unaffected by the latest in a large string of earth-shattering revelations

I get the feeling that people on here are close to the band, but don't have any answers either.

I love the idea Mahan. But that would've been way too easy. :hihi: :hihi:

So now we can only consider conversatoins to which we have witnessed/heard with ouir own ears?

In that case then, Leeds was witness to none of the accounts he related, was he?? So then he was not 'privy' to what he reported on was he?
Yet its offered for our consumption.?
Considering Merck himself WAS PRESENT for the phone conversation which he related to us I'd say that info has 1000 times more weight than anything Leeds reported.... Thus my discussion of the account Merck related in his letter as fact has more merit than any of the second and third hand accounts Leeds reported.

As for the continued rotation of the earth, I'm waiting for the NY Times to report on it.? LOL!

You obviously chose to disregard my point....

I believe he will have the last laugh

Yea,me too
Great post

Merck's letter is NOT in today's (March 13) Sunday NY Times ... but I'm wondering if it's because Merck chose NOT to edit his original letter down to the 300 words or less for the free space and chose NOT to pay to have the entire letter posted?

again, i don't think the leeds article was so bad and i think it would have been kind of childish for merck to post that letter... kind of like two kids in the sandbox, fighting over the new shuffle or whatever he he...

That's the mentality dominating this thread and the other one. :-\

That's not protecting anything at all. -------"if you beat em' enough, they'll die."

I got the impression Merck's letter was written for GnR fans and the New York Times itself rather than for publication. I may be wrong. But that's the impression I got...  ???

true, but the difference is that we're not posing as anything but wannabes and obsessed fans, ergo we are the kids in the sand box.. :hihi:


i got the same impression too and i think that's cool, unlike printing it in the times or someting else huge... it's would be really fuckin' stupid if Axl or Merck would start to comment on every stupid thing beeing said about them in the press and thats why i'm kind of surprised that merck commented on this nyt article at all in the first place....

I take it that your point is/was that this thread does/did not merit further discussion - due to our not being there to witness anything.
I did address your point - so it was not disregarded.

Just because YOU chose pages ago in this thread to "stop now", apparently no longer finding "its great to hear the wide spectrum of responses',
does not mean that the topic no longer merits discussion amongst those that choose to. ?You made your comments. ?If you have found my continued replies are not to your liking, as I advised noizzynofutre, I have no remedy to offer you in that regard.

now, once again... back on topic:


I get what you're saying gigger. ?In any event he may feel, much like you did about your article, satisfied that the ones who matter did receive it:
the parties to whom it was addressed (Leeds and the Times editors) and the other most interested parties (the fans whom he knew it would reach through Mysteron posting here at HTGTH.) ?If the Times chose to print it - that would have been a bonus I suppose, but seeing how it exposes the treatment he received from their writer and editor - I'm not surprised it was not printed - even in part.

Which brings me to the 300 words or less thing - the Times could have edited it themselves, no?
...with a note indicating it was edited for space constraints. ? Though, hmm, ?I wonder: ?which parts would they edit?
The whole thing was a great read.... and I'm really pleased that Merck made sure that we were privy to it.

 

If the Times rejected the letter for having over 300 words then it was definately sent for publication. However I think that maybe Merck is glad they didn't print it.

why was it defenetly sent for publication?

and why do you think merck is glad they didn't print it?

Me too.
And I thought if Axl himself dared respond to the article with a threat he'd spoil everything.
At the same time that could mean he wasn't ready and CD wasn't coming out.

Regardless of the intent, the article gives art/music fans anticipation for the birth of genuine music. They know real artists n artistes often go down in history as idealistic nutcases. Some reader may relate with his quandary.

 I hope Merck will tell the readers CD's comming out this year.

1) Because the Times rejected it. You can't reject something for publication if it wasn't sent for publication.

2) Because he didn't send a new letter with 300 words. If he really wanted the NYT readers to read his response he would have done it.

exactly! you couldn't have put it better!

Axl is so fucking genious like, he won't let ANYTHING get in the way of what he believes in, and it's cool to kind of follow the prosess unlike discovering it after axl is dead or something, like you do with mozart, bach or fuckin' jimmy ?;D...

what do you think that means? what you say basically gives cred to the nyt article afterall no?

No I don't think so.

If Merck actually decided not to post a reply on the NYT (which is pure speculation on my part) then it means (in my opinion) that he just decided the album itself will be the best reply Gn'R could have for this article, when it comes out.

sounds reasonable! : ok:

"If the times rejected..."

well.., FUCK THEM!

PUT THIS ON GNR OFFICIAL SITE GODAMNIT!
IT?S TIME TO UPDATE THAT PIECE OF CRAP
 :rant:

this is a fake.

probably written by 'Mysterion'



Belie... dat.

 :smoking:

When people read Merck's comments they are disappointed seeing what kind of people are around Axl...

what people??
allow me to correct you "some people"... some people worry about Axl having someone around him who believes in him.
I suppose some people would prefer if Axl? had a management representative that didn't express belief in Axl as an artist and support Axl in the press.? :nervous:
Whereas some people - myself included - are pleased with Merck's expressing belief in and support of Axl as "the heart and soul of GN'R".? ?: ok:

When you're the lead singer and last original member of the band you earn that title by default. No big deal. If he truly is the heart and sould of the band then we should see songs that eclipse those on AFD since he's got his wish and taken Guns to himself.  I cannot wait to see what we will all think...

"Axl is one of the most extraordinary artists of all time.  When people hear this album, they will realize what [Axl] did in this band, versus what Slash says he did.  It will be evident to everyone who the heart, soul and passion of Guns N' Roses is."

I don't agree that Axl earned any such title by default.  On the contrary I believe what he did 'earn' (unfortuantely) was a lot of GRIEF from fans who blame him for the departure of his former bandmates. 
Like your comment that "he's got his wish..." 

Persoanlly IMHO I believe that when Merck said how it will be evident that Axl is the heart, soul, and passion of GN'R when the people hear CD, in the context of 'they will realize what Axl did in this band versus what Slash says he did' it may have been a rebuttal of the theory that GN'R is not GN'R without Slash. 

I can't say I agree with your comment that GN'R's new material must 'eclipse AFD' to prove (or disprove) anything.  I'm not even sure I understand what you meant by that.

In any event... my quoting Merck was only to relate another example of how Merck has expressed a positive outlook for Axl and GN'R...
And how, contrary to the previous poster's coments (which i quoted), some people are pleased that Merck expresses such confidence in Axl, GN'R, and the forthcoming material. 

How some people would find reason to be dissapointed that such a person as Merck is 'around Axl' is not something I can say I understand.

FUCK AXL,FUCK HIS FAKE LAME ASS BAND,AND FUCK THIS BOARD.I'am done with all this bullshit. Your favorite band should bring you joy, should make you feel alive.....NOT DRAIN YOUR FUCKING SOUL!Coming here and seeing adults act like retards night after night is so depressing I want to put my fist through the screen.The man has no intention of ever giving you CD so GET THE FUCK OVER IT AND MOVE ON!

 :rofl:

emoticon only replies are frowned upon by the moderation here.  :peace:

You know , like that guy I would also "move on" but knowing my luck I would leave and the very next day an announcement would happen and I would miss it.  :yes:

Be nice to the rest of us then and take off, an announcement tomorrow would be nice! At least i would have a legit excuse to postpone my law exame with six months, that is if cd comes out i mean eh...  :hihi:

 :'( But I dont wanna miss it.  :'(

p.s. , good luck with that law exam!  : ok:

Do you call it a legit excuse...... :o

Good luck, mate.

i don't take anything a management company says seriously.

they are paid to say good things about their client. ?so you're not exaqctly getting an unbiased opinion there.

thanks guys, i need all the luck i can get lol! : ok:

I guess i wouldn't really call it a legit excuse and it's not very likely to happen before may 9. anyway so, but when CD finally comes i think i will take some serious time off to just stay home, smoke lots and lots of weed and listen to cd untill my ears bleed! ;D

If i don't see CD before i become(hopefully) a lawyer i'll use my position to sue Axl's ass off! And maybe slash's to just to meet him eh.. ;D

on topic:


to this i can agree, although i wouldn't automaticly call it a lie eighter.. i guess we have to take all thats said with a grain of salt even when it comes from axl and slash...

Ditto. but I don't think a management company necessary says good things only for the client's sake. They have to say things to save their own ass as well, which, I think, is right of them.
in this case, they haven't righted the imbalance yet.
I wonder if it's Merck's decision or Axl's.

you are talking about retards..why don't you start with your post and then come to tell who's retard and who's not.

getting a bit testy, no? :hihi:

my point was that it is not dissapointing to hear management making complimentary comments about the band.
and as far as what management 'has to' say..   truth is they don't have to say a thing
merck's including "2005" as the year of reckoning (so to speak) on 2 seperate occasions in particular... thats likely something he'll be 'called on' if the album does not marerialize as he expects... so in a way he is going out on a limb... sticking his neck out... his reputation on the line, no?  Even more so reason he could have considered not saying anything at all...
yet he did make the statements AND mark this year.  I wonder if some would prefer he said nothing?  What would that indicate?  That he is out of the loop or not encouraging his client's return perhaps.  That wouldn't be good IMO.  I prefer to hear Merck staking his reputation etc.  Doesn't make him the feared 'yes' man by any means.  Eventually we will see on what his comments were based.  Til then, yes - as always - nothing is gospel/set in stone etc.  Doesn't mean he is not a position to have his expectations set though.  And doesn't mean its wrong for him to share those with us.  We could go back a couple years in time and be amidst silence, no?  To whom would this be preferable?   :peace:

He's not 'sticking his neck out' that much in a commercial sense, its not like he's gonna lose his job if Axl doesn't pull through. The way I see it, if Axl releases and the album is a great success then Merck comes out of this smelling of Roses (sorry for the pun). If he doesn't, well he always has other high profile bands on his roster to fall back on.

Merck is managing a portfolio of artists, some reliable, trustworthy and good earners for Sanctuary. Others (e.g. Axl) are his high risk / return investments that could fail, but balanced with other acts and risk mitigation exercises (e.g. the back catalogue publishing deals) provide a  means of creating a decent return for Sanctuary.

As for the fans though, I believe he is providing some reassurance although I wish he would stick his neck out a little more...

Yep, Scabbie.
Still a company is obliged to stem the tide of every potential damage, even just a temporal one, to its reputation by prompt action. It's their responsibility.

I'm not talking about the letter written for GN'R fans.
I'm talking about the one yet unwritten for the NY times readers that are general and the investing public. They don't read GN'R boards do they? I doubt if they even read the Internet. They read The Financial Times and The Times. I don't know their equivalents in US tho.

Then, why Merck hasn't appealed to the readers on the paper?
Does anyone check the market and  how the share price responded to the article?
Maybe it didn't cause any noticeable fluctuation. Maybe the tide turned in favour of the idealist's side. I hope.

I've been talking to the kids around the high school,  95% of them careless for the new guns,  there more into Slash and VR.  If Merck wants Guns n Roses to fly with the kids, some news better come out soon before school is out. That would be a great for Axl, if those songs made it to the high school prom.   

That actually makes alot of sence man. Good point. I think it would serve gnr best to get something going before the kids get out of school.

The success of chinese democracy has nothing to do, imo, with the youngsters dancing to "the blues" in their prom.  :rofl:  Enough radio airplay, mtv, etc ....good promotion  will make it a success or a failure in terms of number of discs sold, which of course may have nothing to do with the quality of the music.

Even if CD came out and  got nothing to do with music , in the first month of the release The name GUNS N ROSES makes most of people to buy the product.