Here Today... Gone To Hell!

The New York Times, Sunday, March 20, 2005
Arts & Leisure
[LETTERS]

GUNS N' ROSES
No Compromises

To the Editor:

Axl Rose was one of the only artists I ever worked with who was never motivated by money.? He consistently put the quality of his artistic output above all.? Whether you consider him to be a musical genius on hold, a poster child for the misunderstood, or a narcissist, all of his actions are motivated by a pure desire to make every recording count as a true reflection of his own high standards.

In a sea of musical mediocrity and generic voices processed into greatness by computers, Axl Rose achieved the American dream in music without compromising his integrity for the sake of fame or fortune.? I am sure that Axl's new Guns N' Roses will impact popular culture with the same vigor and vitality that made "Appetite for Destruction" a part of musical history.

TOM ZUTAUT
Los Angeles

Is Tom Zutaut still working for Axl?

Looks like Axl still has a friend in Tom!! Thanks for the post! And thank you Tom!!! : ok:

Sounds to me like Tom Zutaut wasn't happy with the article the ran a couple of weeks ago and decided to express his feelings about Axl.? ?Good for Tom :beer:

Oh my God, this is just better than a good compromise! : ok:

Thanks GypsySoul for sharing.


I don't think so. He gave an interview for that article.

Thanks for the letter Gypsy, I'll translate that to portuguese, ok?  ;)

"I am sure that Axl's new Guns N' Roses will impact popular culture with the same vigor and vitality that made "Appetite for Destruction" a part of musical history."


Mmm i hope Tom has a very good idea of what the final outcome of the songs for CD are, or will be. He said he thinks CD will have a similar impact to AFD, he just raised the bar that bit higher!!!! Its these comments that make the album seem mythical, make the fans expect a uncompromising masterpiece and maybe pushes Axl to keep on trying to make the 'perfect' album.

Im not sure these comments really help Axl.....

wow...hope it's true.

Sounds good to me! But im not sure if you can compare "now and then" but anyway! There wont be any new GNR without an album! Lets pray tonight

I'm so tired of this bullshit... Axl could rise a bar little higher by releasing at least a one new song  >:(

I don't see any significance to this article.

I'm sure Tom proof red the letter to Axl before it got published.

Thanks for typing that out Gypsy.

Axl Rose was one of the only artists I ever worked with who was never motivated by money.
- Tom Zutaut

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.
- Merck Mercuriadis




/jarmo

So i wonder what delayed the album...Tom said it was almost ready in 2001...What delayed it till 2006?

I don't think Zutat was kissing up to Axl. In fact I think Zutat's letter legitimizes Merck's letter a little bit, because Merck was indirectly referring to Tommy Zutat as one of "them," that is, people on the wrong side. And here he is stepping up for Axl on a very public forum.

its delayed to 2006?

I think it's cool and kinda weird that some people want to stand up for Axl all of a sudden in a public way it makes me wonder if they don't know somthing and they know it's on the way and want to get on Axl's good side before the ride starts.

That's a nice statement.  On Behind the Music, he seemed like a pretty cool guy.  And, despite what you think of Axl and whether you're pissed at him for not giving us much information the last three years (which I am), nobody can deny that he puts his heart and soul into every album, song, verse, etc., to make it the best it can possibly be.  And, if he was concerned about money, he a) would not have waited this long to put out an album, and b) showed up late to virtually every show in the last 15 years, therefore paying overtime fees.  He likes things his own way, the best they can be, and I guess that makes him so great.

Very nice words of support. I do believe there are alot of people who realize that this project has alot of promise; unfortunately, there are too many haters with only a shortsighted view who tend to be the most vocal. Let's hope the delays end and we can hear it all for ourselves before we're all dead and buried.

aawww im all choked up.that was beautiful really it was.i got a fuzzy feeling in my gut right now.
 :beer: :smoking:
show em my moto'
peace and chicken grease !

This Tom is the same person who in my opinion, didn't speak too highly of Axl and his direction he is taking GNR in Behind the Music.  He talked about how Axl will never acheive perfectionism or something like that.

Why is he saying this stuff now? ?Maybe Tom finally realized that Axl Rose = pure rock n' roll and that Axl made Tom equally noticeable as he signed the band thru Geffen

The significance is that Tom Zutaut is one of the main "GNR Insider" sources that was named and quoted in the Leeds article. ?IMO, Leeds portrayed Mr. Zutaut as someone who has a negative opinion of Axl, the "new" band and the album.

This is how the Leeds article starts to give youze some idea of what I'm referring to:

quote
IN the faint red light of the Rainbow Bar and Grill, Tom Zutaut sips at his drink and spills a bit of regret. It's been 19 years since he signed the then-unknown rock band Guns N' Roses to a contract with Geffen Records, where they turned into multiplatinum superstars. Back in those days, the Rainbow was their hangout of choice.

Years after he left the label, he returned in 2001 to try to coax Axl Rose, the band's magnetic leader and by then its only original member, into completing one of the most highly anticipated albums in the industry: an opus tentatively titled "Chinese Democacy." The deadline for turning in the album had passed two years earlier.

"I really thought I could get him to deliver the record," said Mr. Zutaut, who spent nine months trying. "And we got close."

He is speaking in relative terms. Mr. Zutaut is but one of a long series of executives and producers brought in over the years to try to conjure up the maddeningly elusive album - to cajole the reclusive rock star into composing, singing, recording, even just showing up. Like everyone else who had tried, or has tried since, Mr. Zutaut came away empty-handed.
end quote



There's another thing I'd like to point out about the unfair way the NY Times posted Mr. Zutaut's letter. ?There were three other letters posted. ?Two were about an article on the Friars Club Roast and the other was about an article on Cinema Studies Degrees. ?For one of the 'Friars' letters, the NY Times noted that "The writer is dean of the Friars Club" and on the 'Cinema Studies' letter, the NY Times noted that "The writer is an assistant professor of cinema studies at Southern Illinois University." ?The NY Times failed to note who Tom Zutaut is in relation to GNR and the article they had published. ? :rant:

Nice move on Tom's part no matter what the motivation.

However, I think the above nonsense from Merck is so far from the truth it's ridiculous. ?Over the years
Axl has proved time and again that he cares what the press thinks of him. ?His skin is beyond thin and
his sensitivity towards critisism is undeniable.

Gypsy,

on BTM, Tom didn't speak too highly of Axl and yet, he didn't refute anything he said there.

IMO, Zutaut didn't refute anything he was quoted as saying in this article either.? I believe in this letter he was just clarifying his opinion of Axl.

Not to make this into a thread about Merck's letter since we already have that, but I posted the whole sentence since they both mentioned the money issue.

Being criticized and unfairly criticized are two different things.



/jarmo

Well, I respect your opinion. ?But I think Mr. Zutaut is sucking up. ?His credibility is shot to me because he sold Axl out on BTM. ?

I forgot exactly how he worded what he said about Axl on BTM, but everyone on there put him down.

Mr. Zutaut lives in the past anyway. ?Read the last sentence of his letter. ?

I think what Merck says is the real deal. ?He is the manager of GNR. ?Zutaut was important. ?Maybe Zutaut heard CD and realized it will blow everything away and he is sorry for selling Axl out on BTM now and is trying to make himself look good again in Axl's eyes.

I don't know how they make those shows, but it's possible they just used parts of the interview they did with him....



/jarmo

Agreed. ?

That said, I still think Merck's comment was ill advised being that it's just not true, while Tom's comments seemed much more heartfelt than Merck's "yes man' speak about Axl's disregard for all things media.

Well, whether they used interview parts or not, Tom still put Axl down.  He should have not said anything if he really respected Axl and let the music do the talking like Axl says it will someday.

if someone really respects someone, it doesn't mean that they will only paint a perfect picture of that person. Everyone has flaws.  You have to think about it this way; Tom had a close relationship w/ Axl; they worked very closeley together to create art.  Now, compare it it you and say, a friend you really like, but you still have a few negative things to say about them, right? Tom respects Axl as an artist, and perhaps as an individual, but he probably sees him as too much of a perfectionist.  Nothing is black and white--people and thier view on others are complex, obviously.  I personally don't think Tom dissed Axl in any way.  He just gave his perspective on the guy.  I think this letter to the newspaper is a positive move bc it shows that Axl has many supporters--whether associates or fans.  However, as fans, we have to take things w/ a grain of salt.  Things are sometimes taken out of context or edited very sneekly to fit the authors' agenda to make an interesting read. 

Hah, I liked what you said, it is weird all of the sudden Zutaut wants to jump on board the gravy train.  Axl has got something real good, and all the people that felt like they have gotten screwed in the past because they wanted what they wanted when they wanted it, But uncle Axl wasnt haven it.  He does things his way and in his time, but to think that Zutaut is congradulating him now, for having the balls that he wishes he could have have, is a shisty thing to do.  I believe Axl his shurely winning this round, and the higher ups are doing exactly that, trying to promote themselves up to Axl's level by putting out there dirty corruptible little hands out to Axl, saying thank you for being you, thank you for not listening to us ass clowns.  Thank you............Well I would think Axl just laughs, and he is not going to forgive and forget.  If you talk about Axl, Ive heard he could give to shits about you after the fact........but thanks for being a good PR guy, and yeah jump on the bandwagon, cause axl is in it for the long haul,  Mr. Zutaut needs to quit living in the past like adler is, as much as I love em, hes through and saying some good words for Axl is not going to bring him back into the fold.

so is it possible for anyone to publicly say something positive about axl without being labeled a suck up or a 'yes man'. Seriously, the skepticism and negativity from some people here is ludicrously defended.

KV, yes, it's possible to say positive things about Axl.? Mr. Zutaut, for him to say something positive now, doesn't matter because he was also so quick to jump on the BTM bandwagon and put Axl down just as quick.? He should have just kept silent.  Tom is clearly looking for Axl to let him back in the loop because he must realize the impact Axl is about to make in releasing CD.

Mack10, your post is 100% correct : ok:

Is this the same Tom Zutuat who has been quoted as saying:-

"Axl didn't strike me as being particularly savvy or into his career. He was more like a wild animal from the African jungle." :peace:

I think here he was referring to the very early days.

How can you condemn that as nonsense and ridiculous?

Who gives a damn about what the press thinks or not think of oneself? It'd be nonsense.
Anyone sensible would care how naive and innocent people are misled by the press.

Merck's comment makes sense.

No, actually it sounds like he is trying to clear the air. Vh1 has always been guilty of taking comments out of context and pasting them wherever the hell they want. I find nothing wrong with his letter or, for that matter, Merck's letter a week or so back.

Because it is, it a false statement regarding Axl's feeling about the press.


Axl Rose does, he's proved it over and over , rant after rant.? Hell, he wrote a song about it.
See "Get In The Ring".


Has anyone ever used Axl Rose and sensible in the same sentence?

I didn't think so.

As I said before, I consider Tom's comments much more objective than Merck's.? He's away from the project and has nothing to gain or lose.

wot got me the most was the album coming out by spetember. oooh!

Yeah the reason that it struck me as weird is that over all the years and negative press that Axl has been getting there has been plenty of chances for the people to come to his defense but did they?No but now that the rumours have started back up and this is my reason for believing somthing is bound to happen "soon" (I hate that word!)all jokes aside I believe it won't be too much longer.

You just failed to understand my post or it was rather deliberate? ::)
I hate to post the same shits.



Of course he cares what his fans might think of him. Music is a way to communicate and he is a musician.

Merck is not saying Axl doesn't care how the press give the wrong impression about him on people like you.
See the following that is one of the consequences. Example is better than prospects. : ok:
You did.  I said anyone sensible would care how naive and innocent people are misled by the press.
I didn't type Axl Rose in that sentence. OK, then Axl Rose is the sensible one.

All merck says there is that Axl doesn't give a fuck whatever in some journalist's little mind.


:D In other words, "publish and be damned!!!". :headbanger:

I applaude Zutaut for coming out and expressing his support for Axl.

Especially after all the shit Axl has probably put him through in the last 10 yrs with this fucking Chinese Democracy album  :peace:

that was my first thought upon reading the article.


and ppbebe... you make a very good point and distinction ?: ok:

"you be ripping off the kids who pay thier hard earned money to read about the bands they wanna know about...
printing lies... starting controversy.... ?"

axl doesn't care what writers like leeds think of him... like mick wall & bob guiccione jr...
they can "suck (his) ass"

he does care what lies and half truths are fed to the unwitting fans...
and it does piss him off to be unfairly portrayed to those he cares about... his fans (among others)

In other words, don't ask why this has taken so long.



Keeping his options open for the future, just in case axl's "new guns and roses" hits it big.

If you beleive Axl doesn't care, fine.  More power to you.

His actions and words over the years prove otherwise.

No, ppbebe made it pretty clear that Axl cares, but about something else and not what the journalists thinks of him.

Isn't this the same guy who Merck, splat, & the rest of the usual suspects dismissed as being an out of the loop, has-been ex employee, etc... when his quotes were used in the NYTimes article?

Also, what exactly is he saying in this letter. When did anyone ever say he's motivated purely by money? Ever hear the phrase "whatever you do, don't think about a pink elephant"?

Meh, whatever. More words. More empty, hollow, words that mean nothing but somehow make people puff out their chests like they've some how been vindicated.

Again, fine.

I believe otherwise.

You still don't see the difference, do you?

Whatever.

My premise is Axl Rose cares big time about what the press says and thinks of him whereas Mercks statement paints a different picture.

What difference are you referring to?

Buddy...it ain't here yet...whadda you think?

Im sorry but who's Tom Zutaut?

ppbebe says = Axl cares about what the press says about him to his fans

That's different than caring for what the press thinks of him.

For example, you could care less what I think of you but if I were to start spreading lies about you to the world you would care, and you would have a problem with it. Anyone would.

Understood. 

However, I believe Axl cares very much what the press thinks of him personally and not just how he's portrayed by the media to his fans.

He takes negative comments to heart and holds grudges accordingly, while enjoying the praise as well.

How is Zutaut keeping his options open?  It's not like he is going to get back into the fold of GNR.  He may just feel he was not quoted properly and decided to clear the air!  It would be pretty stupid of him to think that if he says good things about Axl in the press he will be back in good graces with him again.  It is also stupid for anyone to suggest that is what his motivation is.

He's just another Axl ass kisser that thinks it was Axl that made GN'R,I hate people that think that,everyone know they're full of shit,it was all the guys in GN'R,Axl,Slash,Duff,Izzy,and Steven.

Okay so now we have a 2nd letter to the NY Times from Axl's camp.  I find it all  very uninteresting.  Merck and Zutaut should concentrate more on throwing the die hard GNR fans a freakin bone, instead of writing these letters to the Times.  I am hungry for real news. 

True this letter was no info just some friendly words about Axl and defending the first article, which is really cool.   I hold Merck in high regard and when he stated in his letter that 2005 is going to be Axl's year, I sincerely hope it's true.   With that said, Mercks letter was also written in Axl's defense and nothing official.  As usual we will just have to wait and see.

that's nothing new
i have talked that for a years
that's the fact,axl haven't made music for money!!!!
because if he want a money,he would realised chinese democracy before 3-4 yers,album would sold in 5-6 milions copies (less) in the world,he made a big tour,and earned 20 milion dollars

Tom Zutaut was the dude who signed GN'R up 2 the Geffen Label in 1986. he dont work with em n e  more.

Very nice. Tom seems like a super cool and passionate individual. It's great that he's still on Axl's side. His passion and faith in Axl is very reassuring. He's not just some Joe Blow off the street...  :beer:

Thanks Eva and estranged. :D

Maybe and Maybe not.
What you might think of or not think of before you get to sleep is no one's business but yours and less evident to others than what you would have with your burrito.

Yet One thing. You really can't bother with what someone who you don't like thinks of you.
If he had that high regard for the press, he would be whoring to the press already.
But seemingly it bothered him with broadcasting biased info to the people he cared about, that is, those who listen to his music. That he talked to the audience directly, which obviously didn't work for ya.

You create your idol in your own image. It's a papier-m?ch? made of press cuttings. Sure, it must be "fragile".
If only you could break your dear paper-idol once and open your eyes. Perhaps It's not too late yet, I BET.

It's not how you're thinking, or as you've imagined To live in a shade of beliefs that were fashioned
to leave you in slavery and drain out your soul
But what can I do when there's so many liars?
They crawl through your veins, like millions of spiders
that seek out their victims, and who is the wiser?

I'm not saying this is what I believe. It's simply what I read and hear so far. One more reliable news/song can change this easy.

You know reading these posts reminded me of that VMA appearance and what happened aftwards when Loder interviewed him. Remember how ackward Axl got when Loder started talking to him. Axl thanked him for the great review he gave them for the RIR 3 show. Loder didnt hear him right, and Axl said it again. It came off really bad and well, ackward. He certaintly does care what the media says I guess. I never thought so but, remembering this odd exchange between Axl and Kurt kind of proves that he does. You have to see it, as just reading about the exchange doesnt do it justice. It was weird man.

Maybe the album has been delayed to 2006. This does feel the same right now, as it has the last couple years. Its almost April and still not a word.

What this dude said in his letter is cool, but its just more blah blah blah. Whether someone is saying something bad or good, its all talk and it means shit. I just want to know when we are going to get some action. Talking is for chicks.

The time for 'talk' will pass... and we'll all be happy to hear the music speak, indeed  : ok:

thing is..  so long as there's talk... signs of life... I prefer it to the utter silence we had after the 02 tour ended prematurely.  :peace:

And that is why I will continue to support Axl and the musical monstrosity known as Guns N' Roses

There's really no maybe not about it.

His combative history with the perceived negative press speaks volumes.

RS: When you were in New York recently, you took offense at a review Jon Pareles wrote in the 'New York Times' and invited him to come onstage to talk about it. (Pareles, reviewing a December G n' R show at Madison Square Garden, described the audience as "oddly restrained." Pareles was invited to come to the following night's show and "tell the crowd why they weren't having a good time.")

Axl: I was actually just going to sit down and talk. I wasn't going to make him look like an ass.

RS: Still, he would've been walking into a minefield. No matter what he said, they'd boo him and cheer you.

Axl: He didn't have the balls to stand behind what he wrote, and he got exposed.

RS: A lot of people would say that in inviting him to talk about that on your turf, you were the one who didn't have the balls. Why didn't you call him and talk about it personally on neutral territory?

Axl: I'm not gonna make the New York Times any more money. It was an obnoxious piece. It was shit journalism. He could've written: "I didn't like the show, personally. I think they suck." Okay, fine. Cool. You can think we suck, and I can think you're an asshole. But don't just try to make it look like nobody enjoyed it.

from Axl Rose: The Rolling Stone Interview - Rolling Stone, April 2nd 1992, RS627
source: http://heretodaygonetohell.com/articles/showarticle.php?articleid=56

take from that what you will...  :peace:

I take that as an artist who took what the writer said to heart and felt compelled to admonish him in public forum that was decidedly unfair ground.  Hardly a letter to the editor...

It proves my point beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Sensitive and thin skinned, way to worried about 1 mans opinion.

Talk about being lobbed a softball.

no, I'm sorry.. ?I DON'T THINK it 'proves your point'

to take something to heart is to take it under consideration... ?to give the opinion weight... ?

if i said "Falcon is an idiot" ?... would you take that to heart?
i doubt it ;)
yet, if i went on to build a case to try and portray to everyone on the board here that you really are an idiot...
you would likely be inclined to respond...
and not because you've taken my comments 'to heart'
but because you may feel that i've wrongfully portrayed you as an idiot..
and you'd want to set the record straight, no?

see what i mean?

so like i was saying.. just because someone might RESPOND to someone else's comments about them does not mean they are 'taking it to heart'....

you certainly can't believe that Axl began to doubt himself or the band's performance just because Jon Parales wrote a sucky review claiming the crowd wasn't 'into it'. ?
what he cared about was not 'one man's opinion' but the opinion that others would form based on the writer's portrayal of the show

I THINK that when he said: ? "Okay, fine. ?Cool. ?You can think we suck, and I can think you're an asshole."...
he's saying that if the guy thought they sucked it wasn't making or breaking his day - much like Axl Rose thinking Jon Parales is an asshole would not make or break Jon Pareles' day either.

I THINK it was the misrepresnetation he felt the writer made that he objected to, as is demonstrated by these words: ?"But don't just try to make it look like nobody enjoyed it"

see those are axl's words right there: ?DON'T TRY TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE... ? those words right there mean "don't portray the show like nobody enjoyed it"

Axl DOES care how he is PORTRAYED. ?That is what we been saying for like a dozen posts.
I don't think ANYONE is saying he doesn't care how he is portrayed. ? :peace:

but to think he'd take such criticism to heart? ?nah. ?in fact I THINK his vocal rebuttal of such criticisms means he does the opposite - he categorically dismisses it. ?;)

btw: ?you will note that the above is what I THINK and there is no 'disproving' it...
just trying to lend some understanding to what I THINK ?:peace:

Poor Tom Zutaut... :-\

That all sounds really good but it's high time "Chinese Democracy" becomes a reality and puts a little money where Axl's peer's mouths are.  We can't keep reading this crap forever with nothing to back it up.

exactly man, give us the damn product and we'll see who 'the heart and soul of GNR is'...............

There is no doubt Axl is sensitive and cares what others think of him...he is HUMAN. We all do. However, Falcon, you only look at the negative side of the position. On the flip side, you can easily argue that Axl is a true "punk" in the entire sense of the word. He has essentially given his record company, the media, and even his fans the biggest "fuck you" in the history of rock and roll. As Tommy says, he has got alot of balls. He does it his way and his way only-for the most part. So, there is two sides to every coin. You don't particularly like Axl so you choose to generally emphasize his weakness. I like Axl but understand that he is obviously a very complex and deeply disturbed man who truly is hard to pigeonhole in to any category. The guy is a psychologist's wet dream. Most truly gifted people tend to be deeply insecure and deeply confident at the same time. Throw in a rags to riches story and intense media scrutiny, and you have a very fractured individual who has done exactly what I would do-retreat from the public eye. Just my rambling two cents. :P

Yes, and Axl jumps to service any time someone questions something he says or writes. Such as One in a Million, which he "doesn't have the balls" to stand behind anymore. Or his challenges of Bob Guccione Jr, Vince Neil, and god knows who else.

I realize we're talking about an interview from over 10 years ago, but, if that's what you're using to sanctify Axl, then that's what we'll go with. And all this quote does is expose one of Axl's own imperfections, that being hypocricy and imposing higher standards on others than he does on himself. And hey, guess what? He's not alone! We are all a bunch of clumsy idiots doing the best we can, even journalists!

What's so special about uncle Axl other than being earnest? I mean character wise.
I never idolise anyone alive so I don't understand the worships or the hatreds toward musicians who don't know you personally.
My idols are, if any,  toons and historical figures.

For me, a categorical dismissal would involve no rebbuttal, none needed.


Same here for me, agree to disagree?

Not really, I just don't see a positive side of letting a journalist get under your skin and calling him out in a forum that's obviously not on a level field of play.


I hardly consider Axl's insecurity about releasing his material and attempts at current relevence "punk" at all.



Not true.? I find Axl Rose one of the most intriguing figures in music.? However, I also hold an objective opinion regarding his talent and place in rock history, seeing him much more like Brian Wilson and nothing like John Lydon..

Punk is probably the wrong word. However, you get my drift. Just because he cares doesn't mean he is going to give in to the media, the record company, or his fans. He is a pretty "defiant" (better word) individual. You have no idea why Axl hasn't released the material. It could be for any number of reasons-including insecurity. But, it is unfair to assume that is the only reason we don't have a record. ps I saw where you are going to see a Bucket solo show. It is pretty weird but you will quickly see that this guy is something else. He is all over the board-fast, slow, grungy, bluesy, etc. Playing old Gnr songs does not do him justice. You just got to see it. : ok:

Sure I do.


Defiant to a degree, yes.? Lack of confidence to a degree as well.


Many reasons for a no release is a given.? That in mind, I feel insecurity tops the list.


I'm excited about seeing BH, have always his enjoyed his schtick and am looking forward to see him in his element and at his best.

Bringing this back to Zutaut, I think his effort was well intended with hopefully no personal gain at stake whereas I don't feel the same about Merck's company line stance.

He's a mess. Simple as that. ;D Zutaut's comments do seem sincere. Merck..well. Here's to hoping someone can convince Axl to let go. :beer:

I think its really cool of Zutaut to say this, especially considering he's no longer involved in the project.. it all sounds really promising, and hes just sayin what us diehards have known all along.. some day the whole world will know what Merck said was true.. Axl is the Heart and Soul of GNR. 

And its rare to see people in the music biz not driven by money.. i mean look at Axl's former bandmates and what they'll whore themselves to.  Axl is a true class musican.

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.      - Merck Mercuriadis.

NOTE: Here,

!) Merck says what the New York Times or any other paper for that matter might THINK OF HIM
He doesn't say "the press (as a whole)".

!!)There is no mention of A)what the press SAY about Axl B)what the press think of Music/Show/Band
Or C) what the press SAY about the Music/Show/Band.

!!!)And he's not talking about the past.

!!!!)moreover, there's no info about the music,  the band or the shows in the NY Times article.

BTW, I'm not even sided with Merck particularly. Eva nose that.  :D

Let's put the record straight and stop putting words into others mouth for a sec for gods sake.
OK?

As for A) and C)  Eva, estranged and myself have explained this long that there're enough reason for anyone to be bothered with the interferences in their affair.

As for B)
I don't see anything weird in an earnest musician concerning with a feedback from an individual who does listen to his music,whether from a journalist or not. I imagine he would care what our voodoo might write about his music. Why not? When you start ignoring all the constrictive criticisms/earnest words, you stop making progress. Then again, if you worry about them too much, you'll be controlled by them.

When you don't give a fuck about the audience's reception at all, then you're just wanking with your own music in public.  :hihi:

BTW, do you know where I can see it? :P

ppbebe -

I see where you're coming from and respect your opinion

However, I'll never be convinced that Axl Rose is not hyper sensitive to his critics, whether that be the NY Times or any other media outlet that he perceives unfair or paints him in a negative light, deserved or not.

Seems like Mr Zutaut is looking for a job ! :P