Merck writes a letter to the NY Times

[Mysteron]

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

[Mysteron]

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

[echrisl]

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.

[dolphin]

Thanks for posting that Mysteron.

[Kiki]

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

[echrisl]

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.

[darknemus]

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!   

Umm, yay?

-darknemus

[echrisl]

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!   

Umm, yay?

-darknemus

Here's hoping!  I'll drink to that!

P.S.  Effect!   

[Wooody]

"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."

WHAT A DUMBASS !!!!!!!

he could've listened to the album. ?

[darknemus]

Here's hoping!  I'll drink to that!

P.S.  Effect!   

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

[echrisl]

Here's hoping!  I'll drink to that!

P.S.  Effect!   

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.

[roxxi]

"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."

WHAT A DUMBASS !!!!!!!

he could've listened to the album. ?

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

[Wooody]

"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."

WHAT A DUMBASS !!!!!!!

he could've listened to the album. ?

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.

[2NaFish]

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.....

[Wooody]

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.

[gigger]

Merck goes up in my estimations every time he speaks.

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

[2NaFish]

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.

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.

[terozz]

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

[starchild_666]

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

[usurper]

Merck seems pissed off, its only an article.