Merck writes a letter to the NY Times

[BP]

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'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

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

[Minneapolisnewsman]

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?

[Will]

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.

[Drew]

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.

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!

[BP]

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.

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

[D]

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.

[NickNasty]

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.

[Drew]

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.

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

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.

[providman]

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.

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?

[Eazy E]

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.

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.

[nesquick]

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.

[welshrose]

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.

[Mysteron]

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 

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

[Naupis]

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.

[Annie]

Only true genius can inspire such deep devotion from Merck.

[GNROSAS]

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.

[Mysteron]

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.

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"..... ?

[GNROSAS]

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?

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

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.

[Ali]

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.

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

[dave-gnfnr2k]

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.

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.