Merck writes a letter to the NY Times

[Judge Dredd]

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.

[GNROSAS]

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.

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

[alternativemonkey]

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

[RichardNixon]

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.

[alternativemonkey]

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.

[RichardNixon]

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?

[Charity Case]

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.

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

[ppbebe]

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

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

simply sick.

[Mikkamakka]

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

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.

[reynics22]

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!

[norway]

Only true genius can inspire such deep devotion from Merck.

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

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

[Charity Case]

Only true genius can inspire such deep devotion from Merck.

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

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

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

[noizzynofuture]

.

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.

[norway]

Only true genius can inspire such deep devotion from Merck.

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

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

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

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 

[Booker Floyd]

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.

[Izzy]

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.

[Mysteron]

I thought Merck's response was laughable and pathetic since he had to resort to personal attacks and insults.

Axl may well have the last laugh (I agree he will) but until he releases an album most will be laughing at him.?

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?

[Izzy]

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.

Absolutely right. What is Merck thinking?

[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

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.

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

[Mysteron]

.

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.

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