Merck writes a letter to the NY Times

[ppbebe]

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

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

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

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.

[Will]

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.

[erose]

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..

[MeanBone]

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

[usurper]

Just to say it was 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.

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

[EET_FUK]

Merck goes up in my estimations every time he speaks.

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

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? ?

[Sino-lieS]

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

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.

[Wooody]

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 ?

[33]

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!!

[Drew]

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

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?

[Will]

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 ?

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).

[Naupis]

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.

[EET_FUK]

Is it just me, or could this "article incident" be kicking off the promotion for the album?

Nachtigall, ick h?r' Dir trapsen...

OMG!!!!!!

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


 

[Rain]

"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. ?

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   ) 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. 

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

[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. ?

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

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

[Freya]

Merck seems pissed off, its only an article.

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. 

[Nytunz]

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..

[Rain]

"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. ?

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

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

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

[Naupis]

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.

[RichardNixon]

"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?