Merck writes a letter to the NY Times

[GypsySoul]

I just finished reading this Times article.? There's nothing in it that we haven't already read a gazzillion times before.
I don't get what? Merck is getting his panties in a knot over??

[KeVoRkIaN]

Well - I can't wait to read this article - but at least the world now will realize that Axl is still releasing this album, many people afterall thought Guns N' Roses was over.

[usurper]

Hmmm, interesting. Maybe everybody is right as this maybe promotion for the new album.

[Mysteron]

I just finished reading this Times article.? There's nothing in it that we haven't already read a gazzillion times before.
I don't get what? Merck is getting his panties in a knot over??

The NY Times is usually a good quality newspaper. It normally prints fair and balanced articles

Unfortunately, the Guns n'roses article is based only on second hand information from people who have little overall knowledge about the entire Guns n'roses situation. This, therefore, render the story unfit for printing (unless you are Spin or Kerrang magazine). Also, the journalist who wrote the article conducted himself in a very unprofessional manner, as pointed out in Merck's letter.

[WAR?]

This is brilliant on the part of Merck. The article makes some very interesting points, especially ehen it lists the number of musicians, producers, corporate entities and general changes in the music industry have transpiored since 1994-and how Axl has survived them all. That should never be ignored.

That being said, Merck has allied himself and most probably endeared himself to the band and Axl especially, as CEO of Sanctuary standing up to the media (Axl's favorite insitution) in the face of what should be considered a somewhat incomplete account of current events with the band. Good form, Merck.

Now, if record company's money ?go bye-bye, as the article suggests, then the album is probably closer than ever to being released. Axl will personally finance the project, I am sure, but not for very much longer. I beleieve he WILL have the last laugh because it is really insane how long this has gone on. Besides, at this point, it IS probably just maniacal perfectionism, which eventually reaches its limits, too. The album will be amazing, maybe even vindicate Axl in the face of all the naysayers, probably not change the face of music, but definately make a HUGE musical statement about GNR's relevance to popular, especially, rock music, and cement Axl Rose's legacy as one of this generation's most unique music celebrities. Baffling, flawed and narcissitic, but passionate, sublimely talented and perhaps brilliant.

[WAR?]

...sorry about a couple of misspellings, guys. Been working on a paper all night and into today. This was my break!

[Malcolm]

Nice to see someone defending Axl...I love the last line when he says Axl Will Have The Last Laugh 

[Charity Case]

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

[Allman]

Merck has every right to defend his client, it's one of his jobs to do.
There was contact between the two sides, NY times decided to go with the article, Merck responded, NY times should publish his letter, end of story.

[Mysteron]

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

[makemyday]

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 completely agree. I also don't think these are such good news.

[DemocracyRose]

Well, if you dont give the newspapers any news... They make them up by themselves.

[February]

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 !

the two most interesting aspects of Merck's letter. I would say that Axl was not that confident with the material after the 2002 tour or Bucket parts are out of the picture. If Merck found that necessary for this sort of response (they made a new enemy in the american press) i would say he's very confident in a fast release, at best a date from the record company - that's the one i want.
Here's what i think happend, the jornalist talked whith the people he new would accecpt an interview on the subject, as he works with a respected paper he then warned the management confident he would get a "no coment" from them as usual and could print his article whith out being considered bias, but ?Merck was very smart and gived him an oportuny to hear the album when it was finished and from this moment on he could get a way out:
1 - the jornalist accept's and god knows when the article would go out (a lot more complicated to a jornalist to diss someone when given this sort of opportunity specially with the blockout GNR gives the press);
2 - The jornalist goes ahead, and GNR camp can say they did not got their facts from us even when we gived them that chance.
Merck is one smart motherf
As far as the "the Times as they are one of the most reputable news sources in the country", well crap being printed in tabloids is not a problem, everybody take's it with a grain of salt, but if it's a considered reliable source people will believe even if it's someone's opion based on past experience, ?and not even consider that they didn't get the facts checked. If it happens to a president in functions and future candidate it can happen to anybody. Not that i'm saying that they didn't do the best article they could with the options they had, but i've seen people where cheering for blood because whoever wrote or said the something, but as it was the NY Times, so most belive and don't go for the capital sentence.
Feb

[madison]

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.

[AxlFink]

its good to hear how much confidence he has in axl since he is one of the few who have heard CD and knows where things are at. 

[echrisl]

I just finished reading this Times article.  There's nothing in it that we haven't already read a gazzillion times before.
I don't get what  Merck is getting his panties in a knot over? 

The NY Times is usually a good quality newspaper. It normally prints fair and balanced articles

Unfortunately, the Guns n'roses article is based only on second hand information from people who have little overall knowledge about the entire Guns n'roses situation. This, therefore, render the story unfit for printing (unless you are Spin or Kerrang magazine). Also, the journalist who wrote the article conducted himself in a very unprofessional manner, as pointed out in Merck's letter.

It's hard to get first hand information on a band that doesn't grant interviews to the press ... furthermore I do not consider what I read to be "unfit for printing."

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.

I agree with everything madison had to say.

[Johnnyblood]

Speaking as a giddy fan, this whole NYT saga seems to have taken the band and the album, should it ever be released, to a new level. In the past I've noticed that most major news outlets had no interest in this story. The biggest names to cover the band were, like, Rolling Stone, MTV, and Spin. Very large mainstream organizations, but still pretty specialized and more or less no-brainers to cover GNR every once in awhile. But this expanisve piece by the times really lifts the whole thing up to a new level. By pumping up the legend of the album, chronicling the controversy surrounding, and actually creating more controversy, it can only be a good thing publicity-wise (once again) SHOULD THE ALBUM ACTUALLY BE RELEASED.

As a jaded observer, I look at Merck's letter and think to myself, "I hope you're not another clueless stooge doing Axl's bidding."

[welshrose]

I like that Merck is obviously passionate about this project, he seems to be very involved with it and that can only be a good thing. However, after reading this, I think the NY Times have the perfect rebuttal with "see how he is surrounding himself with yes men and people who do not put the blame on Axl"

The fact of the matter remains..lets say everything up till 2001 or 2002 was scrapped. Who is to say that the material in 2003 and 2004 wont be scrapped in later years? This process has happened a few times..the re recording of Freese and Tobias, Fortus adding new guitar parts, adding Buckethead..the probable re recording of Buckethead parts..what happens is Finck leaves tomorrow? What happends if Tommy leaves tomorrow? This album is on egg shells.

I hope that Merck was right in subtly giving a 2005 release I really do, but we cant get crazy over this, because if I were to tell you during the prime of the new band in 2002 that Chinese Democracy is still not out in 2005 all hell would have broken loose.

[Mikkamakka]

The biggest problem with Mercuriadis' comments that Axl is well known for not giving interviews. He only talks when the interviewer is an Axl-kisser or a fuckin' nobody who agrees not to ask those question Axl doesn't want to answer to. The whole 'letter to the editor' is based on bullshit - who could the reporter ask anybody from the current GN'R camp when they are not allowed to answer the question?

[BKinNYC]

Some great posts on this topic.  But the one thing to think about is that for all we know, Merck is currently just the "replacement" for all of these other guys that were quoted in the article.  Yeah, they may not be relevant to what is going on NOW with CD, but they were at one time.

Merck's comment to Leeds about "hearing the album when it's completed" was nothing more of a smoke and mirrors stall-tactic to keep (part of) the story from being printed.

Hypothetical question: 

Let's say that two or three years from now, CD is still not out.  And Axl changes handlers/management/labels etc. again.  The NY Times comes out with an interview with Merck, who no longer would be backing Axl.  Would you believe him?

Answer:  Of course you would!  Just because he's "out of the picture," doesn't mean that he couldn't give us a glimpse of what went on in the past, much like the other people in this article did.