Merck writes a letter to the NY Times

[dave-gnfnr2k]

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.

How do you know what the contract states? For all we know, it could say Axl can take as long as he wants to release the album. If they could force axl to release the album, dont you think they would have done it by now?

And AGAIN it has not been TEN ?years, Axl started working on this in bascially 1998/1999 and from what Merk said, it implies Axl scrapped all that and started over in 2002. ?

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

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... 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!

[/u]

Seems that Merck asked him to hold his story a mere 24 hours more to allow him to discuss it with Axl... ?BUT THEY REFUSED!
At the very least they should not have lied that "management" told them that Axl could not be reached for comment. ?
Thier readers should know that ?THEY refused management's request for 24 hours to discuss the situation with Axl.
Now... will they print this? ?And if they do, what will their response be? ?

Either way, kudos to Merck for speaking up and letting us know the real deal. ?

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.

The more I hear from Merck the more I really like this guy! ?

haha!

Give 'em hell Merck! ?

edit: ?there is nothing to indicate that Merck was advised what the contents of the article were going to be - nor that he made any request to be so advised. ?He simply asked that they consider letting him know who else was participating/contributing to their research for the article. ?He asked that they consider it. ?And according to Merck's account and response the writer agreed to consider it and to get back to him to discuss it. ?Then made an 'about face' and contacted him with a virtual ultimatum the eve before putting the story to bed. ?How is that professional? ?Even then that morning Merck asked that he be allowed to present the situation (as is) to Axl befre they proceeded and the writer and editor refused to allow it. ?How is that good journalism?

[GNROSAS]

What We And the Thousands of people Who Read The NEW YORK Times Want Is The true Side and Complete ?Side As Merck Believes that what It Was printed Was not accurate and Complete.

Come On Merck/Axl ?Prove The Writer Wrong By Stating The truth. Just sending a letter like that doesn't
change the stituation. Tell us What is Inacurate.

Until You prove the Writer Wrong with the Complete Story I am afraid the Public and Fans will tend to believe the writer in the New york Times Because He constructed his article based On People who wotked with C.D and He is Under The credibility Of The New York Times Name.

Also they Will Tend To Believe Him Than You Because You are Financially Gaining from Axl to defend him as his Manager.

The Writer doesn't seam to benefit from the outcome of the article if it is bad or good For Axl. He Just seems to try to write Facts to me. He doesn't seem to be in benefit of being against Axl rather than you Who benefits to take Axl's Side as his Manager.

Come On Then Expose As the Truth......
 

[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.

How do you know what the contract states? For all we know, it could say Axl can take as long as he wants to release the album. If they could force axl to release the album, dont you think they would have done it by now?

Read again - i explain why they wouldn't have.

[norway]

The more I hear from Merck the more I really like this guy! ?

haha!

Yeah, he got me on the team 2, 
as seem as doin this 4 the right reason and is supportive of axl rose and gnr for the right reasons 2 

[estranged.1098]

If you think the record company could force Axl to release the album you're crazy.

[Ali]

What We And the Thousands of people Who Read The NEW YORK Times Want Is The true Side and Complete  Side As Merck Believes that what It Was printed Was not accurate and Complete.

Come On Merck/Axl  Prove The Writer Wrong By Stating The truth. Just sending a letter like that doesn't
change the stituation. Tell us What is Inacurate.

Until You prove the Writer Wrong with the Complete Story I am afraid the Public and Fans will tend to believe the writer in the New york Times Because He constructed his article based On People who wotked with C.D and He is Under The credibility Of The New York Times Name.

Also they Will Tend To Believe Him Than You Because You are Financially Gaining from Axl to defend him as his Manager.

The Writer doesn't seam to benefit from the outcome of the article if it is bad or good For Axl. He Just seems to try to write Facts to me. He doesn't seem to be in benefit of being against Axl rather than you Who benefits to take Axl's Side as his Manager.

Come On Then Expose As the Truth......
 

Well, I believe that he isn't stating the truth, or correcting what he believes to be factual inaccuracies, because he will not allow himself or his client, Axl Rose, to be backed into a corner and put in a position where they have to divulge information on someone else's terms. 

Ali

[GNROSAS]

Seems that Merck asked him to hold his story a mere 24 hours more to allow him to discuss it with Axl... ?BUT THEY REFUSED!
At the very least they should not have lied that "management" told them that Axl could not be reached for comment. ?
Thier readers should know that ?THEY refused management's request for 24 hours to discuss the situation with Axl.
Now... will they print this? ?And if they do, what will their response be? ?

From What i understood from the article Merck Said That he was only considering an interview with Axl if the
Writer Exposed His Sources. Even that applies to the 24 Hours request.

The writer Obviously couldn't Reveal His Sources.

[Naupis]

If you think the record company could force Axl to release the album you're crazy.

How do you figure? Last I checked they did pay for an album didn't they? People don't give you 13 million dollars out of the goodness of their heart. Remember, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

[ppbebe]

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.

"The deal covers both future material and catalogue.............as are dozens of new tracks Rose has RECENTLY recorded for Universal Music."      ---Axl Rose Signs To Sanctuary Publishing,  26 January 2005

[snooze72]

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.

Doesn't the story say there were 30 people interviewed who couldn't be named? Isn't it a reasonable assumption that many of those 30 people had quite a bit of knowledge but were gagged by Merck and Axl? ?Its logical that they make absolutely everybody around them sign agreements so they can make these very claims.

[Naupis]

Well, I believe that he isn't stating the truth, or correcting what he believes to be factual inaccuracies, because he will not allow himself or his client, Axl Rose, to be backed into a corner and put in a position where they have to divulge information on someone else's terms. ?

That's fine and dandy, but then don't whine and complain about people printing inaccuracies about you when you are perfectly capable of making the situation better. Merck doesn't like the story, then correct it. If you choose not to correct it, stop whining as if you've been wronged when you had a chance to make it all better. It's like he wants his cake and wants to eat it too. He is willing to participate in an article where he can essentially censor what is said, but when a reporter does his job and doesn't bend over for Axl and considers things about the project they don't find flattering, then they get all bent out of shape and complain. Again, no one forced them not to participate, therefore they have no reason to complain.

They are like the people who complain and bitch about the president and government, but don't vote in elections to do anything about improving the situation.

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

"he who laughs last... laughs best"

[Doc Emmett Brown]

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

Do you feel strongly that they were treated badly?  I'm just curious in what way - do you mean there are outright lies in the article?  The only shocking thing to me was the bit about the enormous monthly salaries for some of the people involved, and all that money spent on renting specialized equipment.   

Other than that, it just took the same old cynical view about the album's release which is nothing new - so why are you so defensive?

Somewhere in there, the article says that Mr. Rose's audience still awaits his return, and indeed the story is on the Times' list of Most Emailed Articles: http://www.nytimes.com/gst/mostemailed.html

[Ali]

Well, I believe that he isn't stating the truth, or correcting what he believes to be factual inaccuracies, because he will not allow himself or his client, Axl Rose, to be backed into a corner and put in a position where they have to divulge information on someone else's terms. 

That's fine and dandy, but then don't whine and complain about people printing inaccuracies about you when you are perfectly capable of making the situation better. Merck doesn't like the story, then correct it. If you choose not to correct it, stop whining as if you've been wronged when you had a chance to make it all better. It's like he wants his cake and wants to eat it too. He is willing to participate in an article where he can essentially censor what is said, but when a reporter does his job and doesn't bend over for Axl and considers things about the project they don't find flattering, then they get all bent out of shape and complain. Again, no one forced them not to participate, therefore they have no reason to complain.

They are like the people who complain and bitch about the president and government, but don't vote in elections to do anything about improving the situation.

I don't think anywhere in his statement, he alluded to wanting to be able to censor what was said.  He said he wanted to know who the reporter had contacted to see whether or not it was going to be another Axl-bashing article or not. 

Furthermore, even if he had participated, that is no guarantee that the situation would have been made better.  Some snippet of one of his quotes could have been taken out of context very easily.  Even that snippet of an original quote from Merck would have made it look like concurred with the unfolding of events as the reporter presented them.

Ali

[Drew]

"he who laughs last... laughs best"

We all just hope that it is Axl laughing all the way when the new music is given to us.

People have been laughing at him, us, and everything Guns N' Roses for a long time now. And they will continue to laugh and have the "last laugh" if the new album is a complete joke and failure. It won't matter at all to us who's laughing, but if and when the rest of the world is laughing and the album bombs, they'll be laughing last.

[GNROSAS]

I don't think anywhere in his statement, he alluded to wanting to be able to censor what was said. ?He said he wanted to know who the reporter had contacted to see whether or not it was going to be another Axl-bashing article or not. ?

Yes But By Asking that to a Journalirt you know that he cannot reveal his sources. You either decide to participate or not.

Furthermore, even if he had participated, that is no guarantee that the situation would have been made better. ?Some snippet of one of his quotes could have been taken out of context very easily. ?Even that snippet of an original quote from Merck would have made it look like concurred with the unfolding of events as the reporter presented them.

Yes Maybe But If you take time to acuse a newspaper that they are saying lies, you have to state
what you believe it is the truth. Just complaining and saying they lie doesn't change the public perception.

Almost Every guilty person in public says I am innocent. You have to at least say your side of the story and then let people decide what it is true.

[GypsySoul]

CD has been in the works for over 11 years ... it has cost over $13 mil ... there have been a lot of different producers ... there have been a lot of different musicians .... the music has been done over when new band members have come aboard .... and the part about Axl's work ethics/schedule is also something most of us believe to be true ... so what did this guy say that wasn't true?

[Saul]

"he who laughs last... laughs best"

We all just hope that it is Axl laughing all the way when the new music is given to us.

People have been laughing at him, us, and everything Guns N' Roses for a long time now. And they will continue to laugh and have the "last laugh" if the new album is a complete joke and failure. It won't matter at all to us who's laughing, but if and when the rest of the world is laughing and the album bombs, they'll be laughing last.

actually , whats sad is that the writers will get the last laugh anyways. No matter how great the album will be there will be a slew of writers with reviews ready to print that were written years ago .. if you know what I mean. Theres writers just waiting with an agenda of doing nothing but slamming this album/band and axl no matter how they really feel about the album. Count on that.

I dont see axl getting a fair shake , I see some writers with morals actually reviewing the album with an open mind but IMHO for every one honest review we will get there will be atleast 5 BS reviews by jaded , pissed , agenda driven "journalists" who have every intention of slamming the album.

[noizzynofuture]

Merck, Axl, shut everyones mouth and just put out a release date ?

Til then, you have nothing to say about the most expensive album never released