Merck writes a letter to the NY Times

[anarchy]

With an honest guy like Merck behind them, Guns N' Roses can't fail to make an impact.

[Mysteron]

"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.

Too true

Some peoples lives are very empty

[mega_music]

As I wrote in the article Jarmo started that stated the story in the times.

It will probably be another Axl bash-fest article.. Howard Stern is always complaining about the NY Post saying how bad they suck and never have any acurate information. I guess we'll have to wait and see what Sunday brings.

I think Merck\Axl\The Band needs to be on the phone to all New York radio stations in the morning clearing this article up. Becasue if not the morning shows are going to have a hay-day with this article.

[V]

Merck seems pissed off, its only an article.

Usurper has been rumored by an unidentified source to be an asshole looking after celebrity - how would you like that printed in the new york times?

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

As for the outcry of "what lies?" by some in this thread... ?How much credibility should the writer (and his 30 some odd un-named 'sources') be given when the writer himself ?blatantly lied ?that "management said (Axl) could not be reached for comment"?

so what say you all now? That Merck is lying? ?Making up the entire thing about the phonecalls and conversations that passed between them? ?Gimme a break. ?Merck is not making this up. ?The writer and editor simply wanted to avoid criticism for their decision to not even allow an opportunity for Axl to comment. ?Now they have been called on thier lie.

The NY Times has its reputation to consider - The NY Times editor should needs to address Merck's claim that he asked to be allowed a mere 24 hours to discuss the situation with Axl SIX days before the article went to press.

[SLCPUNK]

One helluva letter.

[Continental Drift]

Well... I think this whole story is nothing but positive for Guns N' Roses. At the very least, the fact that the NY Times would dedicate virtually 3 full pages in its sacred Sunday edition to discuss GN'R, Axl and the album is very encouraging to say the least. How many of us would think something like that would ever be possible back in the "dark days" of the mid/late 90's when the legitimate press seemed intent on type-casting GN'R as an over-glorified version of Poison? It's funny, but I think the Greatest Hits album has turned out to be one of the best things to happen to GN'R. I think the media has been shocked at how well that album sold, did a little research and realized how well the old catalog continues to sell... and have come to terms with the fact that GN'R was a very legitimate and historically significant outfit. I agree that there are some critics out there with their scathing CD reviews already saved to their hard drive waiting for its release... but I think there are still many others now (not so in late 90's) willing to give Axl a fair shake when he gets this thing out. At the end of the day- the music industry is better off with artists (and newsmakers) like Axl Rose, Madonna, Michael Jackson, Eminem, etc. producing music and not hiding out in their mansions.

As far as the article itself goes. I thought it was relatively fair despite the lack of Axl and Merck's participation. They acknowledged GN'R's continued grip on the conscience of the music industry, they acknowledged that Axl remains as riveting and charismatic a figure today as he was 17 years ago... even depicting him as borderline genius. I think a lot of people will read that article and be intrigued/curious about GN'R again... there just aren't very many artists that capture people's imagination like that anymore. I suspect Merck's letter will be published as well- which also serves Guns' interest because it frames the debate and increases speculation and anticipation...

[dolphin]

To clear up this whole mess, we need to hear a rebuttal from Axl and NOT anyone else.

It's time Axl. ?You need to speak up and we NEED to hear from you.

[Timothy]

Well it was nice of Merck to comment on the article. But at the end of the day I don?t think it really did any good.

Now if this had came from Axl ,then it might of had a little more wight behind it . At least in my eyes anyway.

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

off hand I'd say that IMO Merck would not have replied if they had not made that "axl's mangement said he could not be reached for comment" comment

 

[Naupis]

How much credibility should the writer (and his 30 some odd un-named 'sources') be given when the writer himself ?blatantly lied ?that "management said (Axl) could not be reached for comment"?

How is it a lie for them to say Management said Axl couldn't be reached for comment. Sounds like management said Axl wasn't participating unless certain conditions weren't meant. Those conditions weren't meant, hence his not participating. Not quite seeing the lie there.

Also, in regards to the un-named sources. People leaked information about government happenings every day on the condition of anynonmity. Just because someone is not named does not mean they are not a credible source. They just can't always be named for fear of legal fallout. It is a weak argument to assume that because the people weren't named that they were lying, had an agenda.

[smishkey]

For those who are unfamiliar, The New York Times has a national edition. ?So people all over the country have had the pleasure of reading it with there bagels every Sunday. ?The national edition costs a whopping ?FIVE bucks!! ?I couldn't believe it when I picked it up today, I live in Florida, BTW. ?When did newspapers get so expensive.
 ?Anyway, the article made me really sad. ?Axl sounds miserable. ?Hopefull the whole "There's no such thing as bad press" saying holds true for the band. ?Cuz an article of this type on the front page of the Arts&Leisure section of the Sunday NY Times, could be a PR disaster.

[Ali]

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.

Journalists can reveal their sources if they choose.  They cannot be compelled to reveal them.  There's a difference in that it's up to the journalist in question.  The shielding of sources is rooted in the idea that someone's life may be put in jeopardy if it was known publicly that they had revealed certain information.

In this matter, there is no life or death outcome from the revelation of sources.  If this writer was willing to print  Tom Zutuat's name, among others, why not tell Merck that's one of the people he was talking to?  He isn't protecting Tom Zutuat's identity, obviously.  So why not just say, "I talked to Tom Zutuat, etc."?

Ali

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]

As for the outcry of "what lies?" by some in this thread... ?How much credibility should the writer (and his 30 some odd un-named 'sources') be given when the writer himself ?blatantly lied ?that "management said (Axl) could not be reached for comment"?

I'm NOT calling Merck a liar but we all know that there's no way in hell Axl was gonna participate in any way with this story no matter how much notice was given.

[AxlFink]

it would be really funny if the idea of axl not giving interviews was false and no1 really came out and just asked for one. 

[dave-gnfnr2k]

As for the outcry of "what lies?" by some in this thread... ?How much credibility should the writer (and his 30 some odd un-named 'sources') be given when the writer himself ?blatantly lied ?that "management said (Axl) could not be reached for comment"?

I'm NOT calling Merck a liar but we all know that there's no way in hell Axl was gonna participate in any way with this story no matter how much notice was given.

Do you know Axl personally to say he would not do  a story or interview. He has done them in the past, with Loder, ,the RS interview even in his own words on gnronline a few years ago.  I am sure Axl will be giving interviews when the album is ready and he wants to give his side.

[GypsySoul]

Do you know Axl personally to say he would not do? a story or interview.

I do not know Axl personally.? What I meant was that I do not believe that Axl would have participated with THIS story. ?Do you believe he really would have considering the storyline?

[D]

I gotta agree with GYpsy Soul

only reason Merck and Axl considered giving an interview was to obtain who violated the gag order

once they found out, that person's ass wouldve been in a sling and they wouldnt have gave an interview to this douche fuck

[jazjme]

Well... I think this whole story is nothing but positive for Guns N' Roses. At the very least, the fact that the NY Times would dedicate virtually 3 full pages in its sacred Sunday edition to discuss GN'R, Axl and the album is very encouraging to say the least. How many of us would think something like that would ever be possible back in the "dark days" of the mid/late 90's when the legitimate press seemed intent on type-casting GN'R as an over-glorified version of Poison? It's funny, but I think the Greatest Hits album has turned out to be one of the best things to happen to GN'R. I think the media has been shocked at how well that album sold, did a little research and realized how well the old catalog continues to sell... and have come to terms with the fact that GN'R was a very legitimate and historically significant outfit. I agree that there are some critics out there with their scathing CD reviews already saved to their hard drive waiting for its release... but I think there are still many others now (not so in late 90's) willing to give Axl a fair shake when he gets this thing out. At the end of the day- the music industry is better off with artists (and newsmakers) like Axl Rose, Madonna, Michael Jackson, Eminem, etc. producing music and not hiding out in their mansions.

As far as the article itself goes. I thought it was relatively fair despite the lack of Axl and Merck's participation. They acknowledged GN'R's continued grip on the conscience of the music industry, they acknowledged that Axl remains as riveting and charismatic a figure today as he was 17 years ago... even depicting him as borderline genius. I think a lot of people will read that article and be intrigued/curious about GN'R again... there just aren't very many artists that capture people's imagination like that anymore. I suspect Merck's letter will be published as well- which also serves Guns' interest because it frames the debate and increases speculation and anticipation...

This is exactly the sentiment I hold, and posted yesterday. NOw the real fireworks will begin, and you must be foolish to think that Merck , Santuary as a whole and Axl and GNR dont know this.  Tell me what band ever has garnered this much attention because of an album, why would it be such a big deal, they are after all just a rock band .............right?
Why its so intersesting and compelling is that now those casual fans now will have GNR on the brain again, and interset to see how this unfolds, Thier popularity have been only gaining in the last few yrs, not dwindlling with music fans, many who are young and the driving force in sales. But now they are put on the world stage , cause yes the NY TImes is global. And Mercks letter IMO is jsut tje first step in setting the record straight , I dunno about you , but Im holding onto my seat now, cause, this thing is gonna start , flying. And I do believee as MErck says, AXl will have the last laugh!

Peace

[Lesty]

I thought the publishing deal was a real step in the right direction, but nothing has happened (publicly) since.
I'm not sure if this is going to be any more of a momentum changer.
Still, I don't know what this article or Merck's response really means.
As others have said, until Axl speaks for himself and/or finishes the CD
and releases it, he's going to be a lightning rod for criticism.
Axl has his right to be silent and finish his CD, but with everyone left in the dark,
it sure would be nice to hear from him....no cliche or company drivel from Tommy, Dizzy
or the management. Let's hear something honest and sincere from the man himself.
Whenever you're ready, Axl.