Merck writes a letter to the NY Times

[Acquiesce]

This is obviously Merck's attempt at trying to move the focus away from this article by making his client look like the victim. As others have pointed out, Merck didn't bother refuting these claims. He just merely pointed out that these claims are from people who worked with the band in the past and claims they didn't take the time out to talk to anyone who is currently involved in the project. It's all just an attempt to shift the focus elsewhere.

Merck knows damn well that this guy could not hand over his sources to him because journalists are protected from doing this under the US Constitution. He knows this writer was not going put his sources in jeopardy since they violated their confidentiality agreement. This guy who have committed career suicide by doing such a thing. Merck thinks the rest of us will be impressed by his words and will forget this important information.

Some of you may think that article wasn't "balanced," but do you think it would have been any better with Axl and Merck's participation? No, because they would have wanted to control it so it painted a picture that they wanted us to see. They wouldn't have let anyone who is currently working on the project say anything unless they were saying what Axl and Merck would approve of them saying since they are under a confidentiality agreement.

The claim that he offered this writer to listen to Chinese Democracy is just laughable. It was just an attempt to stall this guy and his article by making him wait until the album was finished.

[John J. Rambo]

This is obviously Merck's attempt at trying to move the focus away from this article by making his client look like the victim. As others have pointed out, Merck didn't bother refuting these claims. He just merely pointed out that these claims are from people who worked with the band in the past and claims they didn't take the time out to talk to anyone who is currently involved in the project. It's all just an attempt to shift the focus elsewhere.

Merck knows damn well that this guy could not hand over his sources to him because journalists are protected from doing this under the US Constitution. He knows this writer was not going put his sources in jeopardy since they violated their confidentiality agreement. This guy who have committed career suicide by doing such a thing. Merck thinks the rest of us will be impressed by his words and will forget this important information.

Some of you may think that article wasn't "balanced," but do you think it would have been any better with Axl and Merck's participation? No, because they would have wanted to control it so it painted a picture that they wanted us to see. They wouldn't have let anyone who is currently working on the project say anything unless they were saying what Axl and Merck would approve of them saying since they are under a confidentiality agreement.

The claim that he offered this writer to listen to Chinese Democracy is just laughable. It was just an attempt to stall this guy and his article by making him wait until the album was finished.


Your comments show just how little you know about  Axl, Merck or the Album. The people currently involved with the album didn't speak because the media only looks for the negative, they don't want to hear how great things are. You and everybody else on this board can't stand for positive remarks. There are no confidentiality agreements, otherwise all the people that spoke would not have. You'll be laughing and crying once this album comes out when you see how life changing it is.

John J. Rambo

[loretian]

This article was laughable. ?It's so clearly one-sided, it's a joke.

Maybe Merck can't refute all the claims, but to act as if this is the end-all of the situation is just plain stupid. ?Whatever the reason that we haven't heard Axl's side of the story (uh.. maybe cause the album isn't done??), the fact remains that we haven't heard his side of the story. ?You could print all the negative's about Abraham Lincoln during his time, and his vision that ended slavery in America, and end up with just as negative of a picture. ?I know that's an extreme comparison, but the point that I'm making is valid. ?Whatever struggles Axl may have gone through, Geffen, etc. if Guns N' Roses releases a good album, none of it matters.

So, keep believing in the hearsay and the so-called journalist, those of you who choose. ?The New York Times has been bullshit to me for many years, and this only seals the coffin.

[RnT]

Merck, today, has written the following letter to the editor of the NY Times.

Please feel free to share it around the Guns n'roses community

Sir,

I find it remarkable that the New York Times - a newspaper of some repute - has chosen to run an article on the making of the forthcoming
Guns N' Roses album Chinese Democracy without even bothering to talk to anyone who has actually been involved in the making of the album. You quote 5 people on the record all of whom with the exception of Tom Zutaut have been out of the picture for between 6 and 9 years and like the author of your article have never even heard the album! Tom Zutaut himself has not been involved for three years and has heard virtually none of the actual record. Your journalist Jeff Leeds - is this the return of Jayson Blair under a pseudonym? - contacted us last Thursday the 24th of February to inform us he had been working on an article about the "process" of making the album. I explained that it was not possible for him to write such a story as he had not spoken to the band, our 2 engineers, myself or most importantly Axl all of whom have been working on the actual album for the last two years and enquired how he could write an investigative report with any integrity without doing so. I also asked why if he was reporting on the "process" why we were the last people he was contacting as it was obvious from the discussion that he had been working on this for a number of weeks. 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 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. 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! 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. As one of the few people involved in the making of this album I can tell your readers the following. 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.

Sincerely,

Merck Mercuriadis
Chief Executive Officer
The Sanctuary Group

Let me say one thing
when I get old, let?s say, 60 years old, I think I won?t remember much what I did between 14 and 25 years old... of course I will remember some things about girls, fun, booze, parties, shows and etc.... but this whole GNR situation, rumors and histories... man ... I will never forget.
 

"...the writer was offered the opportunity to hear the album in the studio when it was finished..."

that part made me think.... Merck knowing that the guy had a "deadline" to finishing the article, do you think Merck was trying to say "Look, why write something like that if you can wait a "FEW MINUTES" and WRITE and HEAR the FINISHED ALBUM and make the "best" GNR article to NY TIMES?" ?

[erose]

the best thing about this whole article and merck letter is that Axl don't give after for the press or preasure from fans or haters. fuck'em you know, he's the only gunner who have held the "fuck it fuck all" attitude which once made them famous alongside their great music of course. I really dig axl for this kind of attitude.

Axl is not about money nor fame, he's in it for the music. and like he stated in a del james interview many many years ago, he'll be satisfied even if it's only a small click of fans who really like the album and feels something for it.

I think this article tells us that Axl's absolute main pri. is to make this record awsome, hence he won't back down just because some ceo, or a "journalist" or some stupidass fans wants him too.

I also believe that most of the other rockers we know about including ex-gunners envy this about Axl. Some might throw shit at him, but it shines through that it only comes from green faces...

[RichardNixon]

Did the NY TImes publish Merck's responce?

[god of thunder]

Hello everybody,

I have been reading the board for years, but never have had the desire to contribute myself. But in the recent months I noticed a change of climate in the board. People are getting more agressive and impatient all the time. Understandable after all the years of waiting, nontheless it would be great if minds were cooling off a little and everybody would exchange their opinions in a less moody way.

Personally I think the article in the New York Times (which might be Americas most respected newspaper) was quite interesting. The writer did his job and described the process of the Album making using the information he could get. And besides everything indicates that he is right in most of his points (the years of waiting; if we look at the last tours we do know that Mr. Rose is not exactly professionally organising his stuff; all the changes of producers, musicians, studios, labels...). Though Mr. Leeds did not find out dramatically new things, it was interesting to hear that Geffen cut Mr. Roses cash flow for producing. I do not know if this might be good (pressure to finish the album) or bad (Album is not gonna come out;Sanctuary Music might be too small to afford several years of producing an album this costly).

Mr. Mercuriadis was also doing his job. He was defending his client and indicating that Mr. Leeds could have propably had more actual information if he only waited a little longer. This you can believe or not, since we all know what the waiting game means. Since he was not correcting any substantial information I think we can assume that the NYT article is accurate but not complete in showing the most recent developments.

Personally I think that the article in the New York Times might be a great advertising possibility, since you could counter by releasing the most costly, most time in the making, myth ranking, most expected (which might also be very dangerous, since expectations are unlimited) album of all times.

Yours sincerly

God of Thunder

[madagas]

Nice post Thunder.    I agree...to me it just adds to the myth. It is free publicity. Why couldn't Axl just preview a few tracks? He didn't have to play the whole album.

[anarchy]

Nice post Thunder.    I agree...to me it just adds to the myth. It is free publicity. Why couldn't Axl just preview a few tracks? He didn't have to play the whole album.

I think because Axl doesn't trust the press not to go, "Hey cool!" and then write an article about how shit the songs are.  Maybe he wants the public to make their own decisions on the songs, not just read the opinions of some half-wit journalist.

[Freya]

This is obviously Merck's attempt at trying to move the focus away from this article by making his client look like the victim.

I think it's obviously Merck's attempt to cater to Axl so he trusts him enough to give him the damn album.  I noticed he slipped '2005' into his response.  Good luck with that Merck.

[Drew]

Nice post Thunder.    I agree...to me it just adds to the myth. It is free publicity. Why couldn't Axl just preview a few tracks? He didn't have to play the whole album.

I think because Axl doesn't trust the press not to go, "Hey cool!" and then write an article about how shit the songs are.  Maybe he wants the public to make their own decisions on the songs, not just read the opinions of some half-wit journalist.

Well with media the way it is today, that's going to be a hell of a battle for Axl. Because there are way more journalist then there are Axl Rose's. And Axl's not going to win any battles until there's a product for the public to hear. So until then, Axl has nothing to back up what everything's been said by band members and people who've listened or worked on Chinese Democracy and say how great of an album it is.

[alternativemonkey]

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.

Despite your industry contacts, you really can't be sure that this report is based solely on "second hand information". The writer says he spoke to 30 some-odd people, who spoke on condition of anonymity. He very well could've been speaking to many people close to Axl. Merck is looking every bit the part of a Pollyanna. One question Merck - Name one thing that should keep the hard-core fans optimistic about 2005?

I also disagree that Merck's response to the article. Put up or shut up! He did nothing to dispell the rumors of Axl's poor work ethic or the constant delays, promises, and failures to deliver.  The problem with taking on the writer on those issues is that they are true.

[ppbebe]

the substance of the article was rather based on the label's viewpoint.
The rest of the story should be told from the bands side.

kv,

that's probably how things worked in the making of the songs, but I don't think this would qualify it as an Axl solo album. What you described as Axl picking up something from a jam session is just the beginning of the process of making a song, and I'm sure the 8 people contributed a lot of their ideas to get from there (the start) to the end of each song.

Now I'm wondering who wrote "General" and what it's about. 

As I said, this is how the process was described to us. You can argue about the conclusion that I am drawing, but you cannot argue about the redhead's expanded role in the creation of this record: producer, vocalist, sole lyricist, and most importantly general.

!. Oh yeah! Led Zeppelin was an absolute solo project of Jimmy Page. The majority of the bands in the world are the head persons' solos.
In that case, GN'R has been an Axl project from the day one.
Whatever. 

!. That wouldn't qualify Chinese Democracy as an Axl solo album. Tommy mentioned Axl's hell democratic attempt to function the band Better, which he assumed, because of his bitter experience with the old band.   
!. The Musicians would know how things worked in the making of the songs in the studio more than the manager let alone the fans.
!. The other client of Merck, Morrissey doesn't play any instrumental but was the heart, soul and passion of The Smith.

The heart, soul and passion need the body(Band) to materialize.
A Sound mind in a sound body.


BTW, Hi, welcome god of thunder. cool inputs mates.

[killingvector]

the substance of the article was rather based on the label's viewpoint.
The rest of the story should be told from the bands side.

kv,

that's probably how things worked in the making of the songs, but I don't think this would qualify it as an Axl solo album. What you described as Axl picking up something from a jam session is just the beginning of the process of making a song, and I'm sure the 8 people contributed a lot of their ideas to get from there (the start) to the end of each song.

Now I'm wondering who wrote "General" and what it's about. 

As I said, this is how the process was described to us. You can argue about the conclusion that I am drawing, but you cannot argue about the redhead's expanded role in the creation of this record: producer, vocalist, sole lyricist, and most importantly general.

!. Oh yeah! Led Zeppelin was an absolute solo project of Jimmy Page. The majority of the bands in the world are the head persons' solos.
In that case, GN'R has been an Axl project from the day one.
Whatever. 

!. That wouldn't qualify Chinese Democracy as an Axl solo album. Tommy mentioned Axl's hell democratic attempt to function the band Better, which he assumed, because of his bitter experience with the old band.   
!. The Musicians would know how things worked in the making of the songs in the studio more than the manager let alone the fans.
!. The other client of Merck, Morrissey doesn't play any instrumental but was the heart, soul and passion of The Smith.

The heart, soul and passion need the body(Band) to materialize.
A Sound mind in a sound body.


BTW, Hi, welcome god of thunder. cool inputs mates.

Equating how Led Zeppelin and Nu-GnR recorded their albums isn't a fair comparison; neither is comparing the manner AFD and UYI were created to this project. CD's direction has been controlled by Mr. Rose. The players no doubt all were given equal opportunities to put their signature on the material they recorded, but if axl didn't like a melody, solo, or even a note, it wouldn't be on the album. This project is his canvas; he controls what colors to use, but the beauty of the painting is through the fusion of the different elements. We maybe saying the same thing here, but when CD drops, there is only one person who will be held accountable for its success or failure.

[AxlFink]

john j rambo seems to be very sure of the situation.

[ppbebe]

hes wrong on the following statement.

and everybody else on this board can't stand for positive remarks.

killingvector seems to be very sure as well.

if axl didn't like a melody, solo, or even a note, it wouldn't be on the album

I'm talking about the body. Axl is the head.
What if he was asking everyone if they liked a melody, solo, or even a note, if every time a one of them seemed unhappy with any small bit he went back to his basement to work it out and if each listening caused one more delay?

No one nose about the rest of the story. We'll see soon.

[killingvector]

hes wrong on the following statement.

and everybody else on this board can't stand for positive remarks.

killingvector seems to be very sure as well.

if axl didn't like a melody, solo, or even a note, it wouldn't be on the album

I'm talking about the body. Axl is the head.
What if he was asking everyone if they liked a melody, solo, or even a note, if every time a one of them seemed unhappy with any small bit he went back to his basement to work it out and if each listening caused one more delay?

No one nose about the rest of the story. We'll see soon.

i'm on your side ppbebe. I want this project to succeed. Whether its called GnR or W.A.R I could care less; I know that the time will be well spent. I agree that none of us knows exactly what is going on with this record, but I think Axl will be the only judged in the media and the public when this record drops. The band has very little to lose actually; a good payday and lots of exposure.

Anyway, i'm very happy with Merck's response provided his 2005 resolution is accurate and honored.

[Saul]

but I think Axl will be the only judged in the media and the public when this record drops.

Yeah , obviously the media wont compare the new band to the old band. Robin wont be compared to slash. NAH!!!!

 

[Mandy.]

Ahhh........
I have nothing to add, except that I am sick of this sort of thing, everyday some magazine, newspaper or whatever post this kind of shit about GnR (AXL), and then fans come here and say: "Oh Yeah, they have no idea about that". All I say is that no one, except who is involved in the project has a clue about what's going on in that studio... ?They will always criticize Axl, with or without Chinese Democracy out there. So, I'm not even gonna say that New York Time is this or that, because now, we know about that coz New York Times is a famous newspaper, but as I said, magazines, websites from all over the world keep doing that, nothing will stop them, you can stop two or three, but you can't stop all of them.

[killingvector]

but I think Axl will be the only judged in the media and the public when this record drops.

Yeah , obviously the media wont compare the new band to the old band. Robin wont be compared to slash. NAH!!!!

 

of course, they will. But ultimately the success or failure of Chinese Democracy will determine the success or failure of Axl Rose's post old GnR career. He has everything on the line for this record; robin's career will be unaffected if this project flops.

Robin wont be compared to slash.

He will, but if it doesn't work, they won't skewer robin. They will criticize axl for his choices.