Merck writes a letter to the NY Times

[Falcon]

To diss Axl{not you Falcon} about staying with the trends is kind of wrong because hes always been interested and a fan of newer nusic. JA,NIN, etc for example. Before these acts were even huge. SO if he tries to INCORPORATE those aspects of music into his own I think thats fine and shouldnt be a reason to say "oh hes trying to fit in". If the whole labum is a NIN/WHite Zobie/MM/nin type album, every song then yes, that characterization and criticism is valid.

I think "trying to fit in" is too broad a generalization, unfair as well.

That said, he tried to hire Navarro and did hire Finck, obvious gestures in creating the possibility of the perception of current relevence.

[jgfnsr]

But things have undoubtely changed since then. ANd Merck is saying that as a result the article doesnt really resemble the last few years of the making of CD and how CD is today.

I think that's the case as well.

Just like the guy on "Behind The Music" said, Axl's tried to create music that's current in the times particular stylistic landscape.? In taking so long, it's highly likely whatever direction he was going in at that particular time fell by the wayside, keeping Axl a step or 2 behind.

I think his desire to be relevent but lack of timeliness in doing so has morphed whatever songs slated for Chinese Democracy into only he knows what...

That's the biggest possible element of "Chinese Democracy" that has always intrigued me.

Axl wants to make the "greatest record ever made" right? ?

Well for that to even be possible, each and every song on the album would not only have to be a masterpiece in itself, but ?timeless ones at that.

[younggunner]

I would say the "new or organized" era of new gnr beagn in late 2001/02.

That said, he tried to hire Navarro and did hire Finck, obvious gestures in creating the possibility of the perception of current relevence.

Like I said, I think earlier in the project he was much more conscious about that..hence Navvarro...

Finck I disagree. Hes not a houslhold name plus hes not a superstar. I think Axl sees his potential and has a good friendship with him more than thinking he would be a key asset to have to get the Industrial scene on his side or whatver.

[Ali]

If you really want to call Leeds' article a story on the making of the album, it is a fundamentally flawed and incomplete one at that.  None of the people he quoted have been involved since 2001 in the making of the album, as Merck pointed out.  Therefore, those people, like Tom Zutuat, have no idea how much the album has changed since the time that they were around the GN'R camp.

Ali

[Falcon]

Finck I disagree. Hes not a houslhold name plus hes not a superstar. I think Axl sees his potential and has a good friendship with him more than thinking he would be a key asset to have to get the Industrial scene on his side or whatver.

He first went after Finck when Sorum was in the band so that would be somewhere in '96-97, right? 
At that time (and for the most part it remains true today), Robin hadn't/hasn't had much creative input on anything to speak of so it's hard to explain his involvement based on friendship or potential at that point in time. 

I see Finck as much more obvious "reach out" than Navarro.

[oneway23]

I'm really baffled by everything regarding GNR at this point in time, but it's been really great to see the wide spectrum of responses in this thread...
For me personally, while I commend Merck for coming to Axl's defence (and earning his salary), any words coming from that camp at this point seem to ring hollow in my ears.  Kudos to the journalist for not selling his sources down the river.  This is just another example of Axl and co's determination to control beyond control.  At the end of the day, this is the tale of a meglomaniacal artist consistantly overestimating his own importance, regardless of how much of a genius we believe him to be.  I do not expect a point by point repudiation of the information in the article, but if they are so indignant over the whole thing, let's hear the whole story from the only people that they seem to deem worthy of telling it.  Once again, the energy and focus is completely misguided.  Controlling through veiled threats, harsh words, legalities, and brute force has been the MO for years now.  Going by past events, I have to assume that the "offer" to hear CD was yet another attempt to hold people at bay, or at the very least, to delay the publishig of an article which Axl might have suspiciously suspected may not paint him using the brightest of colors.  24 hours, 48 hours, irrelevant.  We ALL know Axl would have redacted the hell out of that article, most likely persuing legal action against those who exercised their right to speak.  In all honesty, I think it was just a matter of the journalist hitting too close to a nerve, however, in Axl's defence, most of the "info" was certainly outdated, and at the very least, probably irrelevant to current circumstances.
It's like a trial by jury.  If the defendant does nothing to refute the charges against them except shift focus and point fingers, you would have to logically make the assumption that by choosing not to prove the charges against them inaccurate through fact that they are conceding that there is some level of truth to the charges, and may, in fact, be indirectly lending creedence to these assumptions through lack of an alternative...I'll stop now

[Acquiesce]

If you really want to call Leeds' article a story on the making of the album, it is a fundamentally flawed and incomplete one at that.? None of the people he quoted have been involved since 2001 in the making of the album, as Merck pointed out.? Therefore, those people, like Tom Zutuat, have no idea how much the album has changed since the time that they were around the GN'R camp.

Ali

]

How is it flawed? Leeds was upront that these people had worked on the album in the past. He never claimed that this stuff is currently going on. Sure, it would have been nice if he had information as to what is going on today, but he couldn't do that without Axl and Merck's permission to speak to people under contract. They weren't going to give that permission unless this story painted the picture that they wanted everyone to see. Why should he cave into their demands? That is not what journalism is about.

[wolftread]

To go along with many posters, ?I don't really see any of this as negative with regards to the future of nu-G-n-fuckin-R!!! ?If anything it is more of a rip on Geffen and the music industry itself. ?So they blew through 13 million....Geffen gave them the money cause they obviously respect Axl and his talents. ?They could have stopped the drain or changed the process way before; but they chose not to....Why? ?because it is W.A.R. and GnR. ?Together they sold millions of fuckin records and continue to sell year after fuckin year. ?The record company isn't losing anything....13 mil is nothing to them especially when there is a viable product at the end of all of this..

The NY times, Merck's response, 23 pages of post show me only one thing and that is "Relevance". ? In the 90's we heard nothing of GnR but now...fucking Sunday NY Times...the most read paper in the United States. ?It just creates more anticipation and fosters the mysterious persona of my personal Guruji.....Along with the younggunner I believe this is all part of the plan...a fucking elaborate plan to once again feel the magic of 87-92 when music fuckin mattered...I truly believe that all Axl wants is to make music that hits hard and deep. ?The world and maybe Axl were not ready in the 90's or early 00's but the time is now and I can feel it it all around....I personally expect nothing from Guruji as he has and continues to shape the person I am today....that is a person that feels......anything now is just a treat for the ears and hopefully eyes!! ? Off topic: ?Saw Tommy Stinson at the Hotel Cafe on Friday Night....he is true Rock-n-Roll!!

Peace

[Booker Floyd]

How is it flawed? Leeds was upront that these people had worked on the album in the past. He never claimed that this stuff is currently going on. Sure, it would have been nice if he had information as to what is going on today, but he couldn't do that without Axl and Merck's permission to speak to people under contract. They weren't going to give that permission unless this story painted the picture that they wanted everyone to see. Why should he cave into their demands? That is not what journalism is about.

 

You are easily one of the most reasonable, on-point posters on the board.

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

Axl would have redacted the hell out of that article, most likely persuing legal action against those who exercised their right to speak.?

It would be Axl's case, that they did not have this 'right to speak' as they accepted employment under terms of confidentiality. ?

And I think we could be overlooking that Leeds and his editor could have told Merck the names of the persons involved that permitted their names to be used in the article (such as Zutaut).... that is if they truely had any interest in Merck or Axl's contributions (which I don't think they did as they already had their 'story' and knew it wasn't something that Axl or Merck would contribute to.)

[killingvector]

How is it flawed? Leeds was upront that these people had worked on the album in the past. He never claimed that this stuff is currently going on. Sure, it would have been nice if he had information as to what is going on today, but he couldn't do that without Axl and Merck's permission to speak to people under contract. They weren't going to give that permission unless this story painted the picture that they wanted everyone to see. Why should he cave into their demands? That is not what journalism is about.

 

You are easily one of the most reasonable, on-point posters on the board.

Why exactly would Merck or Axl participate in an article that paints them in a bad light? Would slash or scott act different from guns managment? I just don't see the criticism here. The reporter chose to respect the integrity of his five year old sources when he could have gotten a bigger scoop on CD. I can respect that choice but he missed out on a bigger story in my opinion. Merck's response is point on IF it is followed up with action!

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

Why exactly would Merck or Axl participate in an article that paints them in a bad light?

As much as some want to complain about Axl's remaining quiet and speaking only on his terms - it is no less than they would want for themselves.

[younggunner]

He first went after Finck when Sorum was in the band so that would be somewhere in '96-97, right? 
At that time (and for the most part it remains true today), Robin hadn't/hasn't had much creative input on anything to speak of so it's hard to explain his involvement based on friendship or potential at that point in time. 

I see Finck as much more obvious "reach out" than Navarro.

To think that Finck is not heavily involved with Axl and this whole process is just not accurate. Finck himself ha shad arguments with Axl on material and direction of the material. Finck has left the band and come back. So obiviously there is something there between them. And being that he is one of the lead guitar players Im sure he will have a lot of creative input. Just becuase we havnt heard a peep from him doesnt mean he just sits there and isnt a force. Of course it remains true till this day because we havnt hear the album yet. You can say the same for all the members including Axl on that.

Ill take Tommys word when he says all the members have had their fair share of creative input.

You can think Finck is a reach out all you want but you drop his name on the street and no1 would have a clue. Hes not a superstar in any genre. Axl sees whatver potential in him and has developed a solid friendship with him. Its pretty obivious.

[Booker Floyd]

Why exactly would Merck or Axl participate in an article that paints them in a bad light?

I dont think this article exactly did that. ?I think it discussed the albums history in a generally accurate, fair way. ?I think that, considering the reality of this situation, its impossible for the article to not contain any negativity. ?

I just don't see the criticism here.

The criticism is that while Merck assails this writers credibility and even compares him to Jayson Blaire, he offers no corrections. ?He doesnt reference anything from the story that might be inaccurate. ?That fact alone is enough to disregard Mercks comments as nothing more than textbook managerial spin. ?

"...like the author of your article have never even heard the album." - What does hearing the album have to do with this article? ?

Merck says "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..." ?Well, if the article was about what the band did in the last two years, maybe hed be on to something. ?I think Merck fails to realize that the writer wasnt interested in writing a GNR press release, so waiting for a finished album - on Axl Roses schedule - isnt worth it. ?

The reporter chose to respect the integrity of his five year old sources

Who knows who is unnamed sources are? ?Maybe theyre closer to the project then you think...

And hes absolutely right to protect his sources. ?

when he could have gotten a bigger scoop on CD.

Like what? ?Assuming the album is actually finished sometime soon, it will likely already be ready for a release date and Axl & Co. will promote it. ?

I can respect that choice but he missed out on a bigger story in my opinion.

What story is that?

Merck's response is point on IF it is followed up with action!

Mercks response is a typical, hyper-defensive PR piece. ?Its only purpose is to confuse people into thinking hes got a point and aggrandize his client. ?Basically, hes Doug Goldstein with a longer name.

[estranged.1098]

I think it discussed the albums history in a generally accurate, fair way.

How can you be generally accurate or fair if you don't talk to the people working on the album at the moment, or for the past 4 years for that matter? That's one of the things Merck was saying in his letter.

[Falcon]

He first went after Finck when Sorum was in the band so that would be somewhere in '96-97, right??
At that time (and for the most part it remains true today), Robin hadn't/hasn't had much creative input on anything to speak of so it's hard to explain his involvement based on friendship or potential at that point in time.?

I see Finck as much more obvious "reach out" than Navarro.

To think that Finck is not heavily involved with Axl and this whole process is just not accurate. Finck himself ha shad arguments with Axl on material and direction of the material. Finck has left the band and come back. So obiviously there is something there between them. And being that he is one of the lead guitar players Im sure he will have a lot of creative input. Just becuase we havnt heard a peep from him doesnt mean he just sits there and isnt a force. Of course it remains true till this day because we havnt hear the album yet. You can say the same for all the members including Axl on that.

Ill take Tommys word when he says all the members have had their fair share of creative input.

You can think Finck is a reach out all you want but you drop his name on the street and no1 would have a clue. Hes not a superstar in any genre. Axl sees whatver potential in him and has developed a solid friendship with him. Its pretty obivious.

I said "that" point in time, 96-97.

[dave-gnfnr2k]

But things have undoubtely changed since then. ANd Merck is saying that as a result the article doesnt really resemble the last few years of the making of CD and how CD is today.

I think that's the case as well.

Just like the guy on "Behind The Music" said, Axl's tried to create music that's current in the times particular stylistic landscape.? In taking so long, it's highly likely whatever direction he was going in at that particular time fell by the wayside, keeping Axl a step or 2 behind.

I think his desire to be relevent but lack of timeliness in doing so has morphed whatever songs slated for Chinese Democracy into only he knows what...

Its nice that some guy that has not association with the album knows what Axls wants. ?

[younggunner]

I dont think this article exactly did that. ?I think it discussed the albums history in a generally accurate, fair way.

It discussed a part of the albums history. It hasnt mentioned anything about the recent past or present in regards to the musical content. And I think that is what Mercks biggest gripe was about.
Again if a casual reader or fan read this they would think that the musical content is still a chaotic mess as it was in the late 90's that the article talked about. Where is the fair and balanced accurate account of the full making/process of the album?

Merck says "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..." ?Well, if the article was about what the band did in the last two years, maybe hed be on to something. ?I think Merck fails to realize that the writer wasnt interested in writing a GNR press release, so waiting for a finished album - on Axl Roses schedule - isnt worth it. ?

Its not Mercks responsibilty to police shoddy journalism either. How can the jounralist write an accurate, detailed description of the process of making Cd if he only talks about a certain time period?

He doesnt know what, if any have changed along the way in making CD.

Its like getting a late piece of intelligence. You find out what went on during a period of time but once you get it they have already moved on to something else. Same thing here. And thats what Merck is saying.

How the hell does this jounrnalist portray a full accurate description of what went on in the 2000's and where everythign stands today without contacting the people who are involved in that period?

[killingvector]

I dont think this article exactly did that.  I think it discussed the albums history in a generally accurate, fair way.  I think that, considering the reality of this situation, its impossible for the article to not contain any negativity.

But lack of positivity can be construed as negativity. If Merck is right and this album is close to being done, the meat of his piece would be neutralized. Of course it's a big assumption that Merck is being honest about all of this. This is why I think we can only judge the response favorably if it is followed by action.

The criticism is that while Merck assails this writers credibility and even compares him to Jayson Blaire, he offers no corrections.  He doesnt reference anything from the story that might be inaccurate.  That fact alone is enough to disregard Mercks comments as nothing more than textbook managerial spin. 

I can see what you are saying but Merck could be rejecting the article's merits from the catbird seat so to speak. If you discover that someone is calling you a liar and a cheater to your friends for not paying off a debt, you can either correct him on the spot or if you know that your debt was already paid, wait for said individual to discover the error of his own investigation. Merck may simply know that Axl is set to deliver the album and refrains from responding to such base allegations. Of course, he could equally have nothing to refute as you say. Time will tell on this issue.

Like what?  Assuming the album is actually finished sometime soon, it will likely already be ready for a release date and Axl & Co. will promote it. 

For me the bigger scoop is the delivery of CD to the label and the preparation for a release. It might not seem that way to the NYT and its readers.

What story is that?

the quality of the tracks, the delivery of the album, the release date

Mercks response is a typical, hyper-defensive PR piece.  Its only purpose is to confuse people into thinking hes got a point and aggrandize his client.  Basically, hes Doug Goldstein with a longer name.

possibly, but you are making an assumption that he had nothing to say because there was simply nothing to say. It's equally possible he has more to say but wants to respond with action at a sooner than later time, hence the 2005 comment.

I understand why it's easier to assume the former, but i'm not convinced yet.

[Booker Floyd]

How can you be generally accurate or fair if you don't talk to the people working on the album at the moment, or for the past 4 years for that matter? That's one of the things Merck was saying in his letter.

How much of that article concerns the process after 2002? ?Thats why Merck is confusing people into beieving thats a relevant point, because the article really doesnt touch on very recent times as it pertains to the albums process.