Merck writes a letter to the NY Times

[younggunner]

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.

Thats the whole point . How can something describe the full process if in reality it only describes a certain period.

The fact that the article doesnt touch on the 2000's and how and what affects the album in this time period is leaving out a pretty important piece of info if you ask me.

The article is implying that the process is up to a certain point in time. When in reality its not. Things have changed and because the writer didnt follow up on things we will not know about them until later on. Hence the article is half assed not complete. Great article on a certain period of time but doesnt deliever the rest of the story. As a result it doesnt cover the full process of CD and the making of it.

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

Isn't 'news' also known as current events  and updates...? as in current and up-to-date?





(edited to correct formatting)

[Booker Floyd]

But lack of positivity can be construed as negativity.

Right, and that about sums up GNR up to this point. ?Not a whole lot of positivity.

However, this article is not devoid of positivity.

"Mr. Rose is reportedly working on the album even now in a San Fernando Valley studio. "The 'Chinese Democracy' album is very close to being completed," Merck Mercuriadis, the chief executive officer of Sanctuary Group, which manages Mr. Rose, wrote in a recent statement."

"Released in March of 2004, it turned out to be a surprisingly strong seller, racking up sales of more than 1.8 million copies even without any new music or promotional efforts by the original band. The original band's debut, "Appetite for Destruction," which has sold 15 million copies, remains popular and racked up sales of another 192,000 copies last year, according to Nielsen SoundScan. It is a sign that Mr. Rose's audience still waits."

These are fair statements, and they reflect the appropriate level of positivity present in modern-day GNR.

If Merck is right and this album is close to being done, the meat of his piece would be neutralized.

How so? ?No release date from this point on would erase any of information in that article.

Merck may simply know that Axl is set to deliver the album and refrains from responding to such base allegations.

In which case he should keep quiet, because as it stands at this moment, his statement is meaningless.

Of course, he could equally have nothing to refute as you say.

Thats the only way to take it right now. ?He has a public forum, and the opportunity to set things straight. ?He took the time to write a response, and he addressed not one single issue from the piece. ?He didnt question one fact. ?That says it all to me.

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.

I dont see that as a big scoop, because, assuming this album were to ever truly be finished, it will all be out there anyway. ?And hed just doing a fluff piece on the just-finished GNR album, rather than finish what he obviously meant to do, and discuss the history of the album.

And truthfully, I dont think youre getting the hard truth from that side of the fence. ?Youre gettnig the company line, which is what Merck specializes in, and what every reporter will get when the albums ready. ?Leeds obviously trusted his sources, named and unnamed, to give honest accounts of their experiences. ?And I dont think he failed to make that fact clear.

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

I highly doubt the company/band is going to rely on the NY Times to give the release date. ?Regardless, anything pertaining to the quality will undoubtedly be taken care of in an album review - one in which theyre not writing with Axls management peering over their shoulders.

The article was written about the albums history, and is written within the context that its still unreleased. ?Its not about a finished album. ?Its written for this moment, not months from now when it might be finished. ?

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.

Im simply going off of what hes given. ?He went through the bother to make a response, and its a terribly weak one. ?If he is waiting (and I doubt he is), then he should do just that - wait. ?Dont make claims without any back-up, because hes the one who looks foolish.

[Acquiesce]

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.

Thanks! The same can be said about yourself. ?

[Acquiesce]

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!

The article would have obviously taken a different direction had they participated. Axl would have been given the chance to explain his side of the story and make any corrections if necessary. He could have informed us what was going on in most recent years and gave us an update on the status. If he was just willing to roll with the punches and answer questions honestly and sincerely then he could have easily turned this piece into something that was more favorable to him.

It's not as if this writer just went in with the intention to bash Axl. He wanted to know the story behind Chinese Democracy and why it hasn't seen the light of day.  He wrote about what he was told by the people who worked on this album. Unfortunately, the information he was given wasn't that flattering to Axl, but like I said that could have easily changed had Axl participated.

I also want to add that this notion that this writer shouldn't have wrote the piece because Axl did not tell his side of the story is absolutely ludicrous. If journalists were held to that rule there would be little to write about. A responsible journalist will ask all parties to participate, but if a person declines that is solely on them.

Sure, this guy could have gotten the scoop on Chinese Democracy, but how long would have he had to waited? I would think he would have taken up the offer it there was a finished product to listen to at the time he was writing his piece because he would have had a world exclusive. Then again, I doubt they would let him hear it unless his article was going to come out favorable to them. Why would he put his integrity on the line for someone who is afraid to get in the ring?

[Booker Floyd]

Thats the whole point . How can something describe the full process

Who said anything about the "full process"? ?

if in reality it only describes a certain period.

If the article discusses 1994-2000, then thats what the articles about. ?It makes no illusions about being knowlegable about the "full process," and what took place in the studio between 2002 and 2004. ?Therefore, Mercks point is irrelevant.

The fact that the article doesnt touch on the 2000's and how and what affects the album in this time period is leaving out a pretty important piece of info if you ask me.

Okay. ?It still doesnt negate what was written about everything prior, which I recall you describing as "fascinating."

The article is implying that the process is up to a certain point in time. When in reality its not. Things have changed and because the writer didnt follow up on things we will not know about them until later on. Hence the article is half assed not complete. Great article on a certain period of time but doesnt deliever the rest of the story. As a result it doesnt cover the full process of CD and the making of it.

Im not even sure what youre talking about here. ?

The article covers what it covers. ?Merck pointed to nothing that would suggest inaccuracy. ?

"Mr. Rose is reportedly working on the album even now in a San Fernando Valley studio. "The 'Chinese Democracy' album is very close to being completed," Merck Mercuriadis, the chief executive officer of Sanctuary Group, which manages Mr. Rose, wrote in a recent statement."

That about covers the recent activity. ?The author sums it up there, and doesnt pretend to know much more. ?

[yagami1gnr]

Naupis and Booker, why dont' you just say "If you want to hear real RnR listen VR."

Anyway talking about this reply to the New York Post, now Mr. Mercuriadis has put the year on the table (this time there's no maybe or hopefully nowhere) so I think, that they better deliver this year or Mr. Mercuriadis is going to look pretty bad, even though is about music and art. Still, I hope it happens this year. 

[Booker Floyd]

Naupis and Booker, why dont' you just say "If you want to hear real RnR listen VR."

 

Because I dont assume everybody is as simple you appear to be, if thats how youve interpreted my posts (and I dont think it is; youre just once again trying to be clever - and missing the mark).

[Crowebar]

No matter what anyone says about this mess, every member here @ HTGTH should truly realize, that Merck did basically say that the album was pretty much going to be released this year and that's what Axl's been doing for the last couple of years.

Actually working on the album(s).

I hope that's what finally happens, as I'm very anxious to hear 'Axl's Fucking Freakshow Of A Monstrosity'.

[killingvector]

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!

The article would have obviously taken a different direction had they participated. Axl would have been given the chance to explain his side of the story and make any corrections if necessary. He could have informed us what was going on in most recent years and gave us an update on the status. If he was just willing to roll with the punches and answer questions honestly and sincerely then he could have easily turned this piece into something that was more favorable to him.

It's not as if this writer just went in with the intention to bash Axl. He wanted to know the story behind Chinese Democracy and why it hasn't seen the light of day.  He wrote about what he was told by the people who worked on this album. Unfortunately, the information he was given wasn't that flattering to Axl, but like I said that could have easily changed had Axl participated.

I also want to add that this notion that this writer shouldn't have wrote the piece because Axl did not tell his side of the story is absolutely ludicrous. If journalists were held to that rule there would be little to write about. A responsible journalist will ask all parties to participate, but if a person declines that is solely on them.

Sure, this guy could have gotten the scoop on Chinese Democracy, but how long would have he had to waited? I would think he would have taken up the offer it there was a finished product to listen to at the time he was writing his piece because he would have had a world exclusive. Then again, I doubt they would let him hear it unless his article was going to come out favorable to them. Why would he put his integrity on the line for someone who is afraid to get in the ring?

I understand what you are saying but Axl would never respond to the media's request for a statement under penalty of bad exposure. Doing so, opens door for other journalists to practice a brand of pseuo-blackmail with the band. Do an interview or we will spread the innuendo from someone who hadn't worked on the album in five years.  I am simply playing devil's advocate here in an attempt to understand Axl and managment's perspective on this article.

From my understanding of the situation, Axl may not be in a position to promise anything or would rather wait for a time in which he's ready to make some sort of statement. Axl has divested himself from the media due to the bad behavior of a few knuckleheads. It's possible he is viewing the entire establishment in this negative light and would rather not be pressured into a response.

No release date from this point on would erase any of information in that article.

Not so much the backstory behind the album's rocky conception, but at least it would alleviate the fears of fans who are left with the impression that axl has lost financial backing, lost the confidence of the label, and has continue dribbling away money, which is now his own, in some danky recording studio in the valley. Plus Leeds mentions how no one from the label has seen him in over a year.

I wouldn't expect a release date announcement, although I wouldn't disown one either if it were offered to me. But the input of someone from management or the band could have disfused alot of the desperation evident from the end of the article.

Im simply going off of what hes given.  He went through the bother to make a response, and its a terribly weak one.  If he is waiting (and I doubt he is), then he should do just that - wait.  Dont make claims without any back-up, because hes the one who looks foolish.

As I said, Merck did enough to get by. He claims the piece is inaccurate; since we don't know the source of Leeds information, it is possible that it contains false details. Who knows. Not anyone here, that is for sure. I do believe that the band wants to make their statement on their own terms, when they are ready. It is the only action they can take to allay the bleak picture painted by Mr. Leeds.

[killingvector]

Who said anything about the "full process"? 

The article was titled, "The Most Expensive Album Never Made"

Sounds pretty complete to me.

[Booker Floyd]

The article was titled, "The Most Expensive Album Never Made"

Sounds pretty complete to me.

Its a play on words, and obviously doesnt have much bearing on the article itself. 

"The 'Chinese Democracy' album is very close to being completed," Merck Mercuriadis, the chief executive officer of Sanctuary Group, which manages Mr. Rose, wrote in a recent statement."

Nowhere does the writer say the album has been cancelled and is never coming out.  Nor does he mention the "full process."

[killingvector]

The article was titled, "The Most Expensive Album Never Made"

Sounds pretty complete to me.

Its a play on words, and obviously doesnt have much bearing on the article itself. 

"The 'Chinese Democracy' album is very close to being completed," Merck Mercuriadis, the chief executive officer of Sanctuary Group, which manages Mr. Rose, wrote in a recent statement."

Nowhere does the writer say the album has been cancelled and is never coming out.  Nor does he mention the "full process."

If you take Merck's comment as spin, the piece does imply that the process has been and continues to be neverending.

I didn't absorb too much hope for the future after reading the Leeds article, although Merck's timely letter did pick me up a bit.

[younggunner]

Who said anything about the "full process"? ?

For starters...the title of the article.



With the content of the article and the title, one might think that the band and Axl never got it worked out and well...will NEVER come out.

If the article discusses 1994-2000, then thats what the articles about. ?It makes no illusions about being knowlegable about the "full process," and what took place in the studio between 2002 and 2004. ?Therefore, Mercks point is irrelevant.

Mercks point is completely relevant. Forget Merck for a second. How bout me the reader. If he is going to go in detail about a certain period of time why is he portraying it as the whole process.

He decided to give half the story ?instead of te full story.

Okay. ?It still doesnt negate what was written about everything prior, which I recall you describing as "fascinating."

It was a fascinating article. Im not debating or questioning what was said. Im saying that its a half assed job though. He gave us one great half of detailed accounts and didnt follow up the story.

Yea you can says hes not obligated to follow up, but then why is he even writing the article then?

"Mr. Rose is reportedly working on the album even now in a San Fernando Valley studio. "The 'Chinese Democracy' album is very close to being completed," Merck Mercuriadis, the chief executive officer of Sanctuary Group, which manages Mr. Rose, wrote in a recent statement."

That about covers the recent activity. ?The author sums it up there, and doesnt pretend to know much more. ?

But in the beginning he says..
It's a story that applies to the creation of almost every major album. But in the case of "Chinese Democracy," it has a stark ending:

How come the author provide detailed accounts of the direction, or lack thereof, for one period of time but doesnt provide detailed accounts for the scond half. No shit, Mr fukin Rose is still working on the album.
But what has changed since 2001 content wise. Label wise. Why did Bucket quit? Will he be replaced? WHat insignts can you provide liek you did in the 1st half?

Will Axl be funding the project on his own now? Or has he decided to call it quits because of no cash flow?

How come we havnt heard of any release dats in the recent past like we did in the late 90's?

Whos overseeing/producing the album now? He made sure he told us that there were countless producers back then what about now?

how do the current bandmembers feel about it still not being out? Heck besides brain and bucket whos in the band these days? He told us how the old members got fed up. What about the current?

It was a great half ass job. Didnt cover the full story of the making of CD like he implys it does. As a result it was poorly done. Kind of rushed. Other than that a great read if you understand the gnr situation

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

the guy had his story... as much as he was able to get from whoever he was able to get it from.
if he knew (as many say is obvious and i agree) that Axl would not participate then why did he contact Merck just so he could include the ol' "could not be reached for comment' bit? ?

i think merck is pissed cuz this guy was playing games with him
saying he would consider merck's request when he obviously had no intention to
the guy HAD his story
it was not ever going to include Axl's input
he just HAD to check the box (so to speak) that said "Axl could not be reached for comment' so he made the obligatory call.
he called Merck on the thursday... didn't tell him he had a tuesday deadline...
merck does not seem to be the type that appreciates being toyed with
i think he took the guy's call seriously and it was not the case
merck offered what he could
it didn't matter
nothng was going to keep the guy from going with the story he already had complete with the juicy bits he collected prior to contacting Merck
not even an interview with Axl
he figures/knows that once the album is done/announced/out everything he had collected would be MOOT
so he had to put it to use now
just like geffen had to make sure they put out a GH before the new album would be released
it was thier agenda to get in on the CD mystery/controversy while one still exists
and show what they were able to dig up (stuff no one else has previously offered and certainly no one with the NYT credentials)
so he calls the Merck on ?thursday - leads Merck to believe his offer is being considered and that he will get back to him
then calls Merck back at 6PM ?( after business hours ) on Monday saying his deadline is the next day at noon?!

YOU'D be pissed too if someone who is supposed to be a professional at such a resputable news organization treated YOU like that. ?Get in the ring someone quoted? ?Merck is no lightweight. ?He's the CEO of a multi billion dollar organization for crying out loud! I think he has responded as should be expected for someone who is in his situation. ?

What would YOU have done, hm?

[killingvector]

I think Booker would ask Merck what parts of the article were misleading. If Leeds is the Entertainment section equivalent of Jayson Blair, where does the truth end and the lie begin.

I'm not sure that there is much inaccurate with the article but there are a number of questionable items: did Axl get cut off by the label ? was he tossed out from his recording studio?  (which of course calls to mind the scene from Boogie Nights where Dirk and Reid attempt to recover their essential masters: Now you are talking over my head. YP, MP I'm not familar with this industry jargon....) and is Axl still working on this album?

If Booker is right and Merck just issued a non denial denial after his failure to ferret out the sources in  Leeds piece, then the Sanctuary CEO just lost massive amounts of credibility. HUGE.

[Acquiesce]

I understand what you are saying but Axl would never respond to the media's request for a statement under penalty of bad exposure. Doing so, opens door for other journalists to practice a brand of pseuo-blackmail with the band. Do an interview or we will spread the innuendo from someone who hadn't worked on the album in five years.? I am simply playing devil's advocate here in an attempt to understand Axl and managment's perspective on this article.

From my understanding of the situation, Axl may not be in a position to promise anything or would rather wait for a time in which he's ready to make some sort of statement. Axl has divested himself from the media due to the bad behavior of a few knuckleheads. It's possible he is viewing the entire establishment in this negative light and would rather not be pressured into a response.

Pseudo-Blackmail? Are you serious? Is it also pseudo-blackmail when Axl tells writers that he will not do an interview unless they do it his way? I think it's ridiculous to think that journalists will start "blackmailing" Axl if he decides to participate in an article. I think it's even more ridiculous to think that Axl is afraid to defend himself because he fears he will be blackmailed because he decided to defend himself. Besides, if Axl explained everything it would be pointless for anyone to blackmail him with something that is already known to the public!

I'm not saying Axl should promise anything. I'm saying that Axl could have improved his image by telling his side of the story and showing he has nothing to hide by answering questions. Axl and Merck shouldn't be complaining when they refused to participate.

[killingvector]

I understand what you are saying but Axl would never respond to the media's request for a statement under penalty of bad exposure. Doing so, opens door for other journalists to practice a brand of pseuo-blackmail with the band. Do an interview or we will spread the innuendo from someone who hadn't worked on the album in five years.  I am simply playing devil's advocate here in an attempt to understand Axl and managment's perspective on this article.

From my understanding of the situation, Axl may not be in a position to promise anything or would rather wait for a time in which he's ready to make some sort of statement. Axl has divested himself from the media due to the bad behavior of a few knuckleheads. It's possible he is viewing the entire establishment in this negative light and would rather not be pressured into a response.

Pseudo-Blackmail? Are you serious? Is it also pseudo-blackmail when Axl tells writers that he will not do an interview unless they do it his way? I think it's ridiculous to think that journalists will start "blackmailing" Axl if he decides to participate in an article. I think it's even more ridiculous to think that Axl is afraid to defend himself because he fears he will be blackmailed because he decided to defend himself. Besides, if Axl explained everything it would be pointless for anyone to blackmail him with something that is already known to the public!

I'm not saying Axl should promise anything. I'm saying that Axl could have improved his image by telling his side of the story and showing he has nothing to hide by answering questions. Axl and Merck shouldn't be complaining when they refused to participate.

Given Axl's past behavior and characterization of the media, what is the most logical reaction of the redhed toward a less than complimentary review of the album's progress:

1. Correct the piece by offering his side of it through interview or statement
2. Offer nothing and condemn the reporter for not doing his job

you may find my speculation ridiculous but i was simply trying to get into the heads of  people at the GnR end. They as a rule do not respond when confronted with a less than flattering article. when was the last time anyone set the record straight? I am more inclined to believe that Merck wanted the names of the leaks and, when not given that information, he decided to attack the reporter.

" Is it also pseudo-blackmail when Axl tells writers that he will not do an interview unless they do it his way?"

Once again, try and swim around inside the redhead's mind for a second. Given his tempestual relationship with the media, do you think he would hesitant to make such a demand?

[Mikkamakka]

In all fairness, Leeds was offered a chance to hear the finished album, and that was refused.? I think that would qualify as an exclusive, but apparently Mr. Leeds and the Times didn't think so.

They didnt think so because its really not. ?Who knows how long he would have had to wait for the "finished album." ?More importantly, Leeds had written a story about the history of the album, not an album review. ?What would listening to the album have to do with Leeds' original story? ?He hardly touched on the actual content of the record. ?

In 2000, the album was completed "90% musically, 70% vocally" according to Axls manager. ?It was also supposedly up for release during that year. ?Its a good thing those journalists didnt wait for a finished album listening.

99% musically and 80% vocally, to be accurate.

[Cocaine__tongue]

I don't understand why there's such a confrontation regarding merck's response to the post. He's axl's personal manager, he will even say chinese democracy was released 5 years ago (only in japan) if that would save axl's ass, and i'm not saying it needs to be saved, ' cause i don't believe he has done nothing wrong.

Sure, he is taking more time to complete an album than it'll take the chicago bulls to win another nba title, but he doesn't owe us anything. If his record label is furious at him and if a breach of contract has occured, that's another thing. But the fans can't file a law suit against axl for not releasing the album, can they? so common, relax and enjoy. It will come out eventually, I think it will in 2005, but i'd rather put my money in the bulls chances.....