Merck writes a letter to the NY Times

[southsiderwp]

does anyone know where i can read this ny times article

[Pandora]

does anyone know where i can read this ny times article

Man, the link is four posts above yours.......

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

i'm not surprised that some of our board members are not recognizing the title of the article "the most expensive album never made" sounds like one of those posts... by one of those posters...   
you know what i mean!
based on its title and the amount of pages, the thread is probably being skipped over by some of our posters who would rather not hear all about how some people think its never coming out and how expensive its been

they prob shook their head, wondered why it wasn't in dead horse, and decided to click/read elsewhere!   

[Luigi]

Isn't this thread about merck's letter to the NY Times?

[providman]

Isn't this thread about merck's letter to the NY Times?

No it's about defending Axl & his non existing album no matter what & bashing the NY Times & anyone else who doesn't fawn over Axl.

[anarchy]

Isn't this thread about merck's letter to the NY Times?

No it's about defending Axl & his non existing album no matter what & bashing the NY Times & anyone else who doesn't fawn over Axl.

Apparently it's now about you being a stupid bastard.

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

Isn't this thread about merck's letter to the NY Times?

No it's about defending Axl & his non existing album no matter what & bashing the NY Times & anyone else who doesn't fawn over Axl.

Well excuuuuuuuuuuuse Merck, CEO of Sanctuary Music Group - a MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR company - and GN'R's and Axl's manager for defending his client.
and excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse us fans who believe in Axl and Guns N' Roses and thier efforts and admire Merck's loyalty to his client from saying "Bravo!"

You and hundreds of thousands of others are taking everything Leed's has published as FACT,
while dismissing even consideraton to the contrary - and certainly not giving any consideration whatsoever to what Merck relates transpired between he and Leeds.
Leeds has not denied ANY of what Merck said. ?Leeds HIMSELF even indicates that he only gave them 'sufficient time to respond to the fact that the article was going to be published"... which is in direct contradiction to the very next words that come out of his mouth "i very much hoped axl would contribute"

its such BULLSHIT. ?publish your article based on THREE HUNDRED unnames sources if you will. ?Fine. ?But don't try to run that shit by us about "managment was unable to reach Axl for comment" when it is THE WRITER who CHOSE not to involve contribution by Axl by refusing Merck's request for a day to discuss it with Axl.

AS MERCK SAID - The writer had his own agenda... He ALREADY had the article done when he contacted Merck... ?he already had his own plan and it didn't include Axl's input.
Fine, like I said, Fine free press etc. ?blah blah blah. ?But be fucking honest about it and don't jerk Merck around. ?

THAT IS HORSESHIT ?

[providman]

Isn't this thread about merck's letter to the NY Times?

No it's about defending Axl & his non existing album no matter what & bashing the NY Times & anyone else who doesn't fawn over Axl.

Well excuuuuuuuuuuuse Merck, CEO of Sanctuary Music Group - a MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR company - and GN'R's and Axl's manager for defending his client.
and excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse us fans who believe in Axl and Guns N' Roses and thier efforts and admire Merck's loyalty to his client from saying "Bravo!"

You and hundreds of thousands of others are taking everything Leed's has published as FACT,
while dismissing even consideraton to the contrary - and certainly not giving any consideration whatsoever to what Merck relates transpired between he and Leeds.
Leeds has not denied ANY of what Merck said. ?Leeds HIMSELF even indicates that he only gave them 'sufficient time to respond to the fact that the article was going to be published"... which is in direct contradiction to the very next words that come out of his mouth "i very much hoped axl would contribute"

its such BULLSHIT. ?publish your article based on THREE HUNDRED unnames sources if you will. ?Fine. ?But don't try to run that shit by us about "managment was unable to reach Axl for comment" when it is THE WRITER who CHOSE not to involve contribution by Axl by refusing Merck's request for a day to discuss it with Axl.

AS MERCK SAID - The writer had his own agenda... He ALREADY had the article done when he contacted Merck... ?he already had his own plan and it didn't include Axl's input.
Fine, like I said, Fine free press etc. ?blah blah blah. ?But be fucking honest about it and don't jerk Merck around. ?

THAT IS HORSESHIT ?

so in other words it's about defending Axl & his non existing album no matter what & bashing the NY Times & anyone else who doesn't fawn over Axl.

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

so in other words it's about defending Axl & his non existing album no matter what & bashing the NY Times & anyone else who doesn't fawn over Axl.

what doesn't exist is a reply from you to said 'defending' that actually contributes to the thread.

[Drew]

I'm honestly not sure who or what to defend. But there's alot of frustration to go around for both sides. It's frustrating how easily it was to get a comment from Axl & Management regarding this article. A reporter that may/may not have had his on agenda. That right there simply sucks! How is this reporter more important than all of us GN'R fans? Does Axl prefer to have publicity from the media rather than true and loving fans. It seems imo, the media is much more imortant.

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

what makes this reporter different from us?  He has the ability to reach hundreds of thousands of people worldwide with this article in the new york times which is already circulating and being republished world wide.  And its not like Merck came out of nowwhere to give Leeds the time of day.  Leed's contacted him (as Leed's OWN STATEMENT relates) TO ADVISE THEM OF THE FACT IT WAS BEING PUBLISHED. 

this reporter contacted Merck 2 days before to let him know it was being published. there was no intent on his part to allow Axl to contribute.  He already had his own agenda - he had his own plan.  Leeds:  "I'm not bound by his priorities or those of his management".  Of course he wasn't - there was no need for him to even attempt to accommodate Merck's request because he had no use for their involvement -  HIS ARTICLE WAS ALREADY FINSIHED BEFORE HE EVEN CONTACTED MERCK.

[Nytunz]

Hey! This will delay Chinese Democracy, Axl gotta make a new Get In The Ring!   LOL 

[PhillyRiot]

I am not sure what to think about the article, or MErck's response.  Sounds like two enitities that didn't work together on an article.  Neither side cooperated with each other, and niether side shed any light on some real news.

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

I am not sure what to think about the article, or MErck's response.? Sounds like two enitities that didn't work together on an article.? Neither side cooperated with each other, and niether side shed any light on some real news.

It's quite apparent Leeds had no intention of 'working on' the article with Merck or Axl... that's why he only contacted Merck 2 stinkin' days before he put it to bed!  Merck was open to communication but Leeds was just jerking him around.

As for news - it is Leed's who present's his comments as 'news'...
Merck's reply was just that - a reply to Leed's article.

[Scabbie]

It's quite apparent Leeds had no intention of 'working on' the article with Merck or Axl... that's why he only contacted Merck 2 stinkin' days before he put it to bed!? Merck was open to communication but Leeds was just jerking him around.

Do you honestly believe, after all this time, the shroud of secrecy, endless delays and the stubborness of Axl and his management team to communicate with anyone other than 'the inner circle', that Merck/Axl would have invited a reporter to listen to the album and give them an exclusive interview?

I'm sure there's lots of reporters who have been requesting this from Sanctuary, and consequently been denied.

I'm not sayin the reporter was right, and maybe he should have waited for a reply, but I don't believe they would have followed through with their invitation.

Fuck, we didn't even get a reply to the 10 carefully worded questions to Axl. 

 

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

It's quite apparent Leeds had no intention of 'working on' the article with Merck or Axl... that's why he only contacted Merck 2 stinkin' days before he put it to bed!? Merck was open to communication but Leeds was just jerking him around.

Do you honestly believe, after all this time, the shroud of secrecy, endless delays and the stubborness of Axl and his management team to communicate with anyone other than 'the inner circle', that Merck/Axl would have invited a reporter to listen to the album and give them an exclusive interview?

I'm sure there's lots of reporters who have been requesting this from Sanctuary, and consequently been denied.

I'm not sayin the reporter was right, and maybe he should have waited for a reply, but I don't believe they would have followed through with their invitation.

Fuck, we didn't even get a reply to the 10 carefully worded questions to Axl.?

 

I believe that what Merck related is what transpired.
Leed's responses to sp1at.com's interview corroborates and even confirms what Merck related in his reply to the article about what transpired.

[Annie]

Eva, you go girl!

[Scabbie]

I believe that what Merck related is what transpired.
Leed's responses to sp1at.com's interview corroborates and even confirms what Merck related in his reply to the article about what transpired.

I'm not disagreeing with what transpired, or Leed's intentions. But I don't believe for one minute that the GNR camp / Axl would have given into this reporter's requests. The offer was a bluff to try to prevent or delay the release of the article.

If Leeds is a fan, maybe he also believed this, and consequently thought what the hell and released it.

Just my thoughts. ?

I sincerely hope that Merck/Axl realise that they need their fanbase more than ever, and that some positive communication in the forthcoming month or two would be a smart move and a kind gesture. I don't even think they need to announce a release date, just provide some reassurance that everyone is still really serious about this project. As sceptical as I may sound, I believe and genuinely hope we will hear something soon.

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

I believe that what Merck related is what transpired.
Leed's responses to sp1at.com's interview corroborates and even confirms what Merck related in his reply to the article about what transpired.

I'm not disagreeing with what transpired, or Leed's intentions. But I don't believe for one minute that the GNR camp / Axl would have given into this reporter's requests. The offer was a bluff to try to prevent or delay the release of the article.

You or I can speculate on what we believe or don't believe Axl would or would not consider.
Our jobs do not call on us to consider offers and/or requests from the managment representatives of musical artists.
You or I can speculate til the cows come home. 
That is the difference between you/me and Leed's who has chosen a career as a journalist writing for the likes of The New York Times.

Another difference I will assume is that neither your nor I would pretend to be interested in having Axl involved in an article, while we were jerking his manager around on the phone 2 days before putting the article to bed - an article that had been in the works for several weeks prior.

If Leeds is a fan, maybe he also believed this, and consequently thought what the hell and released it.

Fine, say 'what the hell' ... freedom of the press.  He didn't need Axl's involvement to print the story he wanted to print.
But don't LIE about what transpired when you contacted Axl's managment and don't attempt to pretend you wanted Axl's involvement when you only contacted them 2 days before putting the story to bed...  Have you read what he said in the Sp1at.com interview?
Leed's HIMSELF said he 'gave them enough time to think about the fact that this article was going to be published"
That right there shows that he did not consider giving them enough time to actively CONTRIBUTE or be involved....
he called them just to LET THEM KNOW that he was printing this.... Period.  Then he inserted the standard "could not be reached for comment" line.

Just my thoughts.   

Same here.... Just my thoughts

I sincerely hope that Merck/Axl realise that they need their fanbase more than ever, and that some positive communication in the forthcoming month or two would be a smart move and a kind gesture. I don't even think they need to announce a release date, just provide some reassurance that everyone is still really serious about this project. As sceptical as I may sound, I believe and genuinely hope we will hear something soon.

And I sincerely hope that the fans realize that their continued support and belief in Guns N' Roses album expressed thoguhout the GN'R community is not for naught.  For those with faith in the intentons, ability, and dedication of GN'R there is no lack of reassurance from various members of the GN'R camp that they're very serious about this project.  Others who lack faith won't believe it until they see it... regardless of any reassurances offered from the GN'R camp. 

Glad to hear you are a believer Scabbie. 

[noizzynofuture]

You or I can speculate on what we believe or don't believe Axl would or would not consider.
Our jobs do not call on us to consider offers and/or requests from the managment representatives of musical artists.
You or I can speculate til the cows come home.?
That is the difference between you/me and Leed's who has chosen a career as a journalist writing for the likes of The New York Times.

Another difference I will assume is that neither your nor I would pretend to be interested in having Axl involved in an article, while we were jerking his manager around on the phone 2 days before putting the article to bed - an article that had been in the works for several weeks prior.

Eva, i appreciate your dedication to axl but your comments are pure speculation and well, pure unproven bullshit