The Most Expensive Album Never Made

[Twisted Nerve 85]

Maybe the Devil will have a reserves copy of Chinese Democracy waiting for us to listen to.

In exchange for our souls of course 

[erose]

while the new york times article is an article on gn'r and the making of a very intresting record, your(Gigger) article is pure leeds bashing... it doesn't really matter if the chicken shit was made for bucket himself or buckets pets you know, it's about the music of gn'r which means that you contibruted to as much info as leeds which equals nothing...

i guess it's nice to read something positiv related to gn'r and Axl for once, but fuck it if it has to be on the wrong terms, it's almost like you're sucking up to axl hoping he might read it... i'm not going to slam your article, but i just don't see why leeds' article was so bad eighter... i think leeds stepped very carefully when he wrote the nyt articlet... if you think it's perfectly normal what axl is doing and you aren't intrgued by it any you just like to be objective to defend him like you would defend anyone i can totaly take your side tho...

[Ali]

  A lot can change in four years.

Ali

I agree Ali, but to play devils advocate here, it also looks as though alot HAS NOT changed in four years.  It's just one of those situations where I hope I'm wrong, but I feel as though we're in the same situation that we have been in in the past.  No end in sight.

In ways, yeah you're totally right.  Nothing has changed in that we have no official word that we are any closer to the release of the album than in 2001.  However, I think a lot may have changed in what songs are on the album, and possibly what mixes of particular songs.  Therefore, what the people Leeds quoted heard, including Tom Zutuat, may not at all resemble the album that CD is today.

Ali

[Crashdiet]

All this makes me sad. The fact that ChiDem isn't out yet, and that because of this, there are god-knows-how-many forum topics on this subject, and everyone keeps trying to analyze Axl. Thing is though... you have to because you have nothing else to analyze except guesses about what he's really like.
If I met him, I'd just be nice. I wouldn't talk about the album, I'd just be like "Hey, how you doing?" and then I'd give him a hug because I think he needs one. I'd probably also just start crying as well because I feel so bad for him. Everyone just hounds him so much, and there's so much pressure on just his shoulders to get ChiDem out. And now VR's come along and to him (this is just a rough guess) that probably feels like when your partner leaves you and then flounces his/her new lover in your face, and that just makes you not want to be with anyone else because it won't feel right. Sure, its been a while, but so what. Time does NOT heal all wounds. I think Axl misses the old guys and would dearly love to have them back, but at the same time doesn't, because he thinks that it'll be all weird. Familiar, but weird. Its like...*thinks*... I would like to see my old friends from primary school, but I can't even remember some of their names now! If there was a "Class of 1990 reunion" I wouldn't know ANYONE! I used to know them, but not anymore. I think that its like that with Axl... only of course he remembers Slash n' co because he wasn't 4 years old when he formed Gn'R, but I think he prefers to not think about them... and oh god I've gone off into analyzing him again. I do that all the time.
I have to go because I'm tired and I have to go to college tomorrow... I might not go in, I feel like shit. I think it was that half cooked pizza I ate... half cooked on account of the AGA was broken, and wouldn't work properly. I shoulda put it in the microwave.
Right, I'm babbling, a sure sign I'm tired.
I'm going now!

Boo fucking hoo. Axl doesn't need a hug he needs a kick in the ass. I mean 13 million of the record companies money and still no album. DO you know how many talented young great bands didn't get signed for 500,000 because axl feels the need to an egostar and 'create the greatest album in the world'

I love axl don't get me wrong. Spending all that time and money and still not delivering is not cool. Axl is in a place that any musician can only have wetdreams about and still he feels like everyone is out to get him. Spending 13 million on an album and not keeping your word isn't cool and I don't feel sorry for him at all.

The pressure.... he's created the pressure himself and the longer he waits the more pressure there will be, Its not like he hasn't had more than enough time, money, talent, and resources to get this album out.

The only person axl has to blame for the pressure is himself

People say axl doesn't owe us anything... I say ya he does because with the money geffen/interscope has spent on this album we could have had other young great bands signed and albums released. He owes it to geffen to finish the record because he said he would, thus he owes us because he made a promise to make a record by XXX amount of time.

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

while the new york times article is an article on gn'r and the making of a very intresting record, your(Gigger) article is pure leeds bashing...

look at the title of sp1at's article - it's called "get in the ring 2005" ?
um... so what? ?

the article was in response to the the content of Leed's article...
there were no claims made that it was a 'news' piece. ?(despite a couple great new quotes being shared with us)
look at it as an 'editorial' piece or 'critical review' of the NY Times article....
and as such it invites the readers to consider alternative views other than were presented in the NY Times article

[providman]

As a fan he should have never written a piece such as this without talking to someone who actually nows what going on!!!
It is nice to know he is a fan, figured he was, but he took the wrong route in writing that piece.

Did you even read the article? He said he spoke to 30 people involved in the Album. How do you know he didn't speak to anyone who knows what's actually going on. For all you know he spoke to the entire band. You might THINK he didn't, but you don't know.
 
Please explain, how did he take the wrong route in writing that piece? And give better examples than Merck said this, Merck said that....I want to hear your analysis, based on what YOU know, not what you think you know, not what you wish or pretend to be true, not what Merck propagated.

Lets hear a fact by refutation by all you people in the know. For example, he stated what the studio costs were at one point, & how much the engineers & players were getting paid. Explain how his numbers were wrong, & tell us what the correct numbers were.

He said he spoke to 30 people involved in the project. Is this a lie? If yes, please explain.

Is this following line from the article a fabrication, a lie?:

HAVING EXCEEDED ALL budgeted and approved recording costs by millions of dollars," the label wrote in a letter dated Feb. 2 , 2004, "it is Mr. Rose's obligation to fund and complete the album, not Geffen's." ?

Did Leeds make up that sentence? If he did, please explain how it's not correct or, since Jayson Blair's name was invoked, come right out & say he made it up.

Was Tom Zutaut lying when he said:

"I really thought I could get him to deliver the record," said Mr. Zutaut, who spent nine months trying. "And we got close."

How does the fact that he's been out of the picture for years negate that statement? did Leeds make it up?

These are just a few examples to get you started. Since this article was so obviously a hatchet job, lets hear the specifics on how & why it is a hatchet job.

In 2004 Caram Costanzo when questioned about the album by Sp1at said...

"Only a few know the facts; Axl, myself and one other. Unless you speak with one of us, you'll only have fiction. That's a fact. Thank you"

I point you in the direction of the Sp1at article also (seeing as I am the author and the fact that on reading it Merck OK'd it)...

http://www.sp1at.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=608

Well, there you have it. STOP THE PRESSES! Caram Cosentino has spoken!

More words. Empty, hollow, meaningless words. Welcome to the world of GnR.

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

Empty, hollow, meaningless words.


oops sorry.

there must be an echo in here.
must be all the empty hollow meaningless words flying around.
 

[estranged.1098]

People say axl doesn't owe us anything... I say ya he does because with the money geffen/interscope has spent on this album we could have had other young great bands signed and albums released. He owes it to geffen to finish the record because he said he would, thus he owes us because he made a promise to make a record by XXX amount of time.

And where do you think the money Geffen spent on the album came from? Do you have any idea how much money Axl's work (with others) made the record company? Do you have any idea how many of the cool bands you listen to were perhaps influenced by Axl and Guns N' Roses? So I guess you own Axl, huh?
Is that really your argument to explain Axl owes anyone anything? Do you have a copy of his contract with his record company?

If anything you should look up to a person who doesn't cave in to the pressure; someone making an album that's going to carry his name and the Guns N' Roses name, and if he needs 20 years to get something he's happy with, then great for him. Personally I can only thank him for not puting out a crappy album, and instead working on something he believes will be that much better. People will not blame Geffen if it sucks, people will not blame Jeff Leeds if it sucks.
The record company wants an album that will make them money. Axl wants an album that will make him and his fans happy. So, do you work for the record company or what? 

[erose]

while the new york times article is an article on gn'r and the making of a very intresting record, your(Gigger) article is pure leeds bashing...

look at the title of sp1at's article - it's called "get in the ring 2005" ?
um... so what? ?

the article was in response to the the content of Leed's article...
there were no claims made that it was a 'news' piece. ?(despite a couple great new quotes being shared with us)
look at it as an 'editorial' piece or 'critical review' of the NY Times article....
and as such it invites the readers to consider alternative views other than were presented in the NY Times article

yeah get in the ring 2005 great, my point is that it's a suck up article based on a veiw from a die hard fan who wouldn't say anything bad about axl even if axl did something bad, you dig?

If it really was great i think merck would have offered it at least a comment...

If you're in the outside world meaning outside this little gn'r bubble you would appreciate mr. leeds article alot more since it's actually pretty informing on what has been going on during a certain period of time, gigger's article is pure shit compared to leeds and you'd have to be a die hard fan who read the leeds article first to appreciate gigger's follow up...

what makes a fan written article les bias than a journalists if thats the point? and those two quotes, i bet leeds doesn't belive in them anyway, what could possible give gigger more credit than leeds?

Just because you like this(giggers) side of the story doesn't make it a better article and it doesn't burry leeds article in any way, and the fact that leeds doesn't eat breeth and sleep gn'r makes his research and meetings with former producers etc alot more interesting than just another fanletter imo...

btw, not everything written in a newspaper is news, EVEN tho it's called a newspaper ...

and i can't "look at it as an 'editorial' piece or 'critical review' of the NY Times article...." because then it wouldn't have been even more bias, and all cred just flies out the window when this gigger tries to be Axl at the end of the article bashing leeds... i'd be very surprised if anyone other than fan boards print this article, it's just not readable for anyone who's not way too into this new album that we're waiting for....

[ppbebe]

I haven't read other posts but I'm with ya erose.
We don't know what Axl actually thinks about this article yet.
Yeah, I trust Merck. He doesn't say like Axl said that and that.

BTW, Why don't people Think a bit objectively. I'm yet to know whether it is or not and to whom it's a hatchet job but it's clear that This article is based only on Geffen/Uni/Interscope's position. The label kinda quitted the project and chose GH over CD more than a year ago. Early this year Sanctuary announced the deal with GN'R and there are lots of GN'R mentions in Sanctuary documents. And now this article comes out of the blue focusing on the economy side only from the the other company's point of view.?What does it mean as a whole? Of course Sanctuary defends themselves and their client even if the client doesn't give a fuck. They're not dopes.

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

while the new york times article is an article on gn'r and the making of a very intresting record, your(Gigger) article is pure leeds bashing...

look at the title of sp1at's article - it's called "get in the ring 2005" 
um... so what? 

the article was in response to the the content of Leed's article...
there were no claims made that it was a 'news' piece.  (despite a couple great new quotes being shared with us)
look at it as an 'editorial' piece or 'critical review' of the NY Times article....
and as such it invites the readers to consider alternative views other than were presented in the NY Times article

yeah get in the ring 2005 great, my point is that it's a suck up article based on a veiw from a die hard fan who wouldn't say anything bad about axl even if axl did something bad, you dig?

If it really was great i think merck would have offered it at least a comment...

If you're in the outside world meaning outside this little gn'r bubble you would appreciate mr. leeds article alot more since it's actually pretty informing on what has been going on during a certain period of time, gigger's article is pure shit compared to leeds and you'd have to be a die hard fan who read the leeds article first to appreciate gigger's follow up...

what makes a fan written article les bias than a journalists if thats the point? and those two quotes, i bet leeds doesn't belive in them anyway, what could possible give gigger more credit than leeds?

Just because you like this(giggers) side of the story doesn't make it a better article and it doesn't burry leeds article in any way, and the fact that leeds doesn't eat breeth and sleep gn'r makes his research and meetings with former producers etc alot more interesting than just another fanletter imo...

btw, not everything written in a newspaper is news, EVEN tho it's called a newspaper ...

and i can't "look at it as an 'editorial' piece or 'critical review' of the NY Times article...." because then it wouldn't have been even more bias, and all cred just flies out the window when this gigger tries to be Axl at the end of the article bashing leeds... i'd be very surprised if anyone other than fan boards print this article, it's just not readable for anyone who's not way too into this new album that we're waiting for....

by nature, an editorial is 'bias' because it expresses the opinion of the writer/publication. Opinions by nature are um... opinionated

And I never said that it "burries leeds article"...  i said, and excuse me for quoting myself but i apparently need to repeat myself:

it invites the readers to consider alternative views other than were presented in the NY Times article

why is any opinion expressed that can be construed as favorable to Axl considered as "sucking up"?

merck not offering comment to include in the article is no indication that he did not approve of the article

he did, as the writer shared with us, review and approve of it.  (of course you or anyone can claim that the writer made that up *sigh*)

you ask what could possibly give Gigger more credit than Leeds? 
 
I said that Leed's having granted Sp1at.com the interview would indicate that Leeds found their credentials to be up to snuff. 

and i disagree, an interview or research done by a 'fan', being more interested in an artist, can produce a more interesting result.
and i do not believe that the writer "eats, breathes, and sleeps GN'R"....   Sp1at.com is NOT a GN'R site... (but i don't want to go off topic here so that'll be up to you to figure out for yourself)

as for Leeds believing the quotes offered in Sp1at.com's article...   why is that relevant?
Either you believe 'em or not - just like we all can choose to take Leeds sources' info as gospel (/news) or not.

hundreds of thousands of people have/will read Leeds' article and take it all as FACT because it is the NY Times.
many of our own board members found their mood and outlook to be grim  based on the 'stark ending'* cited by Leeds and the disasterous, unproductive process that according to Leeds in his inteview with Sp1at is the story of Chinese Democracy "so far".

If I tell you that "so far", this is where something stands" would not my use of the words "so far" give you the impression that I am speaking up to this point in time - the present?  Leeds said that he gave a fair depiction of the process of Chinese Democracy so far.
Those are Leeds own words erose.

I feel the need to repeat that "so far" means "as of now" / "currently" etc. 
So you say that everything that is printed in a newspaper isn't news.
True.  I've even mentioned a couple of the other forms of writing that appear in newspapers (such as editorials and critical reviews.)

How do YOU categorize Leeds' story erose?







*note "stark ending" is Leeds words he used in describing "the process" as in (it/the process/story) has a stark ending

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

I haven't read other posts but I'm with ya erose.
We don't know what Axl actually thinks about this article yet.
Yeah, I trust Merck. He doesn't say like Axl said that and that.

BTW, Why don't people Think a bit objectively. I'm yet to know whether it is or not and to whom it's a hatchet job but it's clear that This article is based only on Geffen/Uni/Interscope's position. The label kinda quitted the project and chose GH over CD more than a year ago. Early this year Sanctuary announced the deal with GN'R and there are lots of GN'R mentions in Sanctuary documents. And now this article comes out of the blue focusing on the economy side only from the the other company's point of view.?What does it mean as a whole? Of course Sanctuary defends themselves and their client even if the client doesn't give a fuck. They're not dopes.

I believe, at the very least, its safe to reasonably assume that Axl will not be pleased that 'un-named sources' violated their employment and confidentiality agreements.  Nor will the employers of those sources that were based in the record company and recording studio(s).

I believe that this article coming out now is because it will be even more 'moot' once CD is released.  The writer and editor may have felt that  if they were ever going to put their juicy tid-bits of info collected from their 'un-named' sources to use - now would be the time... perhaps because they believe, contrary to what is emphasized in the article (*rolls eyes*), that CD is near release.  When that time comes there will be a whole different type of coverage. 

Who knows though... something could be rumbling beneath even the parking garages at Geffen/Interscope and it may be causing some to come running out at this time figuring they have 'nothing to lose' by offering this info.

And.. um... before someone feels the need to state the obvious - that my comments are speculation...   
please allow me to save you the post.
I am speculating.*



*http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=speculating 

[erose]

first of i must say that i didn't direct "Just because you like this(giggers) side of the story doesn't make it a better article and it doesn't burry leeds article in any way, and the fact that leeds doesn't eat breeth and sleep gn'r makes his research and meetings with former producers etc alot more interesting than just another fanletter imo...
" to anyone in particular, it should have said "just because one like this....." And eva i must say that i do agree with most of what you say.

what i don't like tho is the bashing of mr. leeds article or person, why, because it's just not that bad. there might be one or two minor details which isn't up to par, but overall it's pretty good and i believe that it's more acurate than people on this board would like to admit...

To take a look at giggers cred, sure anyone can e-mail a writer and ask him for an interview, i'm sure leeds don't get a whole lot of interview requests so... besides, there's no chance in hell that leeds would have given the interview if he had read giggers article first, in that way gigger was a real pussy who took the cheapest shot i've ever seen... first he sucked up to get an interview, then he just slammed him with all he got... no wonder journalists can't write when those who critisize can't write eighter, it goes around i guess...

I also agree that a fan article can be very healthy compared to a predjudis writer, but again, if the leeds article was all bs he couldn't have written it, there's no way he made up those quotes, if he did merck would have dismissed them all which he didn't... and leeds would have gotten the boot etc... that can't happen with a fan writing or an interview so he has nothing to watch out for and can therefor write what he likes to believe... Gigger has no cred compared to mr. leeds... if gigger got a serious writing position in NYT and leeds lost his job i might change my mind tho...?

when you say that the article "invites the readers to consider alternative views other than were presented in the NY Times article" i guess you're right, but everyone who reads the papers should have that programmed in their head, to consider alternative views i mean, one whouldn't need an article of giggers low caliber to do that... and lets say a guy who didn't know about gn'r read giggers piece, he would also have to consider alternative views...

it would tho be very interesting if gigger wrote "The most expensive album ever made" as a contradiction to leeds piece, then we could judge his objectivety and writing skills etc. as far as i can see giggers piece is worthless, just like this post and all other posts, except for maybe mysterions 

BTW: When it looks to me like most people object to leeds article and get upset about what he writes about axl, i think the article makes axl look extremely cool, like he's on top of everything and that the album will be out when axl's done with it... i don't get where all this negativety comes from???

pjufff... 

[marknroses]

How has he messed up his career? It definately sounds like hes not losing sleep at night with all the "abuse", etc he has taken over the last decade.

The one thing that ultimately will effect his career is one thing. An album called Chinese Democracy. And guess what Axls main focus has been while not being in the spotlight...you guessed it...CD. So in the short term everyone can say and think what they want about him but the ultimate judgement will be from the album.


How do you know hes not diversifieing and doing so much? Or using his talents. Just because someone decides to stay out of the public eye doesnt mean they have stop working.
As many have said, Axl doesnt care about the spotlight. Hes more concerned in making the music he wants to make. And he put himself in a position where he can do what he wants without being followed, or whatever else comes with being a celebrity and is able to keep people intereste din what hes doing. Hes kinda got the best of both worlds for the situiation that he wants to be in.
 He has obivioulsy taken a beating PR wise over the past 10 yrs but again, he doesnt seem to care that much. Of course its ashame to see Axl waste his prime years out of the spotlight. But thats part of Axl we all overlook. After the Illusions he found more important things to do...especially personally. Plus hes able to have such a mythical type persona while not even doing naything. How can you beat that? So he just takes the abuse and hopefully, ultimately, as Merck said...he will have the last laugh...when it REALLY counts...

Oh Boy Youngunner, you don't know who you are messing with.
I am as big an Axl fan as you are, but at least I don't live in a fantasy world. I can dance like Axl, I know everything about the guy (that is everything prior to 1994) - I turn to him for my ultimate inspiration. Its gotten me far, I live on the memory of a glory that has past but whose testimony is in every medlody, lyrics and visual performance. Whatever Axl has been doing since 1994 is a far long cry from what he was doing prior to that - you can agree to that (I Hope).

How can you say that Axl doesn't care about the spotlight? How can you say that?
Axl was a RockStar for G-d Sakes! He cares so much about the spotlight that he couldn't stand it when other rockers were taking his place at the forefront of rock celebrity in the early-mid 1990s. He's a "Victory or Death" person who would either be at 100% or 0%. There's no middle ground to negotiate with Axl, either he gets his way (and will put out the NU-GNR TRILOGY) or he won't put out another note of music. I don't like it when Axl puts up a front - he's been through a lot but still pretends like it doesn't mean anything to him - like the spotlight doesn't matter - because it does. If it didn't, he would have done that SPAGHETTI INCIDENT 1994 CLUB TOUR. I can only imagine how much it would have rocked to see Axl in all his rock stardom in the clubs doing "Down On The Farm"! ?

And Younggunner, you forget about all the wonderful things that Axl was planning to do following the UYI Tour, including collaborating with U2, putting out "the Perfect Crime" - GNR documentary, putting out his BIO "Shattered Illusions", starting up a record company (reviving the UZI Label) and producing band, and even acting in a "Tales from the Crypt" in an episode penned by Del James. Not to mention that Axl wanted to act and he could (look at his UYI Trilogy). And this is all BEFORE EVEN PUTTING OUT A RECORD. I know the law suits and BS got in the way, but still.

Better to have a bird in the hand than 2 in the bush.
 
MNR

[gigger]

Seeing as I'm the one being talked about I feel like I should probably respond now...?

what i don't like tho is the bashing of mr. leeds article or person, why, because it's just not that bad. there might be one or two minor details which isn't up to par, but overall it's pretty good and i believe that it's more acurate than people on this board would like to admit...

As I wrote in my article, I have no contention that the article he wrote was accurate to what happened up until 1999. You could even maybe suggest that up until 2001 it isn't accurate as to what happened between 2001 and today. That's a fact. He didn't speak to the people who worked on the album in that period... Plain and simple...

I had a slight problem with this lack of investigation from a so called investigative journalist.

To take a look at giggers cred, sure anyone can e-mail a writer and ask him for an interview, i'm sure leeds don't get a whole lot of interview requests so... besides, there's no chance in hell that leeds would have given the interview if he had read giggers article first, in that way gigger was a real pussy who took the cheapest shot i've ever seen... first he sucked up to get an interview, then he just slammed him with all he got... no wonder journalists can't write when those who critisize can't write eighter, it goes around i guess...

Firstly, I didn't request or do the interview with Jeff Leeds. I had nothing to do with it. The article was written on Sunday, the interview was done on Wednesday. When I heard about the interview (about 3 hours before I made the article public) I was asked not to upload the article until the interview was done so that I could review my article and make any changes that the interview may have made appropriate. The interview changed none of my views and the article ran as originally intended.

So before you go calling me a "real pussy who took the cheapest shot" again, you may wish to make sure you have your facts right. Just an observation.

I also agree that a fan article can be very healthy compared to a predjudis writer, but again, if the leeds article was all bs he couldn't have written it, there's no way he made up those quotes, if he did merck would have dismissed them all which he didn't... and leeds would have gotten the boot etc... that can't happen with a fan writing or an interview so he has nothing to watch out for and can therefor write what he likes to believe... Gigger has no cred compared to mr. leeds... if gigger got a serious writing position in NYT and leeds lost his job i might change my mind tho...?

I'd never want to become a journalist. I work with them on a daily basis and they are all scumbags... (Sorry to any journalists but it is true!? ). I have been published on numerous occasions (I don't know an exact number but I'd guess in excess of 50 times in 8 different publications ranging from daily newspapers in the UK to smaller industry based magazines with circulations of around 1000). I haven't heard back from the editor of the NY Times, so I don't think they will be offering me a job or sacking Leeds!?

when you say that the article "invites the readers to consider alternative views other than were presented in the NY Times article" i guess you're right, but everyone who reads the papers should have that programmed in their head, to consider alternative views i mean, one whouldn't need an article of giggers low caliber to do that... and lets say a guy who didn't know about gn'r read giggers piece, he would also have to consider alternative views...

The article was written as an alternative to the NY Times piece. It is meant to be read having read the NY Times article. It's a critical analysis if you like. Would you read the critical analysis of a book without reading the book? No...

People should always question what they read. It's moronic not to. I would say that the "low caliber" of the writer isn't based on where they are published. Some of the best articles I have ever read have been written by "bloggers" on websites. I know of a number of journalists in the UK that actually regularly use the "low caliber" journalists (from the internet) as inspirations for their features. You shouldn't dismiss something because it only has a circulation of 200 people (that's how many have read my article so far I think), and you shouldn't accept something as gospel because it has a massive circulation. I'm sure Mr. Blair (in the US) and Mr. Morgan (in the UK) will back me up on that point too!?

it would tho be very interesting if gigger wrote "The most expensive album ever made" as a contradiction to leeds piece, then we could judge his objectivety and writing skills etc. as far as i can see giggers piece is worthless, just like this post and all other posts, except for maybe mysterions?

The original aim of my article was to write it as a much more objective piece but after the NY Times article very few people were willing to comment on the situation as it was deemed too sensivite. It was actually refreshing to see a fair amount of loyality being shown to Axl by the people that I contacted, there unwillingness to comment on the subject spoke volumes to me.

As a result of the inability to gain new information I had to write the article on what we already knew (but threw in a few new comments from Costanzo and Brain for example). I personally have nothing against Leeds, I've never met him and most likely never will. I did think his article whilst incredibly well written and well structured was neither balanced nor fair like he claimed and I didn't feel the need to write the article in a balanced or fair fashion either. His piece was a fine example of how the English language should be written, in my opinion, it wasn't a fine example of investigative journalism.

I did do a bit of "Axl-bashing" myself in fairness and mentioned that he has alienated fans by his silence, mentioning his lack of "internal peace" and talking about the litigation with Stephanie Seymour. But by writing another entirely negative article on Axl Rose I would merely be stepping on the toes of people like Leeds and Peter Wilkinson. I felt no need to regurgitate what has already been covered in the "reputable" media.

As for the fact that all posts are worthless except Mysterons. Well to me that's a bizarre comment... But I will say that some (not all) of the information Mysteron gets is open to the general public if you know where to look. There are no such things as insiders in the GnR world, what Mysteron says isn't gospel (and I'm sure Mysteron will agree with me). But people on this forum do tend to think that Mysteron and only Mysteron has any clue about GnR. (I'm not suggesting that I do...) That's not meant to be seen as Mysteron bashing, more just how I view the info he gets...

What I do know about what I wrote is that it was read by the people that I actually wanted it to be read by. Jimmy Iovine will have got to work on Thursday morning and had a copy of the article in his inbox, as will many others...

I don't really mind if you don't like it... And I don't mind if a thousand other people don't like it. I know that there are some people that enjoyed reading it and with that I mind I am sure that I didn't waste my time...


But hey... I'm just "a pussy" aren't I??

[Crashdiet]

People say axl doesn't owe us anything... I say ya he does because with the money geffen/interscope has spent on this album we could have had other young great bands signed and albums released. He owes it to geffen to finish the record because he said he would, thus he owes us because he made a promise to make a record by XXX amount of time.

And where do you think the money Geffen spent on the album came from? Do you have any idea how much money Axl's work (with others) made the record company? Do you have any idea how many of the cool bands you listen to were perhaps influenced by Axl and Guns N' Roses? So I guess you own Axl, huh?
Is that really your argument to explain Axl owes anyone anything? Do you have a copy of his contract with his record company?

If anything you should look up to a person who doesn't cave in to the pressure; someone making an album that's going to carry his name and the Guns N' Roses name, and if he needs 20 years to get something he's happy with, then great for him. Personally I can only thank him for not puting out a crappy album, and instead working on something he believes will be that much better. People will not blame Geffen if it sucks, people will not blame Jeff Leeds if it sucks.
The record company wants an album that will make them money. Axl wants an album that will make him and his fans happy. So, do you work for the record company or what??

No i don't own axl. But Its not cool not fulfill your promises. Do you think geffen would have given axl all that money if they they'd still be sitting here in 2005 empty handed. Yea axl made geffen millions, but geffen made axl millions too. Without their support he'd be selling crack in hollywood.

It doesn't take 13 million to make an album... plain and simple.

People are like poor axl this and that.

Ya the poor guy who gets more money to indulge his fantasy than anyone else could ever dream of.

He could have been considerate and spent millions less. Set up the equipment in your own studio as opposed to renting out expensive ones for months at a time with no productivity.

Keep your contract obiligations.... it says something when the record company puts out a greatest hits package without the artist's permession. Don't think axl hasn't broken his word.

He may not own me personally an album but he owes his record company.

"If anything you should look up to a person who doesn't cave in to the pressure; someone making an album that's going to carry his name and the Guns N' Roses name, and if he needs 20 years to get something he's happy with, then great for him. Personally I can only thank him for not puting out a crappy album, and instead working on something he believes will be that much better."

Cave in under pressure... he needs to stand up and show the world he believes in his 13million dollar art, not hide in the shadows. Appetite was amazing, the illusions were amazing... and he could have recorded them over 10 times each with the money he's spent AND ALBUMS COST MORE TO MAKE BACK THEN.

I love the guy but its really time to shit or get off the pot

[erose]

Seeing as I'm the one being talked about I feel like I should probably respond now...?

what i don't like tho is the bashing of mr. leeds article or person, why, because it's just not that bad. there might be one or two minor details which isn't up to par, but overall it's pretty good and i believe that it's more acurate than people on this board would like to admit...

As I wrote in my article, I have no contention that the article he wrote was accurate to what happened up until 1999. You could even maybe suggest that up until 2001 it isn't accurate as to what happened between 2001 and today. That's a fact. He didn't speak to the people who worked on the album in that period... Plain and simple...

I had a slight problem with this lack of investigation from a so called investigative journalist.

To take a look at giggers cred, sure anyone can e-mail a writer and ask him for an interview, i'm sure leeds don't get a whole lot of interview requests so... besides, there's no chance in hell that leeds would have given the interview if he had read giggers article first, in that way gigger was a real pussy who took the cheapest shot i've ever seen... first he sucked up to get an interview, then he just slammed him with all he got... no wonder journalists can't write when those who critisize can't write eighter, it goes around i guess...

Firstly, I didn't request or do the interview with Jeff Leeds. I had nothing to do with it. The article was written on Sunday, the interview was done on Wednesday. When I heard about the interview (about 3 hours before I made the article public) I was asked not to upload the article until the interview was done so that I could review my article and make any changes that the interview may have made appropriate. The interview changed none of my views and the article ran as originally intended.

So before you go calling me a "real pussy who took the cheapest shot" again, you may wish to make sure you have your facts right. Just an observation.

I also agree that a fan article can be very healthy compared to a predjudis writer, but again, if the leeds article was all bs he couldn't have written it, there's no way he made up those quotes, if he did merck would have dismissed them all which he didn't... and leeds would have gotten the boot etc... that can't happen with a fan writing or an interview so he has nothing to watch out for and can therefor write what he likes to believe... Gigger has no cred compared to mr. leeds... if gigger got a serious writing position in NYT and leeds lost his job i might change my mind tho...?

I'd never want to become a journalist. I work with them on a daily basis and they are all scumbags... (Sorry to any journalists but it is true!? ). I have been published on numerous occasions (I don't know an exact number but I'd guess in excess of 50 times in 8 different publications ranging from daily newspapers in the UK to smaller industry based magazines with circulations of around 1000). I haven't heard back from the editor of the NY Times, so I don't think they will be offering me a job or sacking Leeds!?

when you say that the article "invites the readers to consider alternative views other than were presented in the NY Times article" i guess you're right, but everyone who reads the papers should have that programmed in their head, to consider alternative views i mean, one whouldn't need an article of giggers low caliber to do that... and lets say a guy who didn't know about gn'r read giggers piece, he would also have to consider alternative views...

The article was written as an alternative to the NY Times piece. It is meant to be read having read the NY Times article. It's a critical analysis if you like. Would you read the critical analysis of a book without reading the book? No...

People should always question what they read. It's moronic not to. I would say that the "low caliber" of the writer isn't based on where they are published. Some of the best articles I have ever read have been written by "bloggers" on websites. I know of a number of journalists in the UK that actually regularly use the "low caliber" journalists (from the internet) as inspirations for their features. You shouldn't dismiss something because it only has a circulation of 200 people (that's how many have read my article so far I think), and you shouldn't accept something as gospel because it has a massive circulation. I'm sure Mr. Blair (in the US) and Mr. Morgan (in the UK) will back me up on that point too!?

it would tho be very interesting if gigger wrote "The most expensive album ever made" as a contradiction to leeds piece, then we could judge his objectivety and writing skills etc. as far as i can see giggers piece is worthless, just like this post and all other posts, except for maybe mysterions?

The original aim of my article was to write it as a much more objective piece but after the NY Times article very few people were willing to comment on the situation as it was deemed too sensivite. It was actually refreshing to see a fair amount of loyality being shown to Axl by the people that I contacted, there unwillingness to comment on the subject spoke volumes to me.

As a result of the inability to gain new information I had to write the article on what we already knew (but threw in a few new comments from Costanzo and Brain for example). I personally have nothing against Leeds, I've never met him and most likely never will. I did think his article whilst incredibly well written and well structured was neither balanced nor fair like he claimed and I didn't feel the need to write the article in a balanced or fair fashion either. His piece was a fine example of how the English language should be written, in my opinion, it wasn't a fine example of investigative journalism.

I did do a bit of "Axl-bashing" myself in fairness and mentioned that he has alienated fans by his silence, mentioning his lack of "internal peace" and talking about the litigation with Stephanie Seymour. But by writing another entirely negative article on Axl Rose I would merely be stepping on the toes of people like Leeds and Peter Wilkinson. I felt no need to regurgitate what has already been covered in the "reputable" media.

As for the fact that all posts are worthless except Mysterons. Well to me that's a bizarre comment... But I will say that some (not all) of the information Mysteron gets is open to the general public if you know where to look. There are no such things as insiders in the GnR world, what Mysteron says isn't gospel (and I'm sure Mysteron will agree with me). But people on this forum do tend to think that Mysteron and only Mysteron has any clue about GnR. (I'm not suggesting that I do...) That's not meant to be seen as Mysteron bashing, more just how I view the info he gets...

What I do know about what I wrote is that it was read by the people that I actually wanted it to be read by. Jimmy Iovine will have got to work on Thursday morning and had a copy of the article in his inbox, as will many others...

I don't really mind if you don't like it... And I don't mind if a thousand other people don't like it. I know that there are some people that enjoyed reading it and with that I mind I am sure that I didn't waste my time...


But hey... I'm just "a pussy" aren't I??

i'm sorry gigger, you're not a pussy, i didn't mean to insult you, hmmm, sucker or fucker might have been more appropriate...

I'm glad we can agree on the fact that the article is fairly acurate up until 2001 tho, that was my biggest issue, the article is not bull shit, it's just not about the last three four years...

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

first of i must say that i didn't direct "Just because you like this(giggers) side of the story doesn't make it a better article and it doesn't burry leeds article in any way, and the fact that leeds doesn't eat breeth and sleep gn'r makes his research and meetings with former producers etc alot more interesting than just another fanletter imo...
" to anyone in particular, it should have said "just because one like this....." And eva i must say that i do agree with most of what you say.

Cool. ?

what i don't like tho is the bashing of mr. leeds article or person, why, because it's just not that bad. there might be one or two minor details which isn't up to par, but overall it's pretty good and i believe that it's more acurate than people on this board would like to admit...

For the most part, none of us are in a position to either vouch for nor refute... ?prove nor disprove the 'accuracy' of any of the info his un-named sources provided. ?(I don't think anyone is saying he made-up the stories or the figures quoted.)
We ALL however, as you seem to recognize and relate in the following quote, ARE in a position to question these accounts and the motives of those who provided them.

when you say that the article "invites the readers to consider alternative views other than were presented in the NY Times article" i guess you're right, but everyone who reads the papers should have that programmed in their head, to consider alternative views

I think its cool that there besides considering these alternative views, someone was moved to put some of those alternative views in writing. ?

I also agree that a fan article can be very healthy compared to a predjudis writer....

Cool.   

BTW: When it looks to me like most people object to leeds article and get upset about what he writes about axl, i think the article makes axl look extremely cool, like he's on top of everything and that the album will be out when axl's done with it... i don't get where all this negativety comes from???

What spurred the negativity I think could arguably be found, right off the bad, ?in the very title: ?"The Most Expensive Album Never Made".

Cool that you as someone who is obviously otherwise informed about Axl and GN'R can find 'the silver lining'.
I doubt howver, that can be said about the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of persons who have/will read this article. ?

 

[madagas]

Who really gives a shit at this point of the thread?! You are arguing over absolutely nothing-literally nothing. Another half ass article by a shit newspaper. Gigger's article is much better but is watered down by his over the top Leeds bashing and Axl ass kissing.  So what? Reality-no release date, album's not finished, no tour dates-NOTHING-no rumors at this time either-NOTHING.

[Booker Floyd]

Gigger's article is much better but is watered down by his over the top Leeds bashing and Axl ass kissing.?

I just skimmed this "article" and its nothing more than a fans long messsage board post.

And nothing personal, Gigger, but youre writing is terrible.  Normally I never criticize anybodys writing (you cant find one post on this forum in which I do so), but since youre passing this off as an article, I think its a valid criticism.  Your syntax and punctuation needs a lot of work.  Again, perfectly fine as a message board post, but one very poor article (as you feel inclined to call it).

You lost me after railing against Leeds for "trying to bring Axl down."  Come on...