Merck writes into Q magazine

[willow]

I tell why Merck is a member of the GNR camp! I like this guy!

[Christos AG]

From what Merck is saying, I don't think he has re-sent the response himself. I think Jeff Leeds gave Q his article and Merck's response from ages ago

If that's true, and Q has changed the magazine's name, then they're pathetic...

[erose]

why don't someone send M a mail for a confirmation, this is pretty huge if he said 05 will be the year again, this late in 05 i mean. It would also kill the rumor about an early 06 release which axl told a fan.... and then the DC rumor must be bs aswell..

[makane]

why don't someone send M a mail for a confirmation, this is pretty huge if he said 05 will be the year again, this late in 05 i mean. It would also kill the rumor about an early 06 release which axl told a fan.... and then the DC rumor must be bs aswell..

Some seriously believe Axl told the release date for a fan? If Axl had any plans for early 06' release, Merck would surely not say some thing's he has said.

[killingvector]

2005 ? I think not.

[WARose]

the threads are getting  more boring from day to day.....

hopefully chinese democracy starts soon!!

[33]

The October issue of Q magazine featured an article on Chinese Democracy.? I havent read that article but I get the impression that it was negative towards Axl and Chinese Democracy.

In the November issue, Merck Mercuriadis wrote into Q magazine defending Axl and Chinese Democracy.? Heres the letter:

Dear Q
Re: Guns N' Roses

I find it remarkable that Q has chosen to run an article on the making of the forthcoming Guns N' Roses album Chinese Democracy without bothering to talk to anyone who has actually been involved in its making.? You quote five people on the record all of whom, with the exception of Tom Zutaut, have been out of the picture for between six and nine years and, like the author of your article, have never even heard the album.? Tom Zutaut himself has not been involved for three years and has heard virtually none of the actual record.? As one of the few people involved in the making of the record, I can tell your readers that W Axl Rose is not interested in fame, money, popularity or what Q might think of him.? His only interest is making the best album he is capable of so that it can have a positive effect in 2005 on people who are enthusiasts of music and interested in Guns N' Roses.? His artistic integrity is such that he has chosen to do so without compromise at great personal sacrifice which makes him a soft target for the sort of rubbish you have chosen to print.? I believe he will have the last laugh.

Merck Mercuriadis, Chief Executive Officer,? The Sanctuary Group.

I have a question to anyone who might know a bit more about this sort of thing than me. Yeh I read the reply Merck wrote a few months ago to the New York paper that wrote the original article on Axl and the album. And yes this one to Q seems almost the same. But this response to Q names Q magazine a lot of times in the letter. So my question is:

Are Q magazine aloud to change the content of the letter to make it look as though it has actually been written to their magazine?

If they are not allowed, then surely thats a breach of copyright or something.

If it is a legit letter from Merck and he has just sent the same letter with a few alterations to make it relevant to Q magazine then surely this is a fucking pretty important thing if he still thinks the album is gonna drop this year!

[Rob]

the threads are getting? more boring from day to day.....

hopefully chinese democracy starts soon!!

I totally agree, dude.  All the threads in this section are beginning to look exactly alike to me.

[33]

The October issue of Q magazine featured an article on Chinese Democracy.? I havent read that article but I get the impression that it was negative towards Axl and Chinese Democracy.

In the November issue, Merck Mercuriadis wrote into Q magazine defending Axl and Chinese Democracy.? Heres the letter:

Dear Q
Re: Guns N' Roses

I find it remarkable that Q has chosen to run an article on the making of the forthcoming Guns N' Roses album Chinese Democracy without bothering to talk to anyone who has actually been involved in its making.? You quote five people on the record all of whom, with the exception of Tom Zutaut, have been out of the picture for between six and nine years and, like the author of your article, have never even heard the album.? Tom Zutaut himself has not been involved for three years and has heard virtually none of the actual record.? As one of the few people involved in the making of the record, I can tell your readers that W Axl Rose is not interested in fame, money, popularity or what Q might think of him.? His only interest is making the best album he is capable of so that it can have a positive effect in 2005 on people who are enthusiasts of music and interested in Guns N' Roses.? His artistic integrity is such that he has chosen to do so without compromise at great personal sacrifice which makes him a soft target for the sort of rubbish you have chosen to print.? I believe he will have the last laugh.

Merck Mercuriadis, Chief Executive Officer,? The Sanctuary Group.

I have a question to anyone who might know a bit more about this sort of thing than me. Yeh I read the reply Merck wrote a few months ago to the New York paper that wrote the original article on Axl and the album. And yes this one to Q seems almost the same. But this response to Q names Q magazine a lot of times in the letter. So my question is:

Are Q magazine aloud to change the content of the letter to make it look as though it has actually been written to their magazine?

If they are not allowed, then surely thats a breach of copyright or something.

If it is a legit letter from Merck and he has just sent the same letter with a few alterations to make it relevant to Q magazine then surely this is a fucking pretty important thing if he still thinks the album is gonna drop this year!

Eh come on people! This is a serious question that I would love an answer to! Most threads get tons of responses to with really stupid imature comments, it would be really nice to get a proper answer to this from someone who may know some shit about this kind of thing!! Cos in my opinion it be very relavent if Merck has sent a similar response to Q himself!

[greekmule]

in europe it is illegal and in the us i believe its the same. the sad thing about this is that by changing the reply (if that has indeed happened) and running it in the october issue
one from the outside can believe that the album will be out in 05 . if that doesn't happen merck and GNR will be blamed once again because of this pathetic magazine

[Dust N Rose]

what i find the most interesting is that CD has been recorded in the past 3 years since Tom Zutaut has not heard any of the actual recording.? Not sure if anyone brought that up during the times artice though.

was that in the letter to the NY Times?

We can't take that to mean that "Chinese Democracy" the album won't contain "Chinese Democracy" the song!? We'd have to reason that even though "Chinese Democracy" was? performed live in 2001 and 2002, Tom Zutaut had not heard a studio recording of it (or of any of the other songs we heard live that may have been recorded for CD).? Does that work??

Well it could be not in C.D. 
Chinese Democracy song is good but not that huge. I doubt if rhiad or silkworms would be in too.

[33]

in europe it is illegal and in the us i believe its the same. the sad thing about this is that by changing the reply (if that has indeed happened) and running it in the october issue
one from the outside can believe that the album will be out in 05 . if that doesn't happen merck and GNR will be blamed once again because of this pathetic magazine

Thanks Greekmule! It does make you wander if there is something to this then. Why would a major magazine break copyright laws just to make it look like a letter has come from Merck! Surely not worth their while if Merck or Axl decide to take action! I'm surprised at Q if thats the case cos its a magazine I have always liked to read! And like you say mate if it is bullshit then its only gonna make negative people say things like "Merck said in Q magazine that that the album was coming out in 05"

[greekmule]

I think the "journalist" just copied and pasted Merck's reply and then made it look it was sent to Q magazine thinkin its not a big deal.
but in the GNR world if Merck repeated his statement that 05 will be the year of GNR it would be h u g e news(always compared to the no news/tons of bullshit rumors we are used to readin).
But its really pathetic-they could have just ran the original reply by addin the source and the date

[ppbebe]

Snap, greekmule!
maybe it's just me but from the sound of it, they're like mocking Merck.
What a quality magazine! And a quality paper! Doesn't it mean the NY times have sold not only an old article but also a letter of complaint on the article?!!Grrrrrr!!!
puff, puff....

I hope I'm wrong.

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

Mysteron if you're reading, can you confirm this?

Confirmed

i'm sorry.... I'm unclear as to what has been confirmed. ?That Merck sent this statement to Q in response to their article?

We are wondering about whether Merck has actually reiterated that "it (the album) can have a positive effect in 2005". ?(We are reasoning that Merck's reference to its "effect in in 2005", implies its release in 2005.)

So is the published letter to the editor of Q recent... and if so, are we drawing a reasonable conclusion as to the meaning, if there is any, of Merck's inclusion of the reference to 2005?

[DemocracyRose]

Mysteron if you're reading, can you confirm this?

Confirmed

i'm sorry.... I'm unclear as to what has been confirmed. ?That Merck sent this statement to Q in response to their article?

We are wondering about whether Merck has actually reiterated that "it (the album) can have a positive effect in 2005". ?(We are reasoning that Merck's reference to its "effect in in 2005", implies its release in 2005.)

So is the published letter to the editor of Q recent... and if so, are we drawing a reasonable conclusion as to the meaning, if there is any, of Merck's inclusion of the reference to 2005?

Someone, please answer this.... Mysteron???

[Mysteron]

Mysteron if you're reading, can you confirm this?

Confirmed

i'm sorry.... I'm unclear as to what has been confirmed. ?That Merck sent this statement to Q in response to their article?

We are wondering about whether Merck has actually reiterated that "it (the album) can have a positive effect in 2005". ?(We are reasoning that Merck's reference to its "effect in in 2005", implies its release in 2005.)

So is the published letter to the editor of Q recent... and if so, are we drawing a reasonable conclusion as to the meaning, if there is any, of Merck's inclusion of the reference to 2005?

The NY Times gave Q magazine all scripts. Merck had nothing to do with anything

[DemocracyRose]

ok, thanks....