| Sir - I find it remarkable that the New York Times - a newspaper of some
repute - has chosen to run an article on the making of the forthcoming Guns
N' Roses album Chinese Democracy without even bothering to talk to anyone
who has actually been involved in the making of the album. You quote 5
people on the record all of whom with the exception of Tom Zutaut have been
out of the picture for between 6 and 9 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.
Your journalist Jeff Leeds - is this the return of Jayson Blair under a
pseudonym? - contacted us last Thursday the 24th of February to inform us he
had been working on an article about the "process" of making the album. I
explained that it was not possible for him to write such a story as he had
not spoken to the band, our 2 engineers, myself or most importantly Axl all
of whom have been working on the actual album for the last two years and
enquired how he could write an investigative report with any integrity
without doing so. I also asked why if he was reporting on the "process" why
we were the last people he was contacting as it was obvious from the
discussion that he had been working on this for a number of weeks. Contrary
to his blatant lie that he was told by "management" that W. Axl Rose "could
not be reached for comment" I made it clear that we could not consider his
request for an interview with either Axl or myself until we knew who the
other people involved in the article were as we were not going to lend
credibility to an article that was based on hearsay from people that have
not only had nothing to do with the album but whose only agenda was to
recapture their 15 minutes of fame in an industry that had cast them aside
and left them unemployed many years ago. Mr Leeds told me he would call this
week once he had considered our position so that we could discuss it
further. This past Monday the 27th at 6 pm he left a message with my office
saying that his deadline to file the story was 12 pm the following day. I
called him immediately on receipt of the message the following morning and
reminded him that we had made an agreement that he would consider whether he
was going to divulge the people involved in the article following which I
would then contact Axl and we could consider whether to participate and
asked why he had not mentioned that he was working to a tight deadline when
we had previously spoken. I also made the point that this piece was not
"news" nor was it "fragile" and that surely if his article was to genuinely
be about the "process" then he must speak to someone who was involved. After
much discussion with Mr Leeds it was clear that both the writer and the
Times had it's own agenda and that it was not only not interested in
presenting an accurate view but both he and his editor refused my request
for 24 hours to discuss the situation with Axl despite the fact that the
story was scheduled to run 6 days later! It should also be mentioned that
during our initial conversation the writer was offered the opportunity to
hear the album in the studio when it was finished and talk to people who
were directly involved and declined in favour of the article you have chosen
to run. As one of the few people involved in the making of this album I can
tell your readers the following. W, Axl Rose is not interested in fame,
money, popularity or what the New York Times or any other paper for that
matter might think of him. His only interest is making the best album he is
capable of so that it can have a positive affect 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.
Sincerely,
Merck Mercuriadis
Chief Executive Officer |
|
