SoulMonster

You think Izzy would say, "split the loot equally," which literally has the specific meaning to divide the profits up in equal parts, as a metaphor for what exactly? That makes a lot of sense to me. And of course, I use "a lot of sense" metaphorically to mean "that's bonkers".

Except that Izzy himself has said it.

I think Axl is pretty happy with Team Brazil, they seem to facilitate everything he wants to do. I don't see them leaving anytime soon unless Fernando needs to go because of the lawsuit.

Because he literally said, "They didn't want to split the loot equally." More here about what Izzy said and reactions: 37. JUNE 2016-MARCH 2017: THE NOT IN THIS LIFETIME TOUR IS A SUCCESS (a-4-d.com)

Because people are interested even when they don't. You mentioned Bon Jovi and this reminded me of a quite from Jon Bon Jovi regarding Axl back in the early 2000s when Axl did nothing at all still was hugely popular: So we can complain however much we want to, whether his strategy is deliberate or not, he has managed to keep GN'R popular and interesting despite doing very little to please the fans. Maybe because he is inaccessible and mysterious.

Here's the entire quote (from Kerrang! in June 1991) So the lyrics seemed to have been done back then, too. Slash and Duff have also said it was written while they were recording Appetite, and that the lyrics were done. More here: (34) You Could Be Mine (a-4-d.com)

It came from Alan Niven, and although he dislikes Axl with a passion he probably wouldn't make up a negative quote from Slash about Axl (only used it for all it's worth). Alan Niven: I mean, there's a curly-head friend of mine who pointed out recently it takes eight of them to keep Axl happy and moving. But I would make the observation that he's just done two years of very substantial touring. So you have to tip your hat to Team Brazil for getting that done. Well done. [Appetite for Distortion, February 4, 2019].

Yeah, Slash apparently said Team Brazil needed 8 guys to keep Axl happy on tour, where's the rest of the team when shits needs to get done?

Maybe that was more inconvenient to them than using both his hands to balance the bags and then Beta using one of her free hands to cover both their heads from the rain? You know, like what normal people would do. I consider myself a strong enough man and I often use both my hands when carrying more than one bag, actually, I almost always use both my hands for that. People complaining about Beta shielding Axl while he carried bags is probably one of the stupidest thing fans have taken issue with here for a long time. Or hey, to be a proper gentleman Axl should carry both the bags himself (of course, a lady shouldn't have to carry stuff, not even umbrellas), lifted his head backward so he looked straight up, opened his mouth wide, and then jammed the umbrella handle down his throat making him into the equivalent of a human parasol. That way Beta wouldn't have to do anything at all. Of course, he would have to use his feet to find his path back home, he couldn't see anything when looking straight up, searching for the pathway and avoiding the trees and grass, because he couldn't dare ask Beta to help him with directions. She is there just for companionship.

Sure, but that would mean she would have to carry the bags. Remember, Axl got his hands full carrying stuff?

Because that's what pedos do? Anyway, on second thoughts I am not comfortable with this, either. In these enlightened times of gender equality I think Axl should have made a progressive statement by insisting that Beta carries all the heavy packages while he walked with umbrella, optionally providing some cover for her.

Relax, people. Both his hands are full carrying stuff. If someone I cared for couldn't hold an umbrella themselves in the rain, I would happily do it for them, too. I highly doubt Beta would be doing that if his hands were available to hold his own umbrella.

Fans are the worst.

What I meant was, the Iranian attack didn't come without provocation. Not that it excuses the Iranian drone/missile attack, at all, but what we are witnessing are two parties both being responsible for gradually escalating a conflict into open warfare. And now Israel is contemplating how to respond, likely in excess and the spiral continues. In short, the leaders of both these countries are making grave errors by escalating. Primitive cavemen.

What about Israel and their attack on the Iranian consulate in Syria which caused Iran to react?

Oh? What did I fail to understand?

It is, if that's what he wants to do Again. what is logical in this context is entirely dependent upon what goal you have in mind. If Axl now decided that the songs would be best if they contained the original musicians, then it would only be logical for him to release them that way. Obviously, for the four songs now released, he decided that Slash should be on them, so what he did was logical (regardless of what people might feel about that decision). But if he now decides that, "Fuck it, I'm gonna release the next singel with Paul Huge playing a solo on kazoo even if it means fans will be angry, I will be ridiculed, and it won't sell at all - but that is what I really, really want because that's how that song is supposed to be heard," then it is completely logical to do it. It won't be the best decision from a fiscal perspective, it won't be the best decision if he wants to make the fanbase happy, it won't be the best decision for his legacy, surely, but if when weighing the pros and cons he still decides that that is what he wants to do, then that action is logical per definition.

I am not talking about any of this at all. You have lost the plot. I am talking about the argument that only one way of going about this is logical, as if it doesn't depend on what the desired outcome is.

Again, what is logical depends on what you want to achieve. You follow this far? If you want to maximize sales, then releasing the music with Slash is logical. Did you get that? All okay to this point? But if you want to keep the music as close to how it was written, then what is logical is to not replace musicians with Slash. So what is logical here really depends on what you want to achieve. Did your brain explode now? Or did you not understand it? What is logical can only be understood in the context of what the end goal is. So when people like @jamillos argue that the only logical thing to do is release music with Slash, that suggests he either doesn't understand this or that he used rhetoric to kind of devalue those who have a different goal than him. Get it?

I will always consider writing new music and lyrics more creative than just releasing a covers album, but hey, you do you.

I haven't twisted anything around. I have been responding EXACTLY to what you wrote, which was that it is "basic logic" to add Slash and that it "makes no sense" to not include him.

What we are talking about here, @Free Bird, is me reacting to @jamillos saying the only logical thing is to include Slash on new music. My argument is that this "logic" is entirely based on what Axl (read "the band", if so you prefer) wants; if Axl wants to maximize sales, then yes it becomes logical to add Slash to the songs; if Axl wants to please the majority of the fan base, then yes it becomes logical to add Slash to the songs; but if Axl wants to have Bucket on these songs, then it is no longer logical to add Slash to them. You see? The "logic" here is based on what the objective is. Whatever leads to the objective is what is logical. It varied depending on objective. But @jamillosdidn't add this qualifier, he presented it as if there was only one logical thing to do, as if it was a case of 2+4=4, and hence, implicitly, anyone who felt otherwise would be illogical. And no, @jamillos, you didn't qualify your original statement to be only about what would be logical to do for the majority of fans, because this is what you wrote: As you see, you said it was "basic logic" to add Slash and that it "makes no sense" to not add Slash. As if it is a universal truth. A fact. Something that goes beyond motives and goals and desires and preferences. But again, that comes from the perspective of someone who wants it that way; to everyone who doesn't want it that way it ceases to be "logical". Lovely. Please point out to me precisely where I used a logical fallacy. Oooh, I can't wait

I have to disagree with the idea that there is some egalitarian situation between the trio, but for the sake of the argument just replace "Axl" with "the partnership" then. My argument isn't affected by this, it still comes down to what they, together, agree on, which is dictated by their preferences. Their decision to add Slash to the songs wasn't determined by some outside logic that could have squashed their own preferences, it was 100% aligned with what they, as a trio, wanted to do.

No, it is only logical IF Axl wants new music to feature Slash. There is no objective logic here. It all comes down to what the Axl wants. If he wanted the songs to feature Buckethead then it would be logical for him to release them with Buckethead. If he wanted to maximize sales revenues, then it is logical to replace Bucket with Slash. If he wanted to keep the songs with the original musicians, then it is logical to not redo them. If he wanted to please the majority of the fanbase, then it is logical to add Slash to the songs. See, the "logic" here is tied to preferences. This is not mathematics where the truth is objective. It all comes down to what Axl wants.

Your argument is that it is some logical that transcends personal preferences and dictates that Slash should be added to these songs. My argument is that you are blatantly wrong.