Controversial Remarks about UYI 1

I just found this review on cdreviewers.com. It says a few interesting things, some of which seem controversial. But it made me see the album in a different way. What do you think?

Dividing Lines Visible
Appetite for Destruction is one of the greatest rock albums ever produced. No question. But many complain that UYI 1 and 2 betrayed that legacy by exploring new, and unsuccesful, territory - moving away from rock and into operatic excess, glamour, and ego-driven spectacle.

My contention however, is different. UYI betrayed nobody, because it did not indicate a substantial change in GNR's direction. Instead, it separated out their musical trends - unravelling the influences that propelled Appetite to such heights. In other words, it was a step back to GNR roots, rather than a new direction.

Why do I say this? Appetite succeeded because it welded together metal, hard rock, blue-rock, country-rock, punk and pop into one monumental whole. Take a song like 'Paradise City' or 'Mr Brownstone'or even 'Sweet Child' to see this effortless fusion. UYI 1 separated out these influences: the blues-rock of 'Dust N' Bones, the metal of 'Garden of Eden', the hard rock of 'Don't Damn Me', the country of 'You Ain't the First' and the pop of 'November Rain'. UYI 1 is a lesser achievement, because it disentangles the triumph of Appetite - and the band begins to pull in opposite directions. As soon as this record came out, it was obvious GNR would split, because their musical interests are obviously different (Look now at the Axl / Izzy / Slash & Duff divisions which mirror the 'concept' music / blues-based hard rock / metal-besed hard rock of individual projects). That said, UYI 1's still a damn good listen: but it feels torn apart by musical tension, whereas four years earlier, GNR had used those differences to more revolutionary effect.