Musically and intellectually it surpasses mostly all past material, save for a small handful of tunes.
But, headbangers wanting nothing but hard rock with testosterone-driven lyrics written by guys in their late teens or early twenties would probably beg to differ.
Please explain.
Just by doing ballads and adding string sections to every song doesn't (imo) mean it's somehow more "intelligently" build than some more up-tempo song.
Somehow people seem to think that all songs on CD have a very complex song structure when they just a have a ton of instruments layered beneath each other.
No, im not saying some of the songs on CD are not "complex", but some seem to think theyre build somehow superior to everything previously released. Trolls don't bother please.
Lyrically - I feel CD is superior to a lot of past Guns material. I like the older, more mature Axl over the younger version. The words and the structure for which they're written are more intelligent than alot of 1.0 era stuff.
Musically - it's artistic, adventurous, and thought-provoking. Not as to say Appetite and the Illusions aren't, but CD so much moreso (for me).
But, it all boils down to preference. Personally, I would've liked to have seen more rockers on CD than what we were given. One thing that definitely hurt the album in the eyes of old school gunners is it being too ballad-heavy. It's magnificently written in many areas, but it isn't near as fun to listen to as Appetite or the Illusions for many of them.
Author