I feel the same way about the article. It's ashame that the article lends so much credibility to the Syd era and absolutely no credibility to anything that came after Syd. I didn't expect the columnist to write a fluff piece on Floyd on one hand but at the same time I don't think it would be all together rational to trash every Floyd effort after Syd. Obviously, everyone has their own taste and the author has a right to believe that the Syd period contained some of the best Floyd music, but he must also come to terms with the fact that Floyd's biggest cultural impact happened with the music they made after Syd. Let's face it, nobody would be talking about Pink Floyd if they stopped making music after Syd. The reason why we talk about Floyd is because of the great albums they made in the 1970's like Meddle, DSOM, WYWH, Animals, and The Wall. While everyone is entitled to have to have their favorite Floyd era, and the colmunist rightly pointed out some of the achievments of the Syd era, he unjustly ignored the creative success that Floyd had in the 70's. He's quick to dismiss Floyd as a bunch of pretentious art rockers, but his own article comes across as a bloated forum for his pretentious ego.

__________________
"You can relax on both sides of the tracks, and maniacs don't blow holes in bandsmen by remote control"
- The Gunner's Dream, Roger Waters