Michael Bennett wrote:

  Sam --

  This is an interesting piece, but I think in evaluating legacies, you
  look a lot to influence and how Floyd's sound is more "modern" than
  The Beatles.  And in so doing, you certainly make the case more
  compelling than I originally thought.

  But the most significant aspect of The Beatles legacy is the music
  itself.  This is what makes it so staggering -- so many great songs
  that will endure for generations to come.  And it's not that Pink
  Floyd's music won't also live on, but they simply don't have the
  incredible volume of incredible songs.

  There's more to be said about this, but that was my first impression.

No arguing this - The Beatles wrote songs that will endure, hopefully,
for centuries. And no, I don't think PF can even try to compare on the
song front. Part of that is due to the obvious genius of John/Paul's and
sometimes George's songwriting, and another part of it has to do with the
way thing shifted. Once the unit of measurement became the Unified Album,
the emphasis on individual songs decreased. So Floyd has these longer
movements where you might have two or three songs woven together, none of
which is really designed to stand on its own.

So there's kind of an apples and oranges thing at work (although I'm
keenly aware of The Beatles' role in ushering in that very album-centric
world, too - had they stayed together, I imagine their 175 release would
have structurally reminded me more of The Wall than, say, Revolver. I
could be wrong, but it's a fair guess.

Additionally, even if I'm right about the Fabs being more time-bound at
the moment, we might think the same thing of Floyd in ten years. I guess
my argument really isn't about absolutes so much as it about the
relationship of these artists to the present moment, and that moment is
going to change again....

--

_______________________

Sam Smith, PhD

[TABLE NOT SHOWN]