Pink Floyd's classic albums post-Dark Side were pretty much bashed by Rolling Stone in the 1970s. Some reviewer called Wish You Were Here a waste and Animals a self indulgent exercise. Ironically, MTV News man and former Rolling Stone reviewer and Floyd fan Kurt Loder gave The Wall and The Final Cut each 4 and a half and 5 stars respectively. Loder also gave David Gilmour's About Face a 3 and Roger Waters' Pros and Cons a 1 and a half or 2. He's also interviewed David Gilmour loads of times during the Waters/Gilmour feud where Waters refused. David Fricke covered the Gilmour/Waters feud in the 1987 RS Pink Floyd cover story where the band(thankfully) opted not to use their face on the cover but a new photo of Gilmour, drummer Nick Mason and keyboardist Rick Wright was used and a separate new shot of Waters was taken. However with the exceptions of Loder, Fricke and Anthony DeCurtis(whom admits to being a PF fan), many other Rolling Stone reviewers have bashed Pink Floyd over the years for no reason(less than favorable reviews for Momentary Lapse, Delicate Sound, The Division Bell and Pulse which were all commercial successes if not critical). The same reviewers who praised The Eagles bash not only Queen but Pink Floyd as well. Doug Polk gave The Wall Live two stars yet the same mag gave Britney's albums 3 and a half or 4 stars, what a crock! Pink Floyd have stated if the press hate us we refuse to talk unless you are on good side.
I've kind of given up on all these magazines. I love Pink Floyd and I love Queen and I hate that they've both been snubbed by the press, but to me, all that matters is the music. There's always some person out there that's going to hate the things that are most important to you and it's so much easier just to realize that no one's ever going to agree - especially not on music. But it's definitely obvious we've all got much better taste than Rolling Stone's employees - Britney Spears' album getting more stars than Pink Floyd? Seriously, there's not much hope for music!