In reply to:
but stereo music is not meant to be surround. When was the last time you went to a concert of any type of music and the group was all around you?
BTW stereophonic comes from a Greek word meaning "solid sound", not "two channels".
Even the early Bell Labs sound reproduction experiments showed a need for three or more channels. Using two channels was a compromise based on available 1940's technology. They wanted to use three or more channels even back then, since tests showed it provided superior fidelity.
The goal of music reproduction isn't necessarily to mimic a live performance -- it's to improve upon that. Most live performances aren't acoustically as good as a two-channel stereo studio album reproduced on good quality equipment. Even using just two channels, the studio engineering tricks have already diverged from live sound, and usually in a better way. Surround is merely another step along that path.
Just putting "the band in front" isn't necessarily the most optimal listening experience. Sometimes it's better to be up on the stage with the band. That's not possible live, but with reproduced surround music it is.
Who's to say that's not better, at least for certain music types? If the artist and recording engineer mix for surround, they clearly intend this style of listening. Let's see -- the artist mixes for surround, and I want to hear surround. It seems like the only two parties with any voice in the matter have already decided.
Regarding Pink Floyd, ironic this was mentioned since they pioneered quad on Dark Side of the Moon back in 1973. The clock montage leading into "Time" was conceived by recording engineer Alan Parsons specificially to demonstrate quadrophonic sound. That said, by some accounts the band was initially against the quad re-mix, so it was controversial even back then.
What's not controversial is the stunning impact of well mixed albums like DSOM in 5.1 surround. It's just amazing.
http://www.axiomaudio.com/archives/stereo.html 
