Of course, there would be many clarifications to make, dear Poletti: the live performances of Who and Deep Purple are certainly the best in their genre, but here we are not talking about hard rock, rather a genre specific to those post-Barrett Pink Floyd, masterfully presented in this live show, which, in context, is much more complete not only for the masterful execution and selection of pieces, among the most beautiful in the Floyd repertoire, but above all for the sensations it manages to evoke, also thanks to the recordings, for the sound clarity, also because there is no audience, for the various originalities present (the singing of Madamoiselle Nobs accompanied by the harmonica, the exceedingly perfect combination of music and footage, the location where it took place which has a certain magical quality, the daring and successful experiments of "A saucerful of secrets," the "Celestial Voices" at the end with Gilmour’s dreamlike singing, the innovative use of bass in "One of these days," the structural value and deep meaning of "Careful with that axe, Eugene," the suite "Echoes," tireless and enchanting in its length and the pinnacle of post-Barrett Pink Floyd, the band's cohesion, the way they manage to capture you). All these points are certainly known to you, and I don’t see how you could give a 4 to this masterpiece. You then say that the Pink Floyd reshaped certain musical genres in their own way. And which ones? Syd Barrett took tracks of existing psychedelia (that is, those of the 13th Floor Elevators) and completely shattered them, mixing them with all the ideas that passed through that genius head of his, and turned the music world upside down, with a genre that WAS psychedelia, and not just traces of it like in the 13th Floor Elevators, or the Beatles, or any other Californian or Nepalese group, which instead did, I repeat, not psychedelia, but rock, or blues, or psychedelic folk. Instead, the first album by the Pink Floyd IS psychedelia. This is what they invented, or rather, this is what Barrett invented. And in the three subsequent albums, the Pink Floyd tried to maintain that aspect, and the fact that they were deprived of Barrett’s genius should not at all be used as an indictment against them; that would be silly. It’s just that with Barrett they were at the highest levels, here they are at high levels, undoubtedly superior to Who, Deep Purple, or the Beatles. You are wrong to think they have been mythologized, overrated, and so on, because the value of a band or an album is demonstrated by countless things, one of which, just to give you an example, is the influence they had on hundreds of underground bands in England and Europe in general, bands that unfortunately never had their Dark Side of the Moon to make them “blow up,” or the ever-growing number of fans (and I'm always talking about the very early years) who then as now realized the novelty this group brought to the music scene, as well as their formidable live performances, numerous at the time, which demonstrated the ongoing change in music. Should I also list the thousands of bands that have taken (and often poorly) the lesson of the Pink Floyd? I think you know them; there are really too many. They have undoubtedly been the most influential band ever, precisely because they were the best.
And let's move on to the Beatles: you say, “they were innovative because they practically exported pop to the masses for the first time“… and I respond, “they had the ability and the fortune to export pop to the masses for the first time” because that doesn't seem like an innovation to me. Certainly, in the Beatles' music, there are great things; they also made masterpiece albums, and they were certainly innovative, but not for the reason you mention and anyway less than Barrett. Kudos to the Beatles for having understood how to best exploit (commercially speaking) their undisputed talent.
Then you mention Led Zeppelin: the genius of Led Zeppelin was to bl
