All it means is that The Beatles created more music that did enough things different but still appealed to a wide audience than any one else. The fact that they were able to incorporate such things and reach out to SO many people is why they are clearly the most influential.

As I say, my opinion is that the only pertinent question is that of direct influence, that is to say, that there should be a genuine causal link between one band's influence and another band's music. This is because it would be possible to say, 'if band X did not exist, then the music of band Y would have been substantially different'.

If The Beatles were wiped out of history, I think it stands beyond any reasonable doubt that the history of rock music would have been substantially different - and this is due to the direct influence they had upon so many acts. Sure, you're right that they may have simply taken ideas from the underground and even the avant-garde and gave those ideas a popular audience, but it's presenting to a popular audience that constitutes being influential.

Take the analogy of academia: many eminent scholars merely rip-off ideas from their students! But when those ideas become popularized, surely it would be ridiculous to attribute the influence to the unknown students who originally conceived of them. The influential one is the one who makes them well known. It's an elementary matter.

I must say that is an excellent analogy.

Wheres Tom Waits?

Jimmay!

Even if a musician hates The Beatles, they're still influencing him to not be like them.

But you can swap The Beatles out for any band/artist using that logic.

Everybody's inspired by William Hung then! Hooray!

I want this thread to die sooooo bad.

Yes according to Rubber's theory. According to that, as long as you've heard of the artist, they are influencing you.