So you couldn't name more than 3 Stones tunes, you've heard Beatles tunes but it doesn't sound like you pay them much mind, yet you are willing to claim that neither are substantively influential enough to have shaped current music. Meaning that without them, what is happening would still be happening, is this right? Isn't that a bit like me saying I don't really listen to Miles Davis but contemporary Jazz would still be the same without him?
Right, and yes, and no. Mostly hyperbole for the sake of argument, and an utter lack of respect for the canon. I'm just saying there's a difference between referential influence (which bores me) and more fundamental influence. Both Beatles and Stones laid foundation for the machinery of music making, sure, but do they have anywhere near the lasting impact on Important Music for which they're credited? I doubt this.