Rock & Roll: What matters? Influence or Popularity.

What's more important to rock & roll? Influence or Popularity. 

In the grand scheme of music history, there's artists who changed the trajectory of rock & roll by inspiring young kids to pick up instruments writing their own material while also developing sounds, elements & methods that didn't exist before. Not to mention breaking new grounds that would transcend revolutionary movements throughout mankind. That right there is truly a definition of immortals, icons & legends.

Then there's other artists who didn't do anything important as they did the complete opposite of what I've pointed out before. Sure they have large sales, countless hit records & large fanbases however that's not what it takes to be a part of the category especially when you're trying to left a stoner mark on the landscape. Plus lots of historians, experts & industry professionals have more experience in the whole development of which certain acts truly defined R&R whereas the fans only like what they like.

For example, take artists including Styx, REO Speedwagon, Meat Loaf, Ted Nugent, Celine Dion, The Osmonds, Backstreet Boys etc out from R&R history and it won't make a difference. Do the same thing for Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, David Bowie, The VU, Ramones, The Clash, Black Sabbath, Bruce Springsteen, Joni Mitchell, Neil Young, Sly Stone, George Clinton, Prince, Michael Jackson, Madonna, U2, R.E.M, Nirvana, Radiohead among others yet everything changes. 

The point is those who made the term an artform are leaders who definitely made a significance in the business altogether while others who didn't are only followers who are remembered for the limited time. Not saying they suck & aren't good, just never have done anything remarkable for the industry. 

You can easily tell a story of rock & roll by not mentioning the followers, although not leaders. 

So what's your take on this matter.