Hmmmm.... seems to me that The Smiths were probably the most influential band as far people who were not influenced more by other bands are concerned. The question remains, of course: what of Smiths fans who are 50+? Is one expected to ignore the subconscious effects that music pre- 1952 might have had upon their yet to be defined sense of taste and behavioural patterns? I'm sure NME is actively concerned with this conundrum and other related burning issues. (hmmm.... burning issues..... NME... There's a thought)

First and foremost the beatles followed by a flock of sheep bands.

I really think as far as the whole thing goes the smiths didn't influence a whole lot maybe there is some obvious groups out there but I'd think as regards pop people like Ray Davies of the kinks would be a very good candidate if you look at what was put out from the 60's right up to the 80's brian wilson would also have his had in a large percentage of the credit and of course ELVIS the KING. Even though he didn't write all his stuff, I wonder who Morrisey was influenced by the most. bab.

i have always believed that to say one band is more influential than another is a futile exercise, case in point oasis wwere the biggest band in the world in the early nineties selling millions of albums but they could hardly be described as influential, afterall pub bands have been around for years and now that the gallachers realise what they are they might get back to their form of the early nineties. I believe that what makes a band influential is its ability to inspire people to make music of their own, the Velvet Underground are a good example of this, when they were together they never got the credit they deserved but of those that did here them and buy there albums a large percentage of them started there own bands which in my book indicates that they were an inspirational group. However i would have to go along with markyedison and say that the Beatles are probably the most influential band, sergeant peppers broke the mould when it comes to making music and it stands the test of time as a land mark album, it raised the bar and forced others to try and match them, the stones responded with the majestic satanic sultans a great album but not held in the same esteem because it was a reaction. Music is above all else a rich tapestry wwith the power to greatly effect man and mind, it can be revolutionary it can change peoples lives and whats more it can be truely beautiful. Music is about more than just the songs, but the songs are more important than the band, a great band shouldnt never have to say anything, everything they want to say should be within the melody and the lyrics, every line of every song means something to someone somewhere.

Well you really need to be asking musicians themselves for the answer to this question. A lot of people come onto these websites and bash The Smiths because of a public poll done by NME, but wait a second, you don't have a clue who every single person is that is influenced by The Smiths and that is influenced be The Beatles. Just because you your self are told that The Beatles are "the most influential" artists of all time doesn't mean it's true. I bet half the people commenting can't even strum a chord. Some people seem to not really know what influence is. Yes, Chuck Berry influenced The Rolling Stones and The Beatles, The Beatles went on to influence The Smiths (to some extent), it doesn't mean that Chuck Berry influenced The Smiths. Morrissey and Marr might throw up everytime they hear Chuck Berry's stuff. Being the first artists doesn't mean they are the best artists. Technically, you could say that the guy who invented the recording studio is or the radio is the most influential "recording artist" of all time because without him there'd be no Beatles or Smiths or anyone. But you don't do you because that would be boring. Being 16, I don't know anyone who is into The Beatles. I don't know anyone who isn't into AC/DC. In 20 years there'll be no people claiming The Beatles as an influence to them but there'll be a shitload more AC/DC fans I gaurantee. I hate these people who dis The Smiths as a band for "suicidal queers" or "loners". Yeah, it may be true but there are a shitload of Smiths fans that are not suicidal or gay. Me being one. The reason I love The Smiths is because of the melodies and Morrissey's insanely real life depicting lyrical talent. I never get sick of their songs. I doubt there are any dejected youths that listen to Ob La Di, Ob La Da and think, "Oh! John Lennon and Paul McCartney are my spokepeople!". Besides, maybe people are getting sick of The Beatles, I'm pretty damn sure that NME has a different readers age group than The Guardian. Therefore more Smiths fans will be reading it, not 60+ year old Beatles fans.

Holy thread resurrection batman!:D

That was from The NME in 2002, I wonder who they'd vote for now?

Probably Oasis, which surely is some kind of felony.

Who are the Smiths ?