>I know it's probably not what you meant but 'style' in the
>above sentence means more than you put on it. I'm not talking
>style I'm talking technique influence. Musical talent, not
>type of stardom. I could care less about the stardom level of
>either artist.

Jimi influenced more people because more people cared about the music he made. Fourteen-year-old kids listened to his records and went on to carry his influence into the next generation of music. My point isn't that Jimi was more famous, but rather his widespread appeal is indicitive of the great number of people that cared about his music. Not that many people care about Dilla, even those who have heard of him. A select group of fanatics do, but most people don't.


>Again I'm not using popularity to validate my claim. And
>popularity is the worst argument against a comparison of
>musical impact.

Just so we're clear, no it's really not. You can't make musical impact if no one ever heard of you. The more people hear you the more of an impact you can make. You can make an impact with a small amount of the *right* people hearing you, theoretically, but popularity is generally correlated with impact. And I wasn't using popularity to invalidate your claim, but rather the fact that nobody really cared.

>I'm talking strictly on musical merits and
>how the musical influence dispersed. Care to counter that?

Yes. You are at least a little fanatic in how you imagine these influences to reveal themselves. You see them everywhere and the reason is obvious; it's because you really want to.