Country- Don't Pass Me By"
Folk- various songs
Blues- "Yer Blues" "Why Don't We Do it On the Road"
Reggae- "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da"
1920's jazz- "Honey Pie"
Baroque- "Martha My Dear", "Piggies
Avant- "Wild Honey Pie", "Revolution#9'
Musique Concrete- "Revolution#9"
Protest- "Blackbird", The two "Revolution" tracks
Rock and Roll- various
Surf-Rock- "Back in the U.S.S.R"
Early Heavy Metal- "Helter Skelter"
Psychedelia- "Cry Baby Cry"
Indian- "Dear Prudence"
Progressive Rock- "Happiness is a Warm Gun"
As for Protest, I don't really think that can be categorized as a genre of music. It's a lyrical theme. For social commentary sort of lyrics that constitute protest songs, Elvis Presley's "In the Ghetto" sure qualifies.
The fact is, Elvis Presley did do the major fields noted here - country we've covered in depth, folk, blues, pop, protest, rock 'n' roll, Hollywood (I assume that to mean a particular type of pop). He also did them more often and with an authenticity for the genre from which it came. The other areas musicfan mentions are, for the most part, subgenres of rock, such as metal or progressive or pyschedlia (Cry, Baby, Cry is not the best choice though for the song), or pre-rock pop styles. Not that the Beatles shouldn't get credit for doing them and doing them well, they should and do, but rather the comparison here is in how to define diversity.
So again, look at the MAJOR genres of music. I brought up gospel and musicfan brought up pyschedelic rock. They're not exactly on the same playing field. Gospel is an entire genre of music unto itself that has been around the entire century, whereas pyschedelic rock lasted about two and a half years before becoming passe. It was cool while it lasted, had influence on things that came later, but is hardly comparable in terms of exhibiting diversity, simply because (FOLLOW THIS CLOSELY) pyschedelic rock is part of ROCK. Gospel is an entirely different field separate from rock. So doing something that is a niche style within rock, the Beatles own primary style, which Presley certainly did all throughout his career as well, versus being a rock artist who prominently records pure gospel and has hits with it, makes the Gospel Music HOF, is kind of a bigger deal. They're two totally seperate fields of music. The PURE country songs that the Beatles cut basically amounts to Act Naturally, a Buck Owens hit. Yeah, there was country influences in a lot of their stuff, Ringo in particular liked country music, and country styles can be found in various Beatles songs, no question. But Presley had 11 #1 C&W hits, meaning they appealed to COUNTRY audiences en masse. He recorded entire country albums. He made the C&W HOF, meaning they've determined his impact within that field alone, irrespective of rock, to be worthy of enshrinement. That's a huge difference and the failure to understand this is what is leading to this impasse. He did BLUES songs, not blues pastiches, but actual 100% blues compositions. The King Creole soundtrack was heavy with Dixieland. Bringing up the Abbey Road medley in a previous post... what about An American Trilogy? It goes on.
One of the most famous quotes attributed to Presley was the first public utterance that anyone thought to remember, when he entered the Sun Studios the first time and was asked what kind of music he sang by Marion Keisker, the secretary, and he replied, "I sing all kinds". She followed up by asking him who he sounded like and he answered, "I don't sound like nobody". Those are probably the most prescient words in rock history. He sang every kind of music and sounded like himself.
But this whole discourse is ridiculous. I brought up this brief aside to show the different types of artists the Beatles and Presley were and it becomes a grudge match. The original points were twofold - I stated the Beatles Musical Influence was unquestionably greater, and stated why Presley's cultural influence was unquestionably greater. That's it. This conversation has nothing to do with either and is what happens when people argue music rather than discuss it. Musicfan takes exception to something I stated and then tries to "prove" me wrong, and essentially - as evidenced with lines like "In my opinion I think the Beatles version of Words Of Love is actually beautiful compared to Buddy Holly" - tries to defend his tastes, which isn't at all necessary to do. I never disparaged his tastes and by reacting as though I did this whole thing slides into a back and forth battle.
That's why I always try and tell people, argue against the artists you like best and argue for the artists you don't personally listen to and in time you'll wind up making better cases and it'll probably be a lot more interesting. Tastes in arguments leads to hate for those arguing an opposing viewpoint as well as hate for the artist on the other side of that argument and neither of those is very constructive.