What is it that you really understand? If songwriting is a small point then this criteria is flawed. The song is the most important aspect of music without it there is nothing to sing or play.
No-one's arguing that the song isn't the most important part. It's you arguing that writing songs is the most important.
If you are going say Elvis played on some of his song and that makes him comparable musicians than McCartney or Harrison then you're clueless. The last time I checked playing an instrument is performance.
I never claimed Elvis to be particularly impressive as a musician, nor did I compare him to McCartney or Harrison. Once again, you read the things people write and twist them so it looks like an attack on the Beatles, then you make up your own strawman arguments.
What three songs out over 200 the Beatles didn't play on a record because they wanted the arrangement of just vocal/strings "She's Leaving Home"/ "Eleanor Rigby" and the "Inner Light" vocals and complete Indian backing which honestly is going way outside the normal pop conventions.
Even if there were only 3 songs, according to your logic, they should be penalised for that. You have no trouble pointing out stuff that other artists did or didn't do, but when it comes to the Beatles doing/not doing the exact same thing, you try and act as if they don't deserve to be penalised.
As for Time Magazine they choose 20 musicians and the one they choose for rock was the Beatles. So what and what is new about that. If you disagree with the choice that's fine.
A 'most influential artists/people' list with Bob Dylan and Aretha Franklin but no Elvis Presley is laughable.
The list of the top 20 Artists and Entertainers, in particular, was criticized for not including Elvis Presley, a decision Handy initially defended in the following way:
"One of the most important, innovative things about rock is the whole notion of songwriters singing their own works, of the immediacy of expression. Since Elvis didn't write his own material, unlike The Beatles or Bob Dylan or Robert Johnson, who's also someone who could have been included, maybe that cut against him … I think the Beatles pushed the envelope a lot further. Elvis' most original recordings were his first. The Beatles started out as imitators, and then continued to grow throughout their years together".
What a load of shit. So the only thing he didn't include Elvis for was not writing his own material? Sounds a lot like you.