I always say that if you want to be a great writer, you must FIRST be a great reader.
I think being influenced by other author's styles is a GOOD thing. It adds a new flavor to your OWN style and might actually bring something to what you are writing that people can recognize and associate with when you are first getting started.
Well, it can be a good thing. There are times however when it's not, when what you're possibly doing is not influence but more along the lines of outright mimicry.
Writing should be original. All of us carry little bits and flecks and pieces of those writers we admire, but the books that sell and stay with readers are those that are truly genuine.
But I don't espouse stopping reading altogether while you're writing. I think it's important to read daily -- however the writers with particularly aggressive styles are tricky. I'm thinking of people like Chabon or McCarthy or DeLillo or Faulkner -- when I read those authors when I'm writing, the finished product might as well be a carbon copy of the greats. That's never a good thing, and so I generally stay with the light stuff when I'm working. "Big" thrillers are good because they usually have a generic, everymannish style.
Another thing.
Whatever I do poorly (character building, scene transitions), I try to find in novels during writing months. In this case maybe I am aping, but it's important to me to see how others do it so that I can possibly implement it myself. I like Lee Child, for instance, so when I'm struggling with a description (Child is a very good describer of mundane stuff), I crack open a Child and get a feel for what he's doing. The trick there is catching the markings of Child in the revision stage and finding a way to bend that stuff into my own voice. I want the back of the book to say "Readers of Lee Child will enjoy," not, "Lee Child does this kind of thing so much better!"