A dozen songs is quite a few. And they definitely weren't mediocre before Rubber Soul. I'm willing to argue this quite a bit.

But had Rubber Soul and what came after never happened, if they hadn't had that radical change and had kept the same pre-Rubber Soul style, they'd be only a minor fraction of what they are now...people would remember them as a very popular band with lots of hits, some good/great songs...and that's it. Fact is, post-Rubber Soul comes pretty much 90% of what The Beatles did to influence music. Maybe mediocre is too harsh, but it's not hard to see the pre-Rubber Soul era as average, or somewhat forgettable

Well, it's down to the opinion of the individual at the end of the day I guess.

But I would say that the Beatles were a considerably stronger band from 1965 onwards, I would say it is the time period that defined them best.

When you hear people discussing albums that shaped music, you always hear Beatles albums from this period. Revolver, Sgt Pepper, White album, Rubber soul, Abbey road. I rarely hear albums like please please me and A hard days night feature in these lists.

I understand that these lists are subjective, but allow me to use a few examples...

Guardian top 100 albums (source) - #2 Revolver, #9 white album, #19 Sgt Pepper, #22 Abbey road, #84 '62-'66 compilation (in a way this kind of proves my point)

www.100greatestalbums.com (an popular online poll for greatest albums) (source) - #1 Revolver, #4 Sgt Pepper, #5 white album, #6 Abbey road, #16 Rubber soul

Time top 100 albums (not numbered) (source) - Abbey road, White album, Sgt Pepper, Revolver, Rubber soul

Rolling Stone top 500 albums (Only first 100 here) (source) - #1 Sgt Pepper, #3 Revolver, #5 Rubber sole, #10 white album, #14 Abbey road, #39 Please please me, #59 Meet the Beatles

Q top 100 albums (source) - #2 Revolver, #7 Sgt Pepper, #12 Abbey road, #17 White album, #40 Rubber soul

Most lists and articles on the subject of greatest/most influential albums ever commonly cite the latter Beatles albums ('65 onwards) far more frequently than the earlier albums. I think this shows that it s generally accepted the latter era of the Beatles is the period that defined them as a band.

-edit-

Perhaps saying mediocre is a bit strong, they were good. Maybe what I meant is mediocre relative to their later career.

Yeah, I dont think they are the best band ever, but I do think they are the most influential.

Yes, but there's a difference between not being as good and being mediocre. The Beatles were hardly mediocre before Rubber Soul. That is, unless you consider songs like Yesterday, Help!, If I Fell, and I Saw Her Standing There average or mediocre. Sure, they wouldn't be as well remember without their career from Rubber Soul onwards. That's a given. But you also have to remember that The Beatles were insanely successful well before they stopped touring. Elvis didn't do much to innovate music (IN MY OPINION, AT LEAST!), and he is viewed as a cultural icon. Pre-Rubber Soul wasn't as great, sure, but it's was hardly forgettable or average.

And now for Highwaystar...

Yes, obviously. I was never arguing that 1965 forward wasn't considerably better.

ARGH!!!!!!!!!

Nobody ever listens. You argue albums, but you forget to argue songs. There's no question that Beatles songs like Can't Buy Me Love, Yesterday, Hard Day's Night, and other early songs are still among their classics. Sure, their later albums are much better and much more influential, but the early Beatles weren't forgettable or mediocre or even average. Maybe you just shouldn't have used such a poorly chosen word in the first place (I dunno). 

And top lists mean nothing, ESPECIALLY BY ROLLING STONE. That is, unless you believe that Aretha Franklin is the greatest singer ever, and Frank Sinatra and Luciano Pavarotti aren't even in the Top 100. Opinion pieces on music mean very little to me. 

Cough someone is forcing THERE OPINION ON SOMEONE ELSE

Who is forcing their opinion on anyone?

You are

I do not like the Beatles.