[FullRangeMan]

It could be argued that the Beatle's "Helter Skelter" had some influence on the bands & songs you describe.  It certainly was one of the earliest mass releases to explore those themes.  And as a fan of the music you mention, I can say that this is not the reason for changing affinity for the Beatles over time.  I think it's more the usual shift in tastes that occur over time + sometimes tiring of things that are overplayed.  I think even the Beatles would agree with that seeing how their music changed over time.

The bass line and the performance of Come Together are impressive to me even today.
What have changed was the audience, his starting point or zero point in music was other very different from the Beatles generation.

The release of a new Beatles album was a transcendental moment in the international musical media because the musical innovation that album brought was very important and very new.
All the other bands were below the Beatles in innovation and research, except Pink Floyd and some Kraut Rock bands.

[NIGHTFALL1970]

The current rock audience was educated listening punk rock, hardcore, heavy metal and others satanic styles.
So this kind of people never will like Beatles and far less PF.
Due this low grade audience the Rock will decrease in musical quality, it will be just tribal music for gangs.

I love them but I don't think they are underrated.
I don't agree with your quote at all.  I am 43 and have listened to hard rock (now called classic rock) and heavy metal most of my life and I love the Beatles and Pink Floyd.  Are people only supposed to have one mood?
When I feel like listening to Metallica, I do.  When I feel like listening to Hall & Oates I do.  I don't understand what the problem is.

[FullRangeMan]

I love them but I don't think they are underrated.
I don't agree with your quote at all.  I am 43 and have listened to hard rock (now called classic rock) and heavy metal most of my life and I love the Beatles and Pink Floyd.  Are people only supposed to have one mood?
When I feel like listening to Metallica, I do.  When I feel like listening to Hall & Oates I do.  I don't understand what the problem is.

I will agree, the Beatles fame are deserved.
Maybe the new audiences are failing to recognize the value of Beatles music, it will increase with time.

[Pete Schumacher]

Those guys were the king of a singable melody, with songs that got stuck in your head whether you liked it or not.  So many songs were simply great, regardless the time.

Revolution!  What a great hard hitting heavy rock song. 

Taxman.  Talk about speaking truth to this day. 

While My Guitar Gently Weeps.  Something.  Get Back.  Back in the USSR.  Fixing a Hole. 

As others have mentioned, many albums are like other bands greatest hits.  It's simply one great song after another.

I love queuing up a few tracks every now and again.

[Phil A]

They were pioneers for a lot of things.  Below are a few interesting sites:

http://listverse.com/2012/10/11/10-beatles-innovations-that-changed-music/
http://bobbyowsinski.blogspot.com/2009/09/5-recording-innovations-by-beatles.html
http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/ProductSpotlight/GearAndInstruments/legendary-guitar-george-413/

[Phil A]

While My Guitar Gently Weeps.

That was another pioneering effort, bring in a studio musician - Eric Clapton

[FullRangeMan]

That was another pioneering effort, bring in a studio musician - Eric Clapton

According Jeff Lynne, ELO born because of the orchestral arrangements of a Beatles album.

[vinyl_guy]

I'm 65 and I remember exactly where I was when I first heard I want to hold your hand. I can't think of another group that has had as big of an influence on the course and direction of music during my lifetime. Sgt Peppers may be the most influential album ever recorded. The Lennon-McCartney song writing has stood the test of time.

I never get tired of listening to the Beatles. My kids are 39, 35 & 30 and are huge fans of the Beatles too. Their popularity spans generations. IMO, they are one of the greatest bands of all time and the most influential.

You may not like the band or their music, but I don't think their influence can be denied.

Laura

[North Star]

Great post, just above, from Laura! 

Bob

P.S. My first ever Beatles' album was Revolver.

[doorman]

Maybe it's a '60's thing. (60's then, 60's now !!)
Their music certainly spoke to my generation.
Like 'em or no, their influence is hard to overestimate.
Don

[firedog]

I think the poll is sort of odd: what does love 'em - underrated really mean?

People that love them are unlikely to see them as underrated. Pretty much the only people who underrate them are those that don't like them.

As far as younger people, I'm around young people from all over the world. Lots of them have Beatles songs on their iPods, and lots of them know the lyrics by heart. Obviously it doesn't mean the same thing to them it meant to the baby boomers, but they still like the music. So I don't think the music is going away anytime soon.

Why can't one like the Stones and the Beatles? Never understood that one.

Certainly they were very influential, as songwriters, arrangers/producers, and as musicians. Lots of later musicians talk about the how the Beatles' playing influenced them. Rap artists also have given them credit as an influence.

[Russell Dawkins]

They were incredibly popular over the globe and I do really enjoy some of their music.  But great?  That would take musicians, not pop icons.

Oh, Really? I've never heard the Beatles put down as non-musicians before. Are you a musician?

[Russell Dawkins]

But they couldn't hold a candle to dozens of other bands when it came to musicianship or impact upon future musicians, bands, and songwriters.

Could you name one of these dozens of bands which had more impact than the Beatles upon future musicians, bands, and songwriters, and more musicianship, for that matter?

[Photon46]

It's easy to look in the rear view mirror and think one's particular current vantage point affords an elevated perspective on the contributions of past artists and epochs. It's more difficult to try and understand the cultural and artistic milieu at the time artists evolved and worked. If you a 60 something boomer, it's easy to appreciate the social climate of the times and why the Beatles were so important. Those who are younger are going to have a different perspective with a lot of more diverse musical influences influencing their ideas of importance. My Mom was a classical musician of extreme preference for Romantic era artists. She never could appreciate Mozart and Haydn, thought their musical idioms were too formal and emotionally constrained.

As to the comment about the Beatles lacking "musicianship," I suppose that means they aren't thought of as being from the virtuoso school of instrumental masters. Well, that category of popular musician didn't even exist at that time in history. Paganini couldn't have existed until music was evolved enough to allow for his type of expression and the same thing is true for the Beatles. Listen to what Jeff Beck, Jimmy Page, and Eric Clapton were playing during the first half of the Beatles existence as a band, they weren't known as soloist virtuosos in 1964. The evolution of the Rock Virtuoso happened fast but it didn't happen before the groundwork of Rock songwriting that focused on melody and beat had been laid down. I'd say from 1966-68 the idea of the virtuoso evolved and that couldn't have happened in 1950-1962. The Beatles were a tight and professional band whose musical chops well served what they were good at: the craft of songwriting. Dismissing George Harrison as an artist because he didn't play like Clapton is missing the point, it's a little like saying a left guard is a lesser contributor to the team than a running back because he isn't a flashy an athlete. 

[firedog]

Oh, Really? I've never heard the Beatles put down as non-musicians before. Are you a musician?

Sure, it happens all the time, especially among Jazz fans, who say the Beatles didn't have the technical skill/high level of technique that Jazz musicians have. There is some merit to this point, as virtuoso playing has long been part of the Jazz milieu.

Certainly in McCartney's case as an electric bassist this is a debatable claim.

But the question is, "does it matter?"

As far as the others, certainly George had innovations in the use of feedback and use of an electric 12 string. The group was also influential in studio techniques (also a part of music making) which is using the studio environment as an instrument. For all the people who like to put down Ringo as a drummer, just read interviews with drummers who came after him and how many of them say they admired/copied aspects of his drumming. Same goes for McCartney and his bass. I think the Beatles remasters in 2009 are also helping Ringo's reputation as a drummer, as finally you can actually hear what he was playing, which wasn't always possible before.

And above the question of technique, if the Beatles were so lacking as musicians, I don't think artists of all types would be covering their songs.

[Freo-1]

The poll answers are incomplete.  They were VERY influential, but they were not underrated, either.  They have been rightly recognized as one of the most influential popular musical acts of recorded history. 
 
What is missing is just how good they were as songwriters, and their ability to connect with people as a result.  Trying to grade them from a technical ability regarding playing instruments completely misses the point of their value and influence. 

[Phil A]

I'm not sure why anyone feels they are poor musicians either.  When rock guitarists get mentioned, George Harrison usually comes in the top 25 and Paul McCartney gets at least as much on the top bass players.  George also helped bring the Sitar in pop music and was one of the first to bring a moog synthesizer into the studio.  McCartney played everything on his first solo album, not to mention guest appearances playing bass and drums too such as - http://www.allmusic.com/album/brave-new-world-mw0000198787   Obviously, if someone did not grow up in the 60s, they may have a different prospective (could be the drugs back then though - but there will be a natural tendency to favor things one grew up with).  The same happens when people talk about the best basketball players too.  Less modern ones tend to get overlooked.  Good musicians, no matter what the genre of music tend to hang together.  On George Harrison's Live in Japan he has Clapton on guitar and Nathan East on bass.

[Ericus Rex]

Threads like this sure are entertaining!

I agree with the others that you have to put the Beatles into context.  There is a lot of great music now that competes with the Beatles' music but back then?  Not a whole lot has stood the test of time.

As for the musicianship issue, I've seen Sir Paul live and he is a great musician...but an even better songwriter.  The same should be said about Lennon and Harrison (in the later years).  Are they jazz-level musicians?  No.  But I also can't think of any other great pop songwriters who would be called great jazz musicians.

Me personally, I'd rather listen to a band of great songwriters of modest musicianship (Beatles) than a band of great musicians with lesser songwriting skills (Phish - sorry fans...).

[Mudslide]

Me personally, I'd rather listen to a band of great songwriters of modest musicianship (Beatles) than a band of great musicians with lesser songwriting skills (Phish - sorry fans...).

Yeah, yeah, yeah......     

[Freo-1]

Fair enough.  Still very much enjoy Eric Clapton, Ginger Baker, and Jack Bruce covering other's blues standards, though.