Something else.

[Bryan91]

People here keep talking about the direct influence the Beatles had on specific musicians but forget to take in the indirect butterflies that would take place as well, this why that Yesterday movie sucked.

With no British Invasion the lives of a lot of British musicians is changed big time, for example the Yardbirds might not get a recording contract, they then don't record the single "A Heart full of Soul" Eric Clapton doesn't quit the band in protest and he and the rest of the band may not ever be heard of by anyone outside of London.

Jimmy Page may never get studio work and might not ever meet John Paul Jones or Robert Plant and John Bonham.
Ozzy Osborne never asks his dad to buy him a P.A. system and Terry (Geezer) Butler never trades in a train ticket to a monastery to become a Lay Brother and instead goes and buys his first bass guitar after a friend loaned him his copy of Sgt. Peppers.

A lot of other butterflies could cause huge changes in the lives of not just musicians but people who became agents for rock bands, studio technicians and other careers which may not be music related but still had an effect on people who were in the music business.

Also the Beatles influence on musicians does not end in 66, bands like Pink Floyd and Queen were heavily influenced by the Beatles later work and there's all the studio technicians and record producers who were influenced by George Martin, Geoff Emerick and their work with the Beatles.

I do think bands like the Doors might not be affected by no British Invasion so psychedelic music might still be big and the Doors themselves might be bigger but they also could be butterflied by ways I can't imagine.

I think Punk rock might still happen especially after a decade of mostly folk-rock music and Punk might be this alternate timeline's British Invasion.

I don't think Zeppelin were influence by The beatles. I also think that The yardbirds would had gotten a record deal if The beatles never existed. I mentioned that British rock groups would had found success in the UK but not really in the US. I think that by the late 60s, a few British rock bands can have a few successes in the US. Nothing like the beatles of course but could they have a few top 40 hits? Its possible.

I mention that Cream could have a top ten hit in america around 1968 without the beatles but could they be superstars? Most likely not.

 

[Bryan91]

People here keep talking about the direct influence the Beatles had on specific musicians but forget to take in the indirect butterflies that would take place as well, this why that Yesterday movie sucked.

With no British Invasion the lives of a lot of British musicians is changed big time, for example the Yardbirds might not get a recording contract, they then don't record the single "A Heart full of Soul" Eric Clapton doesn't quit the band in protest and he and the rest of the band may not ever be heard of by anyone outside of London.

Jimmy Page may never get studio work and might not ever meet John Paul Jones or Robert Plant and John Bonham.
Ozzy Osborne never asks his dad to buy him a P.A. system and Terry (Geezer) Butler never trades in a train ticket to a monastery to become a Lay Brother and instead goes and buys his first bass guitar after a friend loaned him his copy of Sgt. Peppers.

A lot of other butterflies could cause huge changes in the lives of not just musicians but people who became agents for rock bands, studio technicians and other careers which may not be music related but still had an effect on people who were in the music business.

Also the Beatles influence on musicians does not end in 66, bands like Pink Floyd and Queen were heavily influenced by the Beatles later work and there's all the studio technicians and record producers who were influenced by George Martin, Geoff Emerick and their work with the Beatles.

I do think bands like the Doors might not be affected by no British Invasion so psychedelic music might still be big and the Doors themselves might be bigger but they also could be butterflied by ways I can't imagine.

I think Punk rock might still happen especially after a decade of mostly folk-rock music and Punk might be this alternate timeline's British Invasion.

Jimmy page was getting studio work before The beatles got popular in america so I still think he was about to be a session musician and I still think he was about to joined The yardbirds even if The beatles never existed. I don't think Jimmy page was heavily influence by the beatles to be honest. If The beatles are butterfly away, I am certain that Jimmy would had found a way to make blues rock heavily distorted with power chords and guitar solos. I don't hear much beatles influence there at all.

 

[Bryan91]

People here keep talking about the direct influence the Beatles had on specific musicians but forget to take in the indirect butterflies that would take place as well, this why that Yesterday movie sucked.

With no British Invasion the lives of a lot of British musicians is changed big time, for example the Yardbirds might not get a recording contract, they then don't record the single "A Heart full of Soul" Eric Clapton doesn't quit the band in protest and he and the rest of the band may not ever be heard of by anyone outside of London.

Jimmy Page may never get studio work and might not ever meet John Paul Jones or Robert Plant and John Bonham.
Ozzy Osborne never asks his dad to buy him a P.A. system and Terry (Geezer) Butler never trades in a train ticket to a monastery to become a Lay Brother and instead goes and buys his first bass guitar after a friend loaned him his copy of Sgt. Peppers.

A lot of other butterflies could cause huge changes in the lives of not just musicians but people who became agents for rock bands, studio technicians and other careers which may not be music related but still had an effect on people who were in the music business.

Also the Beatles influence on musicians does not end in 66, bands like Pink Floyd and Queen were heavily influenced by the Beatles later work and there's all the studio technicians and record producers who were influenced by George Martin, Geoff Emerick and their work with the Beatles.

I do think bands like the Doors might not be affected by no British Invasion so psychedelic music might still be big and the Doors themselves might be bigger but they also could be butterflied by ways I can't imagine.

I think Punk rock might still happen especially after a decade of mostly folk-rock music and Punk might be this alternate timeline's British Invasion.

I didn't mention The doors but yeah they could still exist and probably would be huge. I do wonder though if they could influence the psychedelic folk bands to go electric? Psychedelic would had 100% existed if The beatles never existed or formed but I think alot of psychedelic would had been more Folk oriented rather than rock. I mentioned before that Jerry garcia was a full time folk/old time musician before The beatles ever became a phenomenon in america. I think that Jerry would had continued to play folk/old time music and mixed it up with psychedelic.

I do think that punk rock would had still exist in response of psychedelic, folk, blues and other genres. I see punk rock as more of a continuation of garage rock which was already around in America before The beatles (Louie Louie by The Kingsmen comes to mind).

 

[Bryan91]

I also think that rock would had manage to survive but differently without The beatles. Sure it could be less popular for the mid-1960s but there would still be successful rock singles in America top 40 charts in the mid 1960s. There were successful american rock singles out before beatlemania, during beatlemania and after it so this would had continued. After all, rock was already popular in America before The beatles, just differently.

The doors might had given psychedelic rock a huge boost compare to the psychedelic folk that was about to be around. This means that psychedelic rock might be angrier without The beatles. This also means that rock would had been angrier quicker if The beatles never existed. This might sound crazy to Beatles lovers but I believe that The fab four tame rock. They made it safe and I think it would had been alot more dangerous and more aggressive if they never existed. There would be no taming for rock and instead, rock musicians can go all out in the late 60s.😀

 

[Bryan91]

Overall, I think that the culture of the late 1960s would had remain the same without The beatles.

The hippie counterculture movement came because of people like Ken kesey, Allen ginsberg, and Jack kerouac. These american beat writers were writing and releasing books in the 1950s and they have absolutely nothing to do with the beatles. Ken kesey manage to form a group of friends called the Merry pranksters. In November of 1963, (before The beatles fame in america), Ken was in New york to attend the broadway opening of One flew over the cuckoo nest which was based on the same title novel that Ken kesey wrote and released in 1962. At that time, Ken kesey knew that he needed to comeback to New york for the following year for the publication party of his next book called Sometimes a Great notion which was released in July of 1964. Kesey decided to form a group of friends and decided to travel on a school tour bus. Kesey was inspired by Jack kerouac 1957 book for this idea. The school tour bus looks like this.

Furthur (bus) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This has nothing to do with the beatles. Around 1964, him and his friends were traveling in the bus and they were doing LSD and other kinds of drugs. This paved the way for the hippies, this has nothing to do with The beatles. The beatles at that time were just a pop band that had nothing to do with were Ken kesey's mind was at. Ken kesey was 29 years old in 1964 and I'm pretty sure he wasn't listenting to any early pop stuff beatles.

 

[Mark E.]

Another factor may have been that in January, 1964, the American music scene was ready to explode after a somber holiday season. The assassination of JFK just before Thanksgiving put the country in such a quiet mood that Phil Spector's famous Christmas Album did not sell well the first season, despite an impressive line-up of stars. Improvements in music rested on improvements in recording technology and the introduction of home stereo systems. Even without the Beatles, a progressive movement was waiting to happen. By 1967, the Beatles were only one cog in the wheel of evolving classic rock. "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" was in the right place at the right time in January, 1964.

 

[cortz#9]

Overall, I think that the culture of the late 1960s would had remain the same without The beatles.

The hippie counterculture movement came because of people like Ken kesey, Allen ginsberg, and Jack kerouac. These american beat writers were writing and releasing books in the 1950s and they have absolutely nothing to do with the beatles. Ken kesey manage to form a group of friends called the Merry pranksters. In November of 1963, (before The beatles fame in america), Ken was in New york to attend the broadway opening of One flew over the cuckoo nest which was based on the same title novel that Ken kesey wrote and released in 1962. At that time, Ken kesey knew that he needed to comeback to New york for the following year for the publication party of his next book called Sometimes a Great notion which was released in July of 1964. Kesey decided to form a group of friends and decided to travel on a school tour bus. Kesey was inspired by Jack kerouac 1957 book for this idea. The school tour bus looks like this.

Furthur (bus) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This has nothing to do with the beatles. Around 1964, him and his friends were traveling in the bus and they were doing LSD and other kinds of drugs. This paved the way for the hippies, this has nothing to do with The beatles. The beatles at that time were just a pop band that had nothing to do with were Ken kesey's mind was at. Ken kesey was 29 years old in 1964 and I'm pretty sure he wasn't listenting to any early pop stuff beatles.

You have to take butterflies into account, this is AH.com all we talk about here are butterflies and you want to ignore them but we all believe that history can be radically altered with one small change, change something big and there will be Mothra size changes.

If there’s no British Invasion then Page most likely will get less work than he did IOTL and the same might be true of John Paul Jones, they could both end up auditioning for different jobs at different places that lead to different contacts and different bands.
Page and Jones could end up in two different bands, hell one of them could immigrate to the USA which leads me to wonder would Jimmi Hendrix still go to London in this alternate timeline? If not, how does his life change?

 

[Bryan91]

You have to take butterflies into account, this is AH.com all we talk about here are butterflies and you want to ignore them but we all believe that history can be radically altered with one small change, change something big and there will be Mothra size changes.

If there’s no British Invasion then Page most likely will get less work than he did IOTL and the same might be true of John Paul Jones, they could both end up auditioning for different jobs at different places that lead to different contacts and different bands.
Page and Jones could end up in two different bands, hell one of them could immigrate to the USA which leads me to wonder would Jimmi Hendrix still go to London in this alternate timeline? If not, how does his life change?

You actually reply back to my statement of Ken casey which has nothing to do with Led zeppelin.

I still think Jimmy page would had found session studio work if The beatles never existed. There still would had been a blues-rock scene in the UK without The beatles. Sure, The british invasion wouldn't had happen for 1964-1966 in America but I'm sure that british groups would probably be successful in the UK only like how The shadows were and for a brief time before 1964, how The beatles were only popular in the UK in 1963.

I think that you need to understand that people like Jimmy page was actually a musician way before he ever heard of The beatles and that there were local rock scenes happening in the UK around 1960-1962 that were developong indepedently of The beatles. Sure, you don't get a British invasion for 1964-1966 in america but British rock groups would still had been around without The beatles.

 

[Bryan91]

You have to take butterflies into account, this is AH.com all we talk about here are butterflies and you want to ignore them but we all believe that history can be radically altered with one small change, change something big and there will be Mothra size changes.

If there’s no British Invasion then Page most likely will get less work than he did IOTL and the same might be true of John Paul Jones, they could both end up auditioning for different jobs at different places that lead to different contacts and different bands.
Page and Jones could end up in two different bands, hell one of them could immigrate to the USA which leads me to wonder would Jimmi Hendrix still go to London in this alternate timeline? If not, how does his life change?

Without the british invasion happening to america in 1964-1966, Hendrix would had likely remain in the R&B-Soul world for much longer. He would had died young though due to the drugs which would still had been around without The beatles.

Eric clapton with Cream would still be around and I suppose that cream could get a top ten hit in America in the late 1960s if the beatles never existed. Of course, cream wouldn't be superstars but they could put out a hit or two in america. Blues-rock still would had been there without The beatles. Yes, the screaming girls, the massive Elvis-like fame wouldn't had been there for a mid 1960s British group but success comes in different ways. Cream could be a moderate successful group without The beatles. Led zeppelin can be massive even without The beatles. I don't think Zeppelin success is depended on The beatles unlike The stones which wouldn't have had the same fame at all for the mid 1960s without The beatles.

Heck, zeppelin came out at the ending of the 60s instead of 1964-1966 and they never try to be like The beatles. They had a sound that was rooted in blues that existed before The beatles. I still think they would had been doing the same exact stuff without The beatles.

 

[Bryan91]

You have to take butterflies into account, this is AH.com all we talk about here are butterflies and you want to ignore them but we all believe that history can be radically altered with one small change, change something big and there will be Mothra size changes.

If there’s no British Invasion then Page most likely will get less work than he did IOTL and the same might be true of John Paul Jones, they could both end up auditioning for different jobs at different places that lead to different contacts and different bands.
Page and Jones could end up in two different bands, hell one of them could immigrate to the USA which leads me to wonder would Jimmi Hendrix still go to London in this alternate timeline? If not, how does his life change?

The way how I see it, the biggest impact that The beatles had on music was from 1964-1966. The monkees, british invasion to rule the US charts for the mid 60s, and influencing a bunch of folkies to go electric in the 60s, that is The beatles biggest legacy in my opinion. They were not the first rock band, they were not the first group to write their own songs for success (The beach boys beat them to it), and other things. Blues rock was there in the UK developing indepedently of The beatles. Those british blues rock bands would still had been around without The beatles. No success for them in 1964-1966 in America but I think that by the late 60s, a few singles in America can get them a few success and maybe Zeppelin can benefit from this and rise to the top due to this. Blues rock would had been UK's rock music legacy if The beatles never existed.

 

[Bryan91]

You have to take butterflies into account, this is AH.com all we talk about here are butterflies and you want to ignore them but we all believe that history can be radically altered with one small change, change something big and there will be Mothra size changes.

If there’s no British Invasion then Page most likely will get less work than he did IOTL and the same might be true of John Paul Jones, they could both end up auditioning for different jobs at different places that lead to different contacts and different bands.
Page and Jones could end up in two different bands, hell one of them could immigrate to the USA which leads me to wonder would Jimmi Hendrix still go to London in this alternate timeline? If not, how does his life change?

Led Zeppelin's Jimmy Page Reveals His Greatest Musical Influence In Unearthed Interview - Cosmic

"I heard the acoustic guitar, slap bass, and electric guitar – three instruments and a voice – they generated so much energy I had to be part of it."

cosmicmagazine.com.au

Read this Jimmy page interview, there is no mention of The beatles. They also ask Page if he quit The yardbirds for superstardom and he said that he never desire superstardom and that he just wanted to be respected as a musician. This has nothing to with The beatles. Page was well aware of Beatlemania but he was playing guitar way before it and would had continue doing session work without the beatles. Page did NOT become a musician because of The beatles, he already was before beatles so he would had continue down that road.

 

[Bryan91]

Another factor may have been that in January, 1964, the American music scene was ready to explode after a somber holiday season. The assassination of JFK just before Thanksgiving put the country in such a quiet mood that Phil Spector's famous Christmas Album did not sell well the first season, despite an impressive line-up of stars. Improvements in music rested on improvements in recording technology and the introduction of home stereo systems. Even without the Beatles, a progressive movement was waiting to happen. By 1967, the Beatles were only one cog in the wheel of evolving classic rock. "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" was in the right place at the right time in January, 1964.

Again, I do think that The beatles are overrated because they overshadowed a lot of musicians/artists out there who were around before, during and after them but no, there would be no replacement for The Beatles. No band would ever be as famous as The beatles kind of like how I don't think any white rock n roll singer would had been as popular as Elvis. The beatles's success is not replicable for a different artist, same thing with elvis. Also, Bobby vinton there I said it again peak at #1 for four weeks throughout January of 1964 and by the time The beatles peak at #1, Leslie gore was at #2. If there was no beatles, Leslie gore would had topped the pop singles chart and then be replace by The four seasons dawn go away and then the four seasons dawn go away would had been replace by The beach boys Fun fun fun single. This is a realistic view of what was about happened in 1964 if there were no Beatles. No british invasion for 1964 without the beatles and instead, bobby vinton, leslie gore, the beach boys, the four seasons and others would had ruled 1964. Simple as that.

 

[Bryan91]

The beatles's success was unique and no group would had repeat that success for the 1960s. Sure, you will still have successful mainstream groups like The beach boys, the four seasons and others but the fandom that the beatles had wouldn't be for others. The appeal that The beatles had comes once in a lifetime, it came before with the Elvis phenomenon of the 1950s, the Sinatra phenomenon of the 1940s and then in the 80s, the Michael jackson phenomenon. People need to accept that phenomenon doesn't happen to everybody. George michael was very successful in the 80s but he wasn't a phenomenon like Presley, beatles, and MJ. Beatles success is similar to a few others but this success doesn't happen to all, some are only big artists of their times while others become massive phenomenons that influence the music scene and change the culture. Deal with that haters.

 

[cortz#9]

Led Zeppelin's Jimmy Page Reveals His Greatest Musical Influence In Unearthed Interview - Cosmic

"I heard the acoustic guitar, slap bass, and electric guitar – three instruments and a voice – they generated so much energy I had to be part of it."

cosmicmagazine.com.au

Read this Jimmy page interview, there is no mention of The beatles. They also ask Page if he quit The yardbirds for superstardom and he said that he never desire superstardom and that he just wanted to be respected as a musician. This has nothing to with The beatles. Page was well aware of Beatlemania but he was playing guitar way before it and would had continue doing session work without the beatles. Page did NOT become a musician because of The beatles, he already was before beatles so he would had continue down that road.

Where did I say Page was influenced by the Beatles? I never said any such thing, I talked about butterflies something you keep ignoring, you keep going on about the Beatles influence on people's music but I'm talking about how the physical absence of the Beatles will affect the actions of people who may not have anything at all to do with music but their actions will affect multiple people and so and so on etcetera, etcetera.

Hell the economy itself will be affected, jobs will be lost or never created and new jobs will come into existence. As time goes by the butterflies first caused in 1964 will get bigger and bigger not smaller and smaller and I don't care what the members of Led Zeppelin thought about the Beatles, the fact is that the odds of those four individuals still coming together in 1969, four years after the first big butterfly are to high to calculate.

Jimmy Page still might form a band in 69 and he might even call it Led Zeppelin (doubtful though since he stole the name from Keith Moon and who can say what happens to Moon ITTL) but it won't be the Zeppelin we know from our timeline.

There won't that many big changes in 1963, the Year the Beatles first broke out but as time goes by the changes will grow and expand and it will have nothing to do with how good or bad the Beatles music was but things will be very different.

Remove Hitler or Elvis or the guy who shot the Archduke of Austro-Hungary and things will change, for the better or for the worse but they will change.
Hell just remove Buddy Holly and our whole timeline might be totally unrecognizable and I don't like Holly's or Elvis's music but take em out of the mix and the butterflies will take off.

 

[Bryan91]

Where did I say Page was influenced by the Beatles? I never said any such thing, I talked about butterflies something you keep ignoring, you keep going on about the Beatles influence on people's music but I'm talking about how the physical absence of the Beatles will affect the actions of people who may not have anything at all to do with music but their actions will affect multiple people and so and so on etcetera, etcetera.

Hell the economy itself will be affected, jobs will be lost or never created and new jobs will come into existence. As time goes by the butterflies first caused in 1964 will get bigger and bigger not smaller and smaller and I don't care what the members of Led Zeppelin thought about the Beatles, the fact is that the odds of those four individuals still coming together in 1969, four years after the first big butterfly are to high to calculate.

Jimmy Page still might form a band in 69 and he might even call it Led Zeppelin (doubtful though since he stole the name from Keith Moon and who can say what happens to Moon ITTL) but it won't be the Zeppelin we know from our timeline.

There won't that many big changes in 1963, the Year the Beatles first broke out but as time goes by the changes will grow and expand and it will have nothing to do with how good or bad the Beatles music was but things will be very different.

Remove Hitler or Elvis or the guy who shot the Archduke of Austro-Hungary and things will change, for the better or for the worse but they will change.
Hell just remove Buddy Holly and our whole timeline might be totally unrecognizable and I don't like Holly's or Elvis's music but take em out of the mix and the butterflies will take off.

Buddy holly was very influential but rock n roll was already at top of the charts before him (Elvis was already out and it was him that took white rock n roll to the top of the charts with hits after hits). I do agree that the fame that both Elvis and The beatles experience is a unique one that most cannot have and it is not replaceable. Sometimes, things are just meant to be for a specific artist/singer/performer. I think that some people have a hard time that a hugely famous and influential performer can have so much influence over music and pop culture.

As for Led zeppelin, I mentioned before that alot of the songs that they recorded in their earlier albums already existed from other artists who came before The beatles so some of that material would already be out for Zeppelin to record, for example songs like Whole lotta love, Baby i'm gonna leave you, Bring it on home and others already existed as songs before The beatles but they were release by lesser artists that Zeppelin took from. Muddy waters recorded and release Whole lotta love in 1962, it was called You need love and it was written by Willie dixon who sued zeppelin plenty of times but thats another topic.

 

[cortz#9]

Buddy holly was very influential but rock n roll was already at top of the charts before him (Elvis was already out and it was him that took white rock n roll to the top of the charts with hits after hits). I do agree that the fame that both Elvis and The beatles experience is a unique one that most cannot have and it is not replaceable. Sometimes, things are just meant to be for a specific artist/singer/performer. I think that some people have a hard time that a hugely famous and influential performer can have so much influence over music and pop culture.

As for Led zeppelin, I mentioned before that alot of the songs that they recorded in their earlier albums already existed from other artists who came before The beatles so some of that material would already be out for Zeppelin to record, for example songs like Whole lotta love, Baby i'm gonna leave you, Bring it on home and others already existed as songs before The beatles but they were release by lesser artists that Zeppelin took from. Muddy waters recorded and release Whole lotta love in 1962, it was called You need love and it was written by Willie dixon who sued zeppelin plenty of times but thats another topic.

You keep ducking the subject, I'm talking cause and affect but you keep talking about influence, I'm done with you . Good bye.

 

[Bryan91]

You keep ducking the subject, I'm talking cause and affect but you keep talking about influence, I'm done with you . Good bye.

I heard that Dusty Springfield somewhat helped Zeppelin to get signed to Atlantic records. Atlantic records and Dusty Springfield doesn't have any beatles influence. Atlantic were out years before The beatles and Dusty's music wasn't really inspired by The beatles at all so I think that Zeppelin still gets signed.

Keep in mind that I do think that British rock groups would still be around without The beatles. They just won't have any big success in America during the mid 60s (1964-1966). They can still have success in the UK though.

 

[Bryan91]

You keep ducking the subject, I'm talking cause and affect but you keep talking about influence, I'm done with you . Good bye.

Peter Grant was Zeppelin's manager. Don arden got into managing in 1960 and he was promoting Gene vincent in the UK. In 1963, Peter grant was hired by Don arden to promote some tours of American artists in the UK. Again, this has nothing to do with The beatles. Both Peter grant and Don arden were in the business before The beatles. Jimmy page was a musician before The beatles, therefore Zeppelin still would had existed since some of their connections to the music industry doesn't have Beatles influence. Peter grant and Don arden were in the business before The beatles ever became famous.

 

[flippikat]

I think the garage rock scene in America could be a big factor here.. if you're looking for rocking beat groups that may influence other bands (like the British invasion acts did), then the likes of the Kingsmen are the answer. Would a bunch of scruffy American garage bands inspire Bob Dylan etc to go electric? Maybe....

A knock on effect is that hard rock/heavy metal may spawn from garage rock instead of British blues.. so the heavy sounds of the late 60s/early 70s may be more Sex Pistols than Black Sabbath or Led Zep.

 

[Bryan91]

I think the garage rock scene in America could be a big factor here.. if you're looking for rocking beat groups that may influence other bands (like the British invasion acts did), then the likes of the Kingsmen are the answer. Would a bunch of scruffy American garage bands inspire Bob Dylan etc to go electric? Maybe....

A knock on effect is that hard rock/heavy metal may spawn from garage rock instead of British blues.. so the heavy sounds of the late 60s/early 70s may be more Sex Pistols than Black Sabbath or Led Zep.

This seems like a good possibility and I click the like button because I like how you put a meaningful answer. Thanks.

As much as I enjoy The kingsmen and they did have a top ten hit that peak at #2 on the hot 100 (before The beatles), I don't think they would had influence Dylan to go electric. I could still see dylan going into the electric sound later on (late 1960s) but it wouldn't had been as early as 1965 because The beatles had a huge dominance in 1964 that brought them and a bunch of British groups into the States.