Beatles WI: Harrison on Bass

After the departure of bassist Stuart Sutcliffe, the Beatles, in need of a bassist, bumped on of their three (!) guitarists down to bass. IOTL, it was Paul McCartney who chose to play the bass. But, what if, instead of Paul, George Harrison decided to play bass, and Paul McCartney stuck with the electric? How would this affect the Beatles sound?
 
A lot depends on whether George would want to play more melodic basslines from 1965 onwards ( as Paul did in OTL).

From a group dynamics point of view, it could have made it even harder for him to be accepted by the others as a songwriter - as a lead guitarist he had a lot of resistance as it was... So maybe feeling unfulfilled he leaves the Beatles as early as perhaps 1966 after the Candlestick Park concert?

There's a few bands that could recruit him, or he could form his own..
 
It would have to have been voluntary on George's part, because if the other two had pushed him into it against his will, he probably would have taken his services to another band as a guitarist. This would have backfired on Lennon and McCartney, as the two of them would have to share guitar duties as well as singing on stage. This may have been the ideal situation for Paul, who wanted control of everything, but remember it was his inability to handle the lead part to begin with that led John to bring Harrison in in the first place. But without George, the dynamic of the band would have been ruptured and the Beatles future most likely would have taken a much different path.
 
Didn't the Beatles stop touring after 1966? With everything done in studios, their sound in the later years would converge to OTL. Wasn't there a song (I can't remember the name) where an impatient Paul McCartney did the drum track because Ringo could not make it in time? If you listen, you can tell the difference.
 
Top