The Sheatles
John, Paul, George, Ringo and Shania Twain.
Another hypothetical: suppose Cream had been a 4-piece with Steve Winwood on keys and vocals?
They’d still have disintegrated eventually I guess since Bruce and Baker couldn’t stand each other. But it would have been interesting!
This is what makes The Straight Dope great! 
How about John, George, Ringo and Rod Argent on keyboards?
That’s Blind Faith, with Ric Grech replacing Jack Bruce. One titanic album, one of my all-time favorites. But the timing was all wrong.
How about the Lisztles?
Franz Liszt’s Lisztomania was Beatlemania before Beatlemania—by a full century. He was the original rock star, lighting up 19th-century stages with hair flips and flying fingers. Put him on keys with McCartney or Lennon and they’d be soaring to sonic heights even Billy Preston couldn’t imagine. (Sorry, Billy—you’ve just been out-Liszted.)
May I submit the Claptles and the Prestles.
Suppose the Abbey Road tensions had manifested themselves at the very beginning. John and Paul go their separate ways. George stays with John and they add Billy Preston as a much needed buffer. Ringo stays with Paul and they add Eric Clapton on lead guitar.
Suddenly the Prestles have a brighter, sunnier sound than Lennon and Harrison could ever create by themselves, while the Claptles build a reputation for technical brilliance.
I honestly thought the pitch was Some Beatles Plus Elvis.
I want the Beatles where Billy Preston joins them permanently. Where in the bible did it say that the Beatles couldn’t be a five man band?
True. I always thought Grech was a bit of a weak link compared with the caliber of the others, though…?
Sure, Clapton’s a legend—but even at his best, I can’t picture him fitting in as a full-time Beatle, or in a band with just Paul and Ringo for that matter.
Why wouldn’t he click as a Beatle?
Clapton’s a Lead Guitarist with a capital-L. The Beatles thrived on being a unit—tight, collaborative. Even George, with all his skill, played with subtlety, letting the song lead. Clapton? He’s a blues guy through and through—lives for twelve-bar jams and the ten-minute solos. Throwing him in with The Beatles would’ve been like mixing Carolina Reaper pepper into your cup of tea—not a great blend.
Stylistically, they were on different planets. Clapton’s rooted in the blues. The Beatles were everything at once: rock, pop, Indian raga, baroque, tape loops, french horn solos—a musical buffet. Imagine Clapton pitching yet another Robert Johnson cover while Paul’s off trying to glue a kazoo solo into a French horn arrangement in 7/8 time.
Then there’s the vibe. Clapton’s always been a serious, moody guy. The Beatles ran on charm, banter, and creative play. Imagine shooting A Hard Day’s Night with Clapton in the background, looking like he’d rather be anywhere else—probably outside smoking a doob.
Chemistry? Already volatile. Add Clapton’s struggles in the ‘70s—heroin, booze, and… stealing George’s wife—and you’re basically playing battling egos.
Eric and George were close. But that’s another problem. George was finally coming into his own as a songwriter. How would he have fared with Clapton now also vying for space with bluesy ballads and long-form solos? He barely got a shot as it was.
Vocally? Clapton could sing, sure, but he wasn’t bringing the kind of range or dynamics needed to mesh into those Lennon/McCartney harmonies.
Love the guy. Total legend. But a Beatle? That’s like trying to drop Jim Morrison into ABBA. Amazing artist. Wrong band. He may mesh a little better with just Paul and Ringo, but not by much. Lennon was moody, but fun and collaborative. Clapton was just moody.
I think Paul, Ringo, and cheerful Billy Preston would make a fine trio. They could just overdub Paul on lead and rhythm guitar (or use Wrecking Crew guitarists). Paul McCartney had the chops and he could wail when he wanted to.
And then there’s the fact that the Beatles refused to play segregated shows. Clapton would probably jump at the chance.
Just out of curiosity, what happens to Pete Best in this hypothetical? Ringo only came in later, and the Beatles were already the top band.
I’d argue that the Beatles never would have made it as far as the Cavern without Pete Best and his mom, Mona. For about a year before Brian Epstein stepped in, the two of them handled all of the bookings, logistics, and other Beatles business.
So, in these alternate universes, Pete Best was replaced by Ringo, same as in our universe, but he later replaced Keith Moon in the Who. When asked about that group in later years, folks asked, “who?”
I, with little knowledge, will argue that neither of the alternatives ever make significant success.
Hitting it big is not just good songs and musicianship. It is being the exact right thing at the exact right time and place. Step on the butterfly and it doesn’t happen. Change a major component? Some other band hits the moment’s zeitgeist.
There’s a novella called Snodgrass (later turned into a movie) that imagines a scenario similar to the Meatles. Paul McCartney and John Lennon do meet, but Lennon walks out on the band pre-fame over musical differences. The band still ends up being pretty successful without him, big enough that people bother coming out to see them as they grind it out on the nostalgia circuit in the early 1990s, when the story is set. Apparently, The Hollies wind up becoming the iconic band in that universe that the Beatles became in ours.