If the Beatles had gotten back together...
-
I think it would have been similar to the Anthology. A few new songs, archived tracks released and perhaps a live concert. After that I think occasional collaborations. I don't think they would have done more tours and gotten back together permanently.
-
edcrawf:
I think it would have been similar to the Anthology. A few new songs, archived tracks released and perhaps a live concert. After that I think occasional collaborations. I don't think they would have done more tours and gotten back together permanently.
Good points.
-
It probablywould be to have a picnic luncheon or something like that love doris
-
As more and more about 1980 has come out in books, unearthed interviews and the like, it really seems that something was in the offing for a Lennon-McCartney reunion which had been Paul's flirtation for some time. He was undoubtedly b*tch-slapped by Lennon back in 1976 the morning after that near appearance on SNL by the two of them but I've always read 'Getting Closer' as another try at Lennon with 'my salamander' being a reference to the latter's surviving the heat of his government persecutions. But I'm not the only one reading things in to Paul's songs as, apart from the electronic departure of the sound, what grabbed Lennon about McCartney II and 'Coming Up' especially was that he perceived that Paul was up for the 80's in fresh style and was promising something personally to John (this is what John actually said he thought when he heard it). I also believe producer Jack Douglas when he says that John talked in terms of forthcoming reunion with Paul while recording 'Double Fantasy'. Linda spoke of personally wanting to help them get together as writers and Yoko has said that she was thinking it a good idea around this time so things were coming together to get past that 'Don't turn up with your guitar. It's not 1956 anymore' spat which, by John's account was a fairly meaningless outburst caused by childcare stress that Paul happened to take badly (understandably following the previous night). As for what form this reunion would have taken, I think of Robert Plant and Jimmy Page's reunion as Page/Plant in the 80's where they left out John Paul Jones to renew their writing partnership and I expect that Lennon/McCartney would have gone that way initially... Some writing, some tracks, possibly some shows but not The Beatles. And of course eventually, like Page/Plant, there might have come a time when 'What the hell' but, as we say with Led Zeppelin, it took quite a few tries to get anything together properly as that band again (although I think their 'Celebration Day' O2 is the best gig they ever played). It would have been a dodgy Live Aid reunion then, followed by a more gloried return circa Anthology. But I don't think we'd have had any new Beatles albums. In short, it wouldn't have been THAT different a history except that we'd still have had John.
-
I've been meaning to comment on this subject for a long time as, like many, I find it fascinating... The mere concept of the greatest band in history reuniting has a mystical aura about it, for several obvious reasons. A few being the quality of their original output, the success each of them achieved on their own, and the fact that it never happened and is now impossible. Now, the "Threetles" phenomenon (the closest there has ever been to a full reunion) had occurred several times, usually with John being the missing link. Even before the band had effectively broken up, Paul, George, and Ringo got together to help record Sour Milk Sea for Jackie Lomax in 1968. About a year later the three got back together shortly after the band had effectively separated to patch up some tracks for what would become "Let It Be" and that became what are officially the last studio dates on record credited to The Beatles before the breakup went public. In retrospect, it was not only technically a (partial) reunion, but the first of many with that exact lineup that would foreshadow others. The three performed together in Eric Clapton's 1979 wedding as well as on George's 1981 Lennon tribute All Those Years Ago. An exception to that was Ringo's 1973 track I'm the Greatest - a good, catchy song (particularly the ending) that lacks the strong melodic overtones, rigorous perfectionist structure, and grandiose ambition that Paul brought to the table. That was arguably the closest the band ever came to a complete reunion. In the end, while they were each phenomenally talented and added their own essential dynamic to the group, I would argue that the only thing truly necessary to make a viable Beatles song was input at some level from both Paul and John. It was the absence of this foundation, which was always present during the band's initial run, that made these reunions incomplete rather than the actual attendance roster of those present. They were undeniably the single best writing collaboration in the history of popular music and the creative fusion at the core of what drove the band to such meteorically unmatchable heights. Creativity aside, "A Toot and a Snore in '74" (the last time Paul and John recorded together [and the only time after the Beatles]) showed how a complete mess of a session that's barely worth listening to did still manage to remind us how pleasant John and Paul's harmonizing sounded - even under the worst circumstances. Just as in the Beatles' last sessions. That's not to say a reunion with 3/4 (or even 2/4) could not sound good (I think the existing evidence points to the contrary). It's also not to say that Ringo and George were not talented or were dispensable. The band always sounded best when all were present. If all four had been present and reunited in life, I have my guesses on what would have happened... First, they would have stayed in the studio. By the sheer talent contained in a room with each of them present, the sessions would have yielded at least some very good material. This material would have varied largely depending on the period in which they would have reunited. I believe the strongest material might have come from the mid-70s ('74-'76), when they were reaching their solo peaks, and it probably would have been very large-scale and explosive. However, I think the most interesting reunion results would have come in two later periods: the '80s and any time in the 21st century. I can easily see them all getting together and having a lot of fun experimenting with - or even pioneering - the new technologies of these times. Paul has shown his tendencies to do so during these periods through is work on "McCartney II" and "NEW" (with John liking the results of the former and believing pop was heading down a path that he and Yoko had already been charting). Any session would likely have started casual, probably with covers or stripped-down versions of their earlier songs. Then they likely would have done a few unstructured, improvised jam sessions that could have yielded something usable. But the real magic would most probably have really started once they felt comfortable enough to start sharing and developing demos that they had intended to use for their own solo work. Then, of course, to complete the cycle: the novelty would have worn off and they would end up at each other's throats. But, as with their last few albums, the results (once released) would have yielded a very eclectic, perhaps cutting-edge album that would have sold very well - and critics would have initially panned it (before retracting and reversing their critiques after the public proves them wrong yet again). Were they all alive, there would almost definitely have been a reunion, possibly multiple. But almost as interesting, in my opinion, is what could have been their promotion for such projects. No doubt they would have embraced music videos since they created them long before MTV was even thought of. It's possible they could have toured in the '90s, but I doubt they would have done anything more than a one-off concert or two at least through the '80s. It's easy to be taken away with these fantasies of great music that doesn't exist, but I find it consoling that we do have several things that come close. These unique rarities are one of the many things that give depth and enduring mystique to the Beatles music brand. In fact, there's enough of this material (along with unreleased tracks from their initial run) to allow for a brand new Beatles record, if one wanted to. But going back to reunions: I am actually of the belief that the "Anthology" tracks were good, underrated, and - contrary to many claims - a legitimate full reunion. While Free as a Bird underwhelmed many - and, let's be honest, even the most incredible Beatles song ever would have fallen short of the hype a reunion would have received - to the trained ear that can pick out the details of what made the impossible happen, it's truly magical. I, for one, never thought I'd hear those unique harmonizing vocals together again. Plus, even though John's voice is distorted in the song, it still works because John utilized and experimented with voice distortion so frequently. Then there are the lyrics and themes of the song (i.e. freedom) that are classic Beatles. Even the way it was produced was in keeping with how many Beatles songs were made: one (likely John or Paul) would lay the foundation for most of the song in a demo, then share it with the others, and then they would expand and adjust it so as to let it reach its highest potential. In the end, I don't think John could have made any of the songs on that tape sound any better on his own than the other three would have by contributing to them. Fortunately, we do have those songs to listen to today and relive, in a unique way, the magic that was the Beatles...
-
Very good post Mr. Spock, I enjoyed reading it! The only thing I found curious was the statement "[John was] believing pop was heading down a path that he and Yoko had already been charting." I believe this to be the case and I'm not doubting you, but was John deluding himself with this belief? Certainly Double Fantasy wasn't setting the course for pop in the 80s. Was it a reference to Yoko's caterwauling in the studio and the laughable statement he made that the B52s music was essentially what Yoko had been doing ten years prior? I'd be interested if you have more information on this particularly interesting statement. Thanks.
-
Erik in NJ:
Very good post Mr. Spock, I enjoyed reading it! The only thing I found curious was the statement "[John was] believing pop was heading down a path that he and Yoko had already been charting." I believe this to be the case and I'm not doubting you, but was John deluding himself with this belief? Certainly Double Fantasy wasn't setting the course for pop in the 80s. Was it a reference to Yoko's caterwauling in the studio and the laughable statement he made that the B52s music was essentially what Yoko had been doing ten years prior? I'd be interested if you have more information on this particularly interesting statement. Thanks.
Thank you for saying that! With regards to my statement: I was indeed eluding to that comment John made about the B52s. As with most of us, there's often a streak of truth to John's humor. That said, I do think he was being serious. While completely different vocally, there are some similarities he was highlighting with respect to using an avant garde approach. He was also illustrating a larger point of how that was becoming marketable, popular, and mainstream. Remember that the B52s were just one of many bands finding success in the '80s with that eccentric output; another - and one of my favorites - was the Talking Heads, which would go on to be even more successful than the B52s. He also was very fond of Paul's Coming Up, which was likely much more foreshadowing of methods that would dominate the decade and his interest thereof. Considering this, I don't believe John was deluding himself at all by making that association (though I maintain my doubts that these people were directly inspired by Yoko). At any rate, I agree with you that "Double Fantasy" did not set the course for '80s pop at all. In my opinion, it was more about getting things out of his system and getting "back in the game" (in the sense of a reintroduction) than to do anything particularity experimental or cutting edge. But I'm sure he would gave come around to that angle later on... It was an intrinsic part of his very nature to be creative and explore.
-
Thanks for the clarification Mr. Spock. And another excellent post! I certainly think that John (with Yoko) could have created music that was eccentric and "avant-garde" like the B52s yet listenable (if you will) like the B52s as opposed to the kind of "stuff" that's on Yoko albums like Fly. His collaboration with Bowie on Fame was kind of like that, no (I mean kind of avant-garde and listenable at the same time)? The Talking Heads had some excellent music back in the day as did Joe Jackson--a very talented songwriter with a bit of an avant-garde edge. The only thing is that these bands with possibly the exception of the Talking Heads didn't really set the direction for pop in the 80s either. The B52s were more of an aberrant offshoot. And I agree with you that it's doubtful that they were in inspired at all by Yoko--I think John was trying to be kind and stretching the truth just a bit too much by making the comparison. Joe Jackson was excellent and the album Stepping Out was a great one, but again it was less of a trend setter. Maybe Joe's earlier music in the late 70s had a greater impact on the pop of the day. I think eventually bands like REM blazed the trail for where pop went (for better or for worse). I liked Double Fantasy quite a bit at the time (every other song that is ) and I find it fascinating that John was a fan of McCartney II. It certainly would have been quite interesting to have seen the direction that he would have taken musically into the 80s and beyond.
-
Erik in NJ:
I certainly think that John (with Yoko) could have created music that was eccentric and "avant-garde" like the B52s yet listenable (if you will) like the B52s as opposed to the kind of "stuff" that's on Yoko albums like Fly. His collaboration with Bowie on Fame was kind of like that, no (I mean kind of avant-garde and listenable at the same time)? The only thing is that these bands with possibly the exception of the Talking Heads didn't really set the direction for pop in the 80s either. It certainly would have been quite interesting to have seen the direction that he would have taken musically into the 80s and beyond.
To be honest, it seems that we're very much on the same page here. I've been making some broad statements that I probably should have made more specific initially, which is probably causing some of the confusion here. I agree with everything that you mentioned above, but I probably should have added that, in retrospect, we can now see that '80s pop did end up taking a different turn. However, it's worth noting that in the late '70s/early '80s this trend seemed to very much look like the direction pop was heading into and, therefore, what John found interesting (evidenced as early as '75 by the collaboration with Bowie - another artist having immense success with that approach). Had the Beatles reunited then, their sound would probably have reflected that to some degree as both he and Paul were conscious of and interested in that direction. Furthermore, it stands to reason that if The Beatles - of all people - were not only getting back together but were now recording in a certain new and trendy sub-genre of rock, its own shelf-life would be significantly expanded as other groups (Rolling Stones, etc) may have undoubtedly followed suit. So this is really more about where John perceived "things were going" at the time than about where they actually ended up. This happens quite often. For example, five years ago rap and hip hop seemed like they were going to be the dominant pop genres for decades to come. Today, however, it seems EDM (Electronic Dance Music) is eclipsing both...
-
All very compelling points and well reasoned. I've certainly enjoyed reading your last few posts on this thread--almost like reading about a piece of history that never happened if that makes any sense--and hope you'll post on this forum more frequently.
-
Erik in NJ:
All very compelling points and well reasoned. I've certainly enjoyed reading your last few posts on this thread--almost like reading about a piece of history that never happened if that makes any sense--and hope you'll post on this forum more frequently.
I really appreciate that, Erik! As it turns out, I actually used to post on this forum quite frequently back in the day... Mostly about things relating to Apple (I was - and remain - fairly obsessed with what Apple Corps was, is, and could have become). In fact, I fought back the part of me that compulsively wanted to steer this thread into (yet another) discussion about projects Apple should be pursuing... But then, as a mod, I'd probably have to redirect myself to stay on topic
-
I've enjoyed this back and forth as well, gents.
-
Mr. Spock:
So this is really more about where John perceived "things were going" at the time than about where they actually ended up.
I think this is a very valid statement. I just received my Deluxe Edition of McCartney II the other day and after giving it a listen I have to wonder whether John's perception of "where things were going" was that far off. I can see Paul making McCartney II as a bit of experimentation and fun, but it's a whacky album that can't really be taken seriously. Other than some of the fringe bands, even in 1980 music was not heading in this direction and of course we know that it never did. "Friends" supposedly encouraged Paul to release McCartney II--he claims he made it for himself to listen to in the car (it should have stayed there! ). Could John have been one of those "friends?" Did he say he was impressed by it because he knew it was really bad and that it would hurt Paul's career after his exponential amassing of major pop hits with Wings, which John (nor any of the other ex-Beatles) could not measure up to? Was his encouragement self serving in that he felt that some of Yoko's oddball "music" was within reach of songs like "Temporary Secretary." Was he sincere, but just that far off base at the time? I find it very difficult for the latter question to be true as even Double Fantasy was much more mainstream pop and other than Yoko's contributions was nothing like McCartney II. All of these questions are serious questions on my part and I'd be very interested in Mr. Spock and others commenting on them. I never bought McCartney II when it came out and it's now evident why I didn't. Even the studio version of "Coming Up" is very difficult to listen to with the way the voices were changed--the live version is quite nice and as expected became a hit. But, McCartney II was a far, far cry from "At the Speed of Sound" and also a far, far cry from "McCartney." It also signaled the beginning of quite a long and arduous dry spell for Paul punctuated with a decent song here and there, but really no mega hits like what he produced during the Wings era. Arguably "New" may be his strongest album since "At the Speed of Sound" though sadly even it contained no mega Wings-like hits. I do realize that music has changed and it may be impossible for him to create such a mega-hit again, but in the 80's it wasn't.
-
RMartinez:
whobeatle:
JoeySmith:
do you think it would have been to write new songs, tour, or both. John has said in interviews if he was to get back with Paul, it would to to create new music. This seems counter intuitive since the least risky project would be to do some shows together. I'm not sure either of them would want to take a risk to write again if it might tarnish their legacy by not meeting expectations.
No offense, but I couldn't disagree more, both Lennon and Harrison were skittish about playing live solo, let alone as Beatles, clearly, they would have recorded new music, and possibly filmed a live in the studio performance or maybe done some kind of live show, but clearly they would have made a record
John also said if you want to know what a Beatle LP in the 70s would sound like, get the best songs off their solo albums and put them together and that is what it would be. It makes sense, they were no longer functioning as a collaborating band in the end. I wonder how likely they could have recaptured that magic had they got back together. Not likely. Clearly George was never going to return to his role as third class citizen in the Beatles after being treated as an equal by the likes of Bob Dylan and Eric Clapton. So that dynamic was gone forever.
While they were not collaborating as a band in the end, I still think they would have made constructive criticism of each others songs to make them better while recording.
-
Erik in NJ:
I can see Paul making McCartney II as a bit of experimentation and fun, but it's a whacky album that can't really be taken seriously. Other than some of the fringe bands, even in 1980 music was not heading in this direction and of course we know that it never did. "Friends" supposedly encouraged Paul to release McCartney II--he claims he made it for himself to listen to in the car (it should have stayed there! ). Could John have been one of those "friends?" Did he say he was impressed by it because he knew it was really bad and that it would hurt Paul's career after his exponential amassing of major pop hits with Wings, which John (nor any of the other ex-Beatles) could not measure up to? Was his encouragement self serving in that he felt that some of Yoko's oddball "music" was within reach of songs like "Temporary Secretary." Was he sincere, but just that far off base at the time? I find it very difficult for the latter question to be true as even Double Fantasy was much more mainstream pop and other than Yoko's contributions was nothing like McCartney II. ... I never bought McCartney II when it came out and it's now evident why I didn't. Even the studio version of "Coming Up" is very difficult to listen to with the way the voices were changed--the live version is quite nice and as expected became a hit. But, McCartney II was a far, far cry from "At the Speed of Sound" and also a far, far cry from "McCartney." It also signaled the beginning of quite a long and arduous dry spell for Paul punctuated with a decent song here and there, but really no mega hits like what he produced during the Wings era. Arguably "New" may be his strongest album since "At the Speed of Sound" though sadly even it contained no mega Wings-like hits. I do realize that music has changed and it may be impossible for him to create such a mega-hit again, but in the 80's it wasn't.
Alright then, you've given me a lot of ammunition to work with here LOL Let me begin with your statements about John: I do think he was being absolutely sincere about his praise of Paul's music. It was 1980 and they had long since made up and gotten over their Beatle bickering, so I highly doubt his comments were part of any elaborately strategic plan to sabotage the direction of Paul's solo career. Now, I may concede the possibility that it could have been a bit self-serving by implying a link between where Paul was heading and where Yoko was. (I'm not yet prepared to put that past John) John had his own unique opinions and perceptions about pop and music in general. We can debate that for ages and, in the end, we will never know how that opinion would have effected pop through his own output had he lived, so I'll revert to my previous statements on the subject and refrain from going down that rabbit hole again. With regards to your statements on Paul: its beyond doubt that "McCartneyII" was a quirky and eccentric album. He was in a full-on experimental mode, letting loose from his own stringent Wings standards and opening himself to new directions. While some of those "directions" were difficult for many to digest, it is worth stating that there are several gems on the album that remain among Paul's finest (including Waterfalls and One of These Days, to name a few). Additionally, while the '80s did mark the beginning of his waning period in pop relevance, I would argue that this didn't really begin until 1984/'85. Indeed "McCartney II" charted in the top 3 in both the US and UK and it's follow-up, "Tug of War," was immensely successful and was even nominated for the Album of the Year Grammy award. In that time, he was also making several very successful collaborations with popular artists like Stevie Wonder and Michael Jackson. All of this success kept him a very hot commodity until his very public failure's with the "Give My Regards to Broadstreet" film and the "Press to Play" album. Even the songs he was asked to write for the hit film "The Princess Bride" following this period were rejected. He didn't even bother releasing another studio album until 1989, by which time he was well into being middle-aged and thus had slim hopes of any lasting success in pop. In retrospect, it might have been best for him to be more strategic with his output during that crucial '84-85 period. That said, he has released plenty of very strong material since Wings and before NEW (I would direct you to "Flowers in the Dirt," "Flaming Pie," and "Chaos in Creation in the Backyard", etc). As a final word on the direction of music in 1980, I would argue that things were less clear at the time than they are now, especially since disco - which dominated pop for years - was already dying out and there hadn't been a clear replacement yet. Many non-disco artists likely saw it as "anybody's game," creating a free-for-all of pop genre's until something more solid (i.e. New Wave) would take shape a couple years later. I hope this addresses most of the points you've raised. I did try to be as thorough as possible and I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. I too have enjoyed this discussion. Thanks again!
-
Nancy R:
Yeah, and also in the Anthology, Paul was clearly more excited about playing together again and he says something like "Let's do..." (can't remember the song offhand) and George says "The short version."
That's how Paul always was. He was always urging them onward, touring was what he wanted. None of the other Beatles wanted that, but he did. A lot of that attitude differences stayed at the Anthology sessions
-
I don't think any of the Beatles wanted to go back to how it was, except maybe Paul. As I wrote somewhere else, it would have been different. George was never going to go back to being third in line. He had already established himself with the likes of Bob Dylan and Eric Clapton. As an equal peer! There was no motivation for him to go back and be Paul's sideman. John eventually would jam in bands with Eric Clapton and Keith Richards. George was in the Traveling Wilburys with Jeff Lynne, Roy Orbison, Bob Dylan, Tom Petty, etc. So they showed they could be ensemble players. Paul likes being in charge. He gets hired guns to be in his bands and do what he tells them to do. He likes that. The Beatles were NEVER going to go back to that.
-
RMartinez:
I don't think any of the Beatles wanted to go back to how it was, except maybe Paul. As I wrote somewhere else, it would have been different. George was never going to go back to being third in line. He had already established himself with the likes of Bob Dylan and Eric Clapton. As an equal peer! There was no motivation for him to go back and be Paul's sideman. John eventually would jam in bands with Eric Clapton and Keith Richards. George was in the Traveling Wilburys with Jeff Lynne, Roy Orbison, Bob Dylan, Tom Petty, etc. So they showed they could be ensemble players. Paul likes being in charge. He gets hired guns to be in his bands and do what he tells them to do. He likes that. The Beatles were NEVER going to go back to that.
That makes sense and I agree. I stand by the point that if they were all alive they would have reunited eventually, but, to be honest, I think a revised dynamic would have been refreshing. Paul does like to be in charge, but I think he would have been able to subdue himself in order to allow a reunion to happen. They would have each inevitably matured enough to get to that point anyway. Reminds me of what Boy George said in a recent interview regarding the new Culture Club reunion: (to paraphrase) it's not necessarily that they stop doing annoying things to each other so much as they each don't let themselves get annoyed. A bit like showing up at holiday events with the whole family there and everyone sort of makes themselves get along because they know what to expect.
-
Mr. Spock:
RMartinez:
I don't think any of the Beatles wanted to go back to how it was, except maybe Paul. As I wrote somewhere else, it would have been different. George was never going to go back to being third in line. He had already established himself with the likes of Bob Dylan and Eric Clapton. As an equal peer! There was no motivation for him to go back and be Paul's sideman. John eventually would jam in bands with Eric Clapton and Keith Richards. George was in the Traveling Wilburys with Jeff Lynne, Roy Orbison, Bob Dylan, Tom Petty, etc. So they showed they could be ensemble players. Paul likes being in charge. He gets hired guns to be in his bands and do what he tells them to do. He likes that. The Beatles were NEVER going to go back to that.
That makes sense and I agree. I stand by the point that if they were all alive they would have reunited eventually, but, to be honest, I think a revised dynamic would have been refreshing. Paul does like to be in charge, but I think he would have been able to subdue himself in order to allow a reunion to happen. They would have each inevitably matured enough to get to that point anyway. Reminds me of what Boy George said in a recent interview regarding the new Culture Club reunion: (to paraphrase) it's not necessarily that they stop doing annoying things to each other so much as they each don't let themselves get annoyed. A bit like showing up at holiday events with the whole family there and everyone sort of makes themselves get along because they know what to expect.
Good point. Still, old habits die hard. In the Anthology, you still see Paul being Paul, as if he really can't help it. And there are glimpses of George actually subduing himself to deal with it. But to Paul's credit, I suspect he reigned it in a bit. And Ringo was Ringo!
-
RMartinez:
Mr. Spock:
RMartinez:
I don't think any of the Beatles wanted to go back to how it was, except maybe Paul. As I wrote somewhere else, it would have been different. George was never going to go back to being third in line. He had already established himself with the likes of Bob Dylan and Eric Clapton. As an equal peer! There was no motivation for him to go back and be Paul's sideman. John eventually would jam in bands with Eric Clapton and Keith Richards. George was in the Traveling Wilburys with Jeff Lynne, Roy Orbison, Bob Dylan, Tom Petty, etc. So they showed they could be ensemble players. Paul likes being in charge. He gets hired guns to be in his bands and do what he tells them to do. He likes that. The Beatles were NEVER going to go back to that.
That makes sense and I agree. I stand by the point that if they were all alive they would have reunited eventually, but, to be honest, I think a revised dynamic would have been refreshing. Paul does like to be in charge, but I think he would have been able to subdue himself in order to allow a reunion to happen. They would have each inevitably matured enough to get to that point anyway. Reminds me of what Boy George said in a recent interview regarding the new Culture Club reunion: (to paraphrase) it's not necessarily that they stop doing annoying things to each other so much as they each don't let themselves get annoyed. A bit like showing up at holiday events with the whole family there and everyone sort of makes themselves get along because they know what to expect.
Good point. Still, old habits die hard. In the Anthology, you still see Paul being Paul, as if he really can't help it. And there are glimpses of George actually subduing himself to deal with it. But to Paul's credit, I suspect he reigned it in a bit. And Ringo was Ringo!
Thank goodness - it wouldn't be worth it if they became different people