Mini wrote:Yes but Paul is the shallowest of the four. You can never be sure if he's telling the truth or not. At least with John, what you see is what you get. George got abit too cynical about the fishbowl life of being in the Beatles for my liking.
Also Paul married a woman (HMM) that makes Yoko Ono look like Mother Teresa. John would be laughing at Paul wherever he is.
Crikey, you remind me of that "reviewer" of some American newspaper someone posted a link to a while ago, who said John would be "laughing at Paul from across Abbey Road" or some such garbage. How come so many people seem to know exactly what John would be doing were he alive still? I must admit I'm getting sick and tired of these kind of statements. One of John's strengths (or to put it neutral, aspects of his personality) was that he was not predictable - so how can we know what he would be up to now, at 65? I think not even Yoko does...
Also, John himself sometimes contradicted (unconsciously or deliberately) things he had said at some earlier point, so I'm not too sure about "what you see is what you get". He was more blunt, but certainly not simple. And as to Paul, I think you misunderstand his personality. He is not a liar - he is diplomatic and he is a storyteller. I think you can see this if you watch "Anthology", for instance. When he talks about some episode of the past, he might add or leave out the odd detail or exaggerate a little, just because it sounds better or fits in better with the general idea of the conversation. Sometimes, he catches himself and rectifies a little ("no, wait, that's wrong, actually what happened was..."). I think if you can read between the lines, you can easily guess what's right and what's slightly "adorned". There are people who can handle this and others who can't (and then resort to calling him "shallow").