Rolling Stone did an article this month on the "secret" history of the Beatles. I no longer have my RS subscription so I couldn't read it, but it seemed a little bogus anyways. I mean, seriously? It's been years since these squabbles mattered. Just enjoy the music. It's done. Half the Beatles are dead anyways, get over it.
"John was on drugs, wasn't he? This is the trouble with history, with journalism. John said so much c**p that he later said he hadn't meant. It's bulls**t. We were there. We all enjoyed it. I never really criticized John. I'm not that critical. It's a question of personalities.John's was more abrasive than mine and that was good for his corner of the square that made up The Beatles. If we'd had two people like that -- forget it -- I don't think it would have worked.
Whatever bad things John said about me, he would also slip his glasses down to the end of his nose and say, 'I love you.’ That's really what I hold on to. That's what I believe. The rest is showing off."
Paul told Radio Times Magazine, "The image of John is seriously flawed because he was not the hard, mad man that people think he was. He was a very soft-centred guy and we had a lot more in common than people think. His favorite song when we were kids was 'Little White Lies,' which was very sentimental. It was a smoochy old standard that his mum liked."
I think Rolling Stone might have caught "we think we real cool"-itis. It's cool, I've got Paste now. They know what's up.
Photo courtesy of Zimbio.