There have been two interviews with Alan Leeds accessible via the Org lately and they discomfort me.

Both contain remarks about Prince's shyness and longing to be in control, so as a reader I know I'm not supposed to read what I'm reading. Needless to say I did read though - so I'm not really blaming anyone if not blaming myself. Which I actually am...

Especially the part about the diner at the house of Prince's father seems to be an area I'm not meant to be part of.

Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with rumors, as long as they're unreliable, so you can doubt them and the rumored can feel free . But Leeds is an ex-employee. In my personal opinion, he may say things about Prince in the pub and to friends - but not directly to public media, with his name under it.

So I wonder what motivates Alan Leeds to make al his stories public the way he does, though I think I have an answer.

Especially from the interview here on the org (sorry I can't retrieve it - if someone has the link that would be great) I'm getting the impression that he thinks that everybody has the right to know the truth about people of incredible greatness, like Miles Davis, James Brown and Prince.

To me, Alan Leeds seems to see them as publicly accessible miracles, rather than people he can hurt. Rather than people whose trust he once has got. ("Trust - who do ya..." )

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe Prince has told Leeds that he may say anything about him (but reading Leeds' stories I think this is very improbable).

Maybe my ideas about discrecy (or 'discreteness' - what's the right word?)) are just my ideas and no-one else's - but at the same I make a difference in whose privacy is concerned. I don't care too much when Leeds talks about James Brown this way, or Miles Davis. It's just that from Leeds' stories it becomes very clear how much Prince needs his privacy, while Leeds still breaks it. ("Thieieieves in the Temple to night...")

Anyone agree?
.
[Edited 3/11/06 15:35pm]

Alan is a down-to-earth guy with no airs or graces. You may not agree with what he said, (or indeed has to say) about Prince and other people he has worked with/for, but the bottom line is he simply tells it as he saw it.

You have to realise that the written word can be (and is) always interpreted differently by different people, and that's something neither Alan nor anybody else can be expected to ever control...it just 'is'.

Oh, and you can find the Alan Leeds Org Q&A here: http://www.prince.org/msg/7/171968

Prince is human...humans are not perfect! Guess this sums it up...

Why, what did he say??

Byron said:

"when are you gonna tell me the truth...?" Vanessa B.

LillianLaughs said:

Get over yourself - he was there, the public are interested, end of story.

[Edited 3/11/06 23:33pm]

Prince took a turn in life where he willingly placed himself in the public eye. That's a one-way avenue. Leeds just seems to be an open and honest guy with no axe to grind. He's not out there dishing malicious dirt for his own gain. He's recalling incidents that may be of interest to folks.

While folks still give a shit.

Discreteness ? Discrecy ? Discretion ?



I can relate to what you´re saying but then again, I'd rather read Alan Leeds´version than something made up by Liz Jones, even though her book wasn´t that bad.

Alan Leeds and Dave Ritz ( Marvin Gaye´s biographer, author of Divided Soul , a must read) have a very unique way of telling intimate details without sounding like a gossip queen because they know their stuff and, IMO, do what they do with a touch of class.
Their criticism is like listening to some advice from a good friend, you know it´s (part of) the truth.

And sometimes the truth hurts .

he didnt say anything extremely private..its not like he is dishing prince's penis size or crapping patterns..

who so uncomfortable?

Great points...

His interviews have no malicious content...he's recalling past incidents with amazing recollection. Like SQ said, while people still give a shit.