I don't think anything Alan Leeds has said is in any way contradicted by Prince's charitable actions.

laurarichardson said:

CAL3 said:

.

What is it with ME?

.

I am the one thinking outside of the box, if the truth must be told.

.

Listen: the operative word in MY post was "SOME folks" while the operative word in YOUR post was "SOME associates."

.

Please think about the difference. We're both using the word "some" but we've applied it in different ways.

.

Speaking of spelling things out, that's what I've been trying to do because you keep misinterpreting what I say.

.

I was pointing out that "some people think" this way or that way about a particular topic. You stated what I said was not true (which it is), and went on to say that "People have issues with some associates" -- do you really not see the distinction?

Not in all cases. There are some folks who take issue with anyone who doesn't back up their preferred version of the Prince narrative. And there are others who do not.

We could be on the "some all day" Different people have opinions about associates based on actual lies they have told. These people (fans) are not wrong for having these opinions since they are based on facts. Yes, they are going to take issue with other fans who don't know the facts of the situation. This is an open message board. No one has to explain to you why Alan Leeds has been a dick head about a lot of Prince topics in the last few years. I really hope he feels bad for bashing someone for their behavior from 30 fucking years ago. He must have felt like a moron when Van Jones and others talked about all the great things Prince had been doing behind the scenes for the last thirty years. He was talking out of his ass about stuff from 30 years ago. At some point he should have let it go and I hope he does now.

.

There are some folks who take issue with anyone who doesn't back up their preferred version of the Prince narrative. And there are others who do not.

.

Wait - are you quoting me with this? If that's what YOU're saying, then what are we arguing about? That's exactly what I said from the start - and you made the claim it wasn't true.

.

they are going to take issue with other fans who don't know the facts of the situation

.

And... some folks have a very loose definition of "facts"....

.

I really hope he feels bad for bashing someone ...

.

"Bashing" is a highly subjective term... You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

.

He must have felt like a moron when Van Jones and others talked about all the great things Prince had been doing behind the scenes for the last thirty years. He was talking out of his ass about stuff from 30 years ago. At some point he should have let it go and I hope he does now.

.

You're perfectly illustrating my point with closing these comments.

laurarichardson said:

fbueller said:

You think Alan Leeds (who was Prince's right hand man for 10 years) isn't an authority on Prince? Of course Prince evolved over the years, but Alan has a lot of insight into Prince's history, approach to his work, personality, etc. Wish Alan would write the book that he talked about doing a few years ago.

--- Alan is an authority on those 10 years and nothing else.

Right. Sure. Because those 10 years led to nothing and Prince became a totally different person after that.

Genesia said:

Good point Laura. Prince was a young dude facing a great deal of pressure and a rather large spotlight. Leeds is willing to talk; others weren't of course. But that being said, I have heard worse stuff about P and Leeds did mention something in one of the interviews about how people (in that circle, presumably that also includes P) have matured since then.

laurarichardson said:

Genesia said:

Right. Sure. Because those 10 years led to nothing and Prince became a totally different person after that.

Those ten years did lead to something and then time marched on. Unfortunatly Alan spoke as if Prince was stuck back in those 10 years for the rest of his life.

purplerabbithole said:

CAL3 said:

.

Not saying you, but in general it seems like some folks take issue with damn near anyone who actually knew and worked with Prince who has something to say that doesn't jibe with their own preferred "Prince narrative."

You're right. Case in point this thread.

Anytime you read quotes from Alan Leeds in a book, or hear them in a documentary it is ALWAYS prefixed by something along the lines of "[associates name] who was Prince's [job title] between [insert date] had this to say... " It's not like former associates are claiming they're still a member of the inner circle.

But they are still referred to as his "inner circle". Previous employees (even ones with intimate knowledge) are no longer inner circle and shouldn't be treated as the final word on a person. Consulting them is fine but acknowledging that maybe this person's perception of P is shaped by time, selective memory, personal interest, and limited knowledge of P in his later years -- would be the responsible thing for some writers to be upfront about.

If they are talking to the Press, they were not in his inner circle. the inner circle would not talk to the press. His death just proves how little people like Leeds really knew about him.

Noodled24 said:

CAL3 said:

.

Not saying you, but in general it seems like some folks take issue with damn near anyone who actually knew and worked with Prince who has something to say that doesn't jibe with their own preferred "Prince narrative."

You're right. Case in point this thread.

Anytime you read quotes from Alan Leeds in a book, or hear them in a documentary it is ALWAYS prefixed by something along the lines of "[associates name] who was Prince's [job title] between [insert date] had this to say... " It's not like former associates are claiming they're still a member of the inner circle.

purplerabbithole said:

But they are still referred to as his "inner circle". Previous employees (even ones with intimate knowledge) are no longer inner circle and shouldn't be treated as the final word on a person. Consulting them is fine but acknowledging that maybe this person's perception of P is shaped by time, selective memory, personal interest, and limited knowledge of P in his later years -- would be the responsible thing for some writers to be upfront about.

Writers are upfront about it. Leeds is ALWAYS introduced as a former manager/associate.

If they are talking to the Press, they were not in his inner circle. the inner circle would not talk to the press. His death just proves how little people like Leeds really knew about him.

No. People around Prince didn't talk to the media because Prince made them sign NDAs.

Who would you rather hear from if not the people who were there?

Noodled24 said:

^ I'm not sure what your point is?

He was annoyed P wouldn't do something, therefore the 10 years he spent with Prince is rendered irrelevant?

Noodled24 said:

^ Well... exactly. If he's asked his opinion then he's going to give it. His is just of more interest than most because he spent time with the man himself.

People seem to be suggesting Alan should adopt the response "I'm not qualified to talk about Prince after 93"? Which is ridiculous.

Noodled24 said:

I always appreciate Alan's take on things, sorry y'all.

jaawwnn said:

wonder505 said:

Noodled24 said:

^ Well... exactly. If he's asked his opinion then he's going to give it. His is just of more interest than most because he spent time with the man himself.

People seem to be suggesting Alan should adopt the response "I'm not qualified to talk about Prince after 93"? Which is ridiculous.

Its equally ridiculous that we cant criticize Alan "because" he spent ten years with Prince. To me he has nothing of interest to offer on Prince's later life more than the opinion of any of us fans, so why cant we call him out on it. people seem to act like Alan is the ultimate god of authority on Prince so much that we're forbidden from criticizing him when he makes a public statement we disagree with. I mean does he even talk about D'Angelo at all? (Just a side observation) [Edited 10/30/16 15:06pm]

Well, personally I still think the opinion of someone who was close to P for a long time is inherently of more substance. Not many people lasted as long as he did. Without him, and others we'd know far less. He is certainly an authority on his time with P, and insightful as an observer.

A.) In reference to your earlier response to me, I never said those in his current inner circle didn't sign papers shutting them up. It doesn't change the fact that Alan is no longer in P's circle and hasn't been for a quite a while. An 'authority' on P doesn't know he has a drug problem,,okay?

B.) And Yes, there are people who "lasted" with Prince longer than Alan Leeds. Morris Hayes, Kirk Johnson, Kim Berry, and Rhonda Smith for example. When or if Johnson starts talking, I will be more inclined to care than Alan Leeds.

c.) BTW, my issue lies less with Leed's opinions and more with his talking to Toure a bit too frequently for my taste and Toure implying that an inner circle is a group of people P worked with 20 to 30 years ago. The truth is that Prince did too good of a job of being private, so opinions about him are based on associates who no longer are working with him..people that may have selective memory, have axes to grind or at the very least have very little knowledge of what kind of person he was on a daily basis in the later years of his life. Plus, I also suspect that since P pushed people away, they sometimes spoke out against him publically while he was alive in an attempt to get his attention (to remind him that they still existed). --He did work with some musicians later who talked shit about him in previous years. And writers and the press don't give a shit about the times when P was normal or funny or respectful-- they only want the divo stories. So, the writers help contribute to an one-sided narrative. When a person dies, the narrative usually switches to the favorable side (as it should, in my opinion--most people deserve an eulogy). In time, we will get a moderate objective take on P.

Noodled24 said:

wonder505 said:

Noodled24 said: Its equally ridiculous that we cant criticize Alan "because" he spent ten years with Prince. To me he has nothing of interest to offer on Prince's later life more than the opinion of any of us fans, so why cant we call him out on it. people seem to act like Alan is the ultimate god of authority on Prince so much that we're forbidden from criticizing him when he makes a public statement we disagree with. I mean does he even talk about D'Angelo at all? (Just a side observation) [Edited 10/30/16 15:06pm]

Well, personally I still think the opinion of someone who was close to P for a long time is inherently of more substance. Not many people lasted as long as he did. Without him, and others we'd know far less. He is certainly an authority on his time with P, and insightful as an observer.

[Edited 10/30/16 17:39pm]

[Edited 10/30/16 17:59pm]

Noodled24 said:

wonder505 said:

Noodled24 said: Its equally ridiculous that we cant criticize Alan "because" he spent ten years with Prince. To me he has nothing of interest to offer on Prince's later life more than the opinion of any of us fans, so why cant we call him out on it. people seem to act like Alan is the ultimate god of authority on Prince so much that we're forbidden from criticizing him when he makes a public statement we disagree with. I mean does he even talk about D'Angelo at all? (Just a side observation) [Edited 10/30/16 15:06pm]

Well, personally I still think the opinion of someone who was close to P for a long time is inherently of more substance. Not many people lasted as long as he did. Without him, and others we'd know far less. He is certainly an authority on his time with P, and insightful as an observer.

And thats okay and you are free to see things that way but understand others dont view him that way.

purplerabbithole said:

A.) In reference to your earlier response to me, I never said those in his current inner circle didn't sign papers shutting them up. It doesn't change the fact that Alan is no longer in P's circle and hasn't been for a quite a while. An 'authority' on P doesn't know he has a drug problem,,okay?

Correct he hasn't... and nobody knew Prince had a problem, or how long he had that problem.

B.) And Yes, there are people who "lasted" with Prince longer than Alan Leeds. Morris Hayes, Kirk Johnson, Kim Berry, and Rhonda Smith for example. When or if Johnson starts talking, I will be more inclined to care than Alan Leeds.

Thanks for confirming so few people were around Prince that long.

c.) BTW, my issue lies less with Leed's opinions and more with his talking to Toure a bit too frequently for my taste and Toure implying that an inner circle is a group of people P worked with 20 to 30 years ago.

You mean Toure said Leeds USED to be part of the inner circle, but you pretended not to hear the word "used". If I'm wrong give me the EXACT quote where Toure implies Alan is still close to Prince.

The truth is that Prince did too good of a job of being private, so opinions about him are based on associates who no longer are working with him..

You just defined the term "former associate". I sincerely hope this is going somewhere...

people that may have selective memory, have axes to grind or at the very least have very little knowledge of what kind of person he was on a daily basis in the later years of his life. Plus, I also suspect that since P pushed people away, they sometimes spoke out against him publically while he was alive in an attempt to get his attention (to remind him that they still existed). --He did work with some musicians later who talked shit about him in previous years. And writers and the press don't give a shit about the times when P was normal or funny or respectful-- they only want the divo stories. So, the writers help contribute to an one-sided narrative. When a person dies, the narrative usually switches to the favorable side (as it should, in my opinion--most people deserve an eulogy). In time, we will get a moderate objective take on P.

Easy solution... don't read or watch anything Alan contributes to. The rest of us will continue to enjoy his insights into the man he worked with for 10 years.

wonder505 said:

Noodled24 said:

Well, personally I still think the opinion of someone who was close to P for a long time is inherently of more substance. Not many people lasted as long as he did. Without him, and others we'd know far less. He is certainly an authority on his time with P, and insightful as an observer.

And thats okay and you are free to see things that way but understand others dont view him that way.

... Unless he's praising Prince in which case those same people will be all over him. Funny how he only gets criticized when he says something "fans" deem "negative".

wonder505 said:

Noodled24 said:

^ Well... exactly. If he's asked his opinion then he's going to give it. His is just of more interest than most because he spent time with the man himself.

People seem to be suggesting Alan should adopt the response "I'm not qualified to talk about Prince after 93"? Which is ridiculous.

Its equally ridiculous that we cant criticize Alan "because" he spent ten years with Prince. To me he has nothing of interest to offer on Prince's later life more than the opinion of any of us fans, so why cant we call him out on it. people seem to act like Alan is the ultimate god of authority on Prince so much that we're forbidden from criticizing him when he makes a public statement we disagree with. I mean does he even talk about D'Angelo at all? (Just a side observation) [Edited 10/30/16 15:06pm]

Preach it.

I'd hate to be judged by some disgruntled curmudgeon who knew me in my twenties and hasn't had a decent relationship with me since forever. Alan knew Prince in a professional capacity for a brief period early in his career. There have been many others who have worked closely with him that have said no one ever really gets close enough to actually "know" Prince. Some can acknowledge his evolution over the years, minus the bitterness and others cannot.

The only reason people kiss his feet is simply because for a long time he was pretty much the only one who would open his mouth about Prince. Therefore he basically controlled the biased narrative and gave aid and comfort to those who are still pining and whining over the mythological "golden years".

It is a fact of life that sometimes we outgrow people around us and it is necessary to leave them behind. In most cases those people resent the separation, but one must follow their own life path in spite of that, which is what Prince did. He was a phenomenal artist before, during and after the so called "golden era". I'm glad I don't limit myself with that mindset.

In fact, the last thing that Leeds said about P publically was particularly uncalled for, not to mention just plain wrong. As far as I'm concerned sacred cows who everybody thinks are the supreme authority on Prince do not exist.

babynoz said:

wonder505 said:

Noodled24 said: Its equally ridiculous that we cant criticize Alan "because" he spent ten years with Prince. To me he has nothing of interest to offer on Prince's later life more than the opinion of any of us fans, so why cant we call him out on it. people seem to act like Alan is the ultimate god of authority on Prince so much that we're forbidden from criticizing him when he makes a public statement we disagree with. I mean does he even talk about D'Angelo at all? (Just a side observation) [Edited 10/30/16 15:06pm]

Preach it.

I'd hate to be judged by some disgruntled curmudgeon who knew me in my twenties and hasn't had a decent relationship with me since forever. Alan knew Prince in a professional capacity for a brief period early in his career. There have been many others who have worked closely with him that have said no one ever really gets close enough to actually "know" Prince. Some can acknowledge his evolution over the years, minus the bitterness and others cannot.

The only reason people kiss his feet is simply because for a long time he was pretty much the only one who would open his mouth about Prince. Therefore he basically controlled the biased narrative and gave aid and comfort to those who are still pining and whining over the mythological "golden years".

It is a fact of life that sometimes we outgrow people around us and it is necessary to leave them behind. In most cases those people resent the separation, but one must follow their own life path in spite of that, which is what Prince did. He was a phenomenal artist before, during and after the so called "golden era". I'm glad I don't limit myself with that mindset.

In fact, the last thing that Leeds said about P publically was particularly uncalled for, not to mention just plain wrong. As far as I'm concerned sacred cows who everybody thinks are the supreme authority on Prince do not exist.

Sis you nailed it!!!! THANK YOU.

babynoz said:

wonder505 said:

Noodled24 said: Its equally ridiculous that we cant criticize Alan "because" he spent ten years with Prince. To me he has nothing of interest to offer on Prince's later life more than the opinion of any of us fans, so why cant we call him out on it. people seem to act like Alan is the ultimate god of authority on Prince so much that we're forbidden from criticizing him when he makes a public statement we disagree with. I mean does he even talk about D'Angelo at all? (Just a side observation) [Edited 10/30/16 15:06pm]

Preach it.

I'd hate to be judged by some disgruntled curmudgeon who knew me in my twenties and hasn't had a decent relationship with me since forever. Alan knew Prince in a professional capacity for a brief period early in his career. There have been many others who have worked closely with him that have said no one ever really gets close enough to actually "know" Prince. Some can acknowledge his evolution over the years, minus the bitterness and others cannot.

When you say "brief period" do you mean a decade? Because a decade out of a 40 year professional career isn't brief by anyones standards.

Also he worked for Prince in a professional capacity but they were obviously friends too. Or as close as Prince had to friends.

The only reason people kiss his feet is simply because for a long time he was pretty much the only one who would open his mouth about Prince. Therefore he basically controlled the biased narrative and gave aid and comfort to those who are still pining and whining over the mythological "golden years".

90's Prince was my era if that's wht you're attempting to imply.

It is a fact of life that sometimes we outgrow people around us and it is necessary to leave them behind. In most cases those people resent the separation, but one must follow their own life path in spite of that, which is what Prince did. He was a phenomenal artist before, during and after the so called "golden era". I'm glad I don't limit myself with that mindset.

So you don't find it at all interesting that Prince briefly considered selling his music via an infomercial in the late 80s?

Are you sticking to the belief that Prince didn't know what an infomercial was because he said it on TV?

In fact, the last thing that Leeds said about P publically was particularly uncalled for, not to mention just plain wrong. As far as I'm concerned sacred cows who everybody thinks are the supreme authority on Prince do not exist.

The only people in this thread who REPEATEDLY refer to AL as god-like are the ones saying he's a liar.

You'll note that rather than spout hyperbole I've stated that he has an opinion on P like everyone else. His is more valid than yours or mine, because he has first hand experience with the guy on which to base his opinion.

We'd probably have a lot more information about Prince if people didn't abuse former associates for talking about Prince as if he was a human.

^^Noodle, when you do that you screw up the formatting and I cant quote you. Keep it simple.


For all that you still haven't really addressed much that I actually said.

I've worked closely with many people for a decade who I was on friendly terms with that most certainly were not my friends. By the same token, there have been people who I thought were friends at the time who turned out to be otherwise. You guys feel free to choose other people's friends though.

Furthermore, first hand knowledge from well over twenty years ago will be given due consideration, but will not be over-estimated, embellished or glorified by me. I have not in any way implied that Leeds is a liar. What I have stated, NOT implied is that he is biased and I stand by that. Whatever is said, no matter who says it, the first thing I do is consider the source and whatever their agenda is. Again, NO sacred cows.

I have no issues with Prince protecting his reputation from bitter exes, associates, jumpoffs, sister wives, employees, etc., having no clue what he had to deal with and seeing that he was never the most trusting soul.

His former associates/employees can cry me a river. It is possible that he dealt severely with those who overstepped their boundaries and if that is the case then so be it.

Like I said.....pining and whining.

wonder505 said:

babynoz said:

Preach it.

I'd hate to be judged by some disgruntled curmudgeon who knew me in my twenties and hasn't had a decent relationship with me since forever. Alan knew Prince in a professional capacity for a brief period early in his career. There have been many others who have worked closely with him that have said no one ever really gets close enough to actually "know" Prince. Some can acknowledge his evolution over the years, minus the bitterness and others cannot.

The only reason people kiss his feet is simply because for a long time he was pretty much the only one who would open his mouth about Prince. Therefore he basically controlled the biased narrative and gave aid and comfort to those who are still pining and whining over the mythological "golden years".

It is a fact of life that sometimes we outgrow people around us and it is necessary to leave them behind. In most cases those people resent the separation, but one must follow their own life path in spite of that, which is what Prince did. He was a phenomenal artist before, during and after the so called "golden era". I'm glad I don't limit myself with that mindset.

In fact, the last thing that Leeds said about P publically was particularly uncalled for, not to mention just plain wrong. As far as I'm concerned sacred cows who everybody thinks are the supreme authority on Prince do not exist.

Sis you nailed it!!!! THANK YOU.

I was all set to see D'Angelo on tour a few months ago, but the show was cancelled. I wish to hell that Leeds would deal with THAT issue, which is his actual job btw.


It's called worrying about the wrong thing.

babynoz said:

^^Noodle, when you do that you screw up the formatting and I cant quote you. Keep it simple.

The return key twice on it's own lets you insert a break in quoted text. If you want to start a new paragraph/line it's Shift+Return.

For all that you still haven't really addressed much that I actually said.

I've worked closely with many people for a decade who I was on friendly terms with that most certainly were not my friends. By the same token, there have been people who I thought were friends at the time who turned out to be otherwise. You guys feel free to choose other people's friends though.

Where have you read they're still friends? You keep coming back to this like someone is trying to pull the wool over the worlds eyes.

Furthermore, first hand knowledge from well over twenty years ago will be given due consideration, but will not be over-estimated, embellished or glorified by me. I have not in any way implied that Leeds is a liar. What I have stated, NOT implied is that he is biased and I stand by that. Whatever is said, no matter who says it, the first thing I do is consider the source and whatever their agenda is. Again, NO sacred cows.

This isn't a point that needs to be made. Of course he is bias, everyone is. You and I are bias because we're fans.

I have no issues with Prince protecting his reputation from bitter exes, associates, jumpoffs, sister wives, employees, etc., having no clue what he had to deal with and seeing that he was never the most trusting soul.

His former associates/employees can cry me a river. It is possible that he dealt severely with those who overstepped their boundaries and if that is the case then so be it.

Like I said.....pining and whining.

Along with a lot of factual information that all fans have benefited from anytime we read a biography or watch a documentary.

^^What I mean is quoting the entire comment. I wasn't trying to break it up because it's not necessary.

Bottom line, you seem to be in your feelings because contrary to the trend here, I don't give former associates biased comments as much weight as you'd like. I was simply making a general observation in my comment to Wonder505 that was not specifically directed to you. Next time I'll delete your portion to avoid confusion.

You have as much or as little information about Prince as you are entitled to have. Curiosity does not necessarily equate to being entitled to know anything more than you already do. Again, I do not automatically confer credibility on someone simply because they run their mouth the most.

Finally, whether deliberately or not, you completely missed the point regarding my friendship comment. My point is that just because some type of relationship existed many years ago does not automatically mean that person's opinion is credible or relevant over two decades later. Again, I consider the source and their agenda when judging the credibility of what is said no matter who is doing the talking, past or present.

Leeds has said some things I consider credible and some not. My point is that his importance is overblown when the arc of Prince's career is taken in it's entirety and given an honest assement.

Noodled24 said:

wonder505 said:

And thats okay and you are free to see things that way but understand others dont view him that way.

... Unless he's praising Prince in which case those same people will be all over him. Funny how he only gets criticized when he says something "fans" deem "negative".

THat's an overblown statement. Alan Leeds gets both praise and criticism for his statements. And you are being hypocritical. Why is it okay to criticize Prince but not okay to criticize Alan Leeds? Again, because Alan knew knew him 20 years ago means that he is without fault? So no one here can critique ANYTHING??? You can't have it both ways. If Prince was a free for all criticism you best believe that if his former associated artists makes a public statement that I disagree with you bet I'm going to call them out on it. But according to you, because Alan worked with him, we can't say anything...ever.

babynoz said:

^^What I mean is quoting the entire comment. I wasn't trying to break it up because it's not necessary.

Bottom line, you seem to be in your feelings because contrary to the trend here, I don't give former associates biased comments as much weight as you'd like. I was simply making a general observation in my comment to Wonder505 that was not specifically directed to you. Next time I'll delete your portion to avoid confusion.

You have as much or as little information about Prince as you are entitled to have. Curiosity does not necessarily equate to being entitled to know anything more than you already do. Again, I do not automatically confer credibility on someone simply because they run their mouth the most.

Finally, whether deliberately or not, you completely missed the point regarding my friendship comment. My point is that just because some type of relationship existed many years ago does not automatically mean that person's opinion is credible or relevant over two decades later. Again, I consider the source and their agenda when judging the credibility of what is said no matter who is doing the talking, past or present.

Leeds has said some things I consider credible and some not. My point is that his importance is overblown when the arc of Prince's career is taken in it's entirety and given an honest assement.