Krystalkisses said:

ladygirl99 said:

Yawn argue just to argue.

Look, not everyone is going to give a nicely perspective about Prince and I admired the journalist's honesty and she wasn't the only one who complained the coldness and lack of personal side of Prince as Paisley Park handlers just marketed him like some supernatural cartoon but that was how Prince presented himself too when he was alive. I heard stories from some other fans said they felt the tour was left to be desired. Yes I want to hear the good and bad and the honest side about Prince, and whether you like it or not as years go by people are going to slowly express their truths not their facade about Prince. And also the next generation is going to invest more information about Prince beyond him just a music and there are going to be some unflattered things come out about Prince so deal. Prince had the control to get the fan focus on the music when he was alive but it is going to get harder as years go by and there is little the estate or anyone else can do but well maybe condemn or respect the diverse perspectives.

Plus the journalist just speaking from her observation on the trip that is all, not writing a Prince biography, and when did that required complexity? Maybe Morris Hayes can give the good and bad more in-depth because he worked for Prince for nearly 20 years and the journalist only had one connection to Prince which was some Paisley Park trip, not a fair comparison, right? And if you read the article the journalist made some good points (I haven't went there yet) that Paisley Park handlers should show more human side of Prince like maybe footages and videos of his humor and behind the scenes interaction with people, but then again Prince always felt like he was the loneliest guy on the planet that explained why the journalist didn't see videos and pictures of him as a husband and father or jokester or whatever personal side she was expecting.

And I said FANS not purplerabbithole when I mentioned about people tried their hardest to sanctified Prince now he is dead and wanted to censor and control narratives of people who offer objectives and perspectives that are not so fanatical, so READ MY PREVIOUS POST CAREFULLY. No wonder some of the associates don't want to come on here to post.

[Edited 6/18/18 22:13pm]

I like you ladygirl.

Thanks.

I am sorry if I am coming off too OTT. Here is the deal. This is a sad sore subject and I just think it deserves all the nuance and sensitivity allowable. Her article, in my opinion, doesn't cut it. And I am not the only one who thinks that. If you looking for any Prince humanity at PP, and you ignore the pictures Prince kept in his office of his staff members kids while stating that it was impossible to humanize prince..(she said that), than I think that is lacking the sensitivity needed to take on such a subject. If you pick only a negative story from Mayte's book and ignore the warmer ones while stating that the tenderness and lust in his music seemed nearly absent in his life, then you are cherry picking with an agenda. She didn't just say that PP didn't show enough intimate stuff, she implied that there was no intimate stuff to be had...(did she know about Andy Allo's 2011 love letter being kept amongst his stuff?)> Its not like anyone gets to go upstairs and look at Elvis' bedroom. Its a museum...of course, its going to keep some things private. And he had stuff in different homes and storage facilities. I do think his last years seems alone and sad, but just because stuff is buried, we shouldn't assume it doesn't or didn't exist. For all we know he had thousands of intimate or at least playful emails and some pictures on his computer. Prince was a compartmentalized and secretive as hell. but we shouldn't assume that his music comes from a vacuum and there weren't hidden recesses in his heart. He was human...she should look closer or at least admit that she doesn't have the resources to do so. .Before she assumes that things are just what meets the eye, she needs more research or at least to admit that she was just scratching the surface and didn't feel like PP was providing any answers or details. I think we will agree to disagree but keep in mind that my issues with the article are not coming from a fan who needs prince sanctified. If she read Maytes book, she would know that P liked goobers in his popcorn.. or the kind of humanizing touch she said was lacking when she visited his kitchen. Paisley is being run by people who didn't know PRince. What are they going to provide. He used to make eggs with curry..he couldn't retweet for shit. He loved movies and borrowed/stole them from Morris, he liked to doodle on his lyrics and letters... His associates know. She said something about it being sad that P would watch people dance from a dark corner. True, that is sad but I do recall reading about him dancing with folks and renting out rooms and DJ's to just hang out with a girlfriend and listen to music. Had she never seen P invite folks up on stage to dance with him?? Its a show but much more intimate than his RockNroll hall of fame show....LIke i said, nuances are needed here. Too complex for simple sob stories.

ladygirl99 said:

purplerabbithole said:

Well, here is some more arguing for the sake of arguing......It might interest you to know that I dislike Paisley in many ways as well. But i also don't think it is completely without merit. I also know that he traveled and lived elsewhere as well. That still doesn't justify that article's limited perspective. It might be nice if she admitted that she didn't research it too much...since obviously she didn't.

lLet's look at the mis-leading subtitle...The place is a husk without Prince??? The rest of the article contradicts that statement by basically implying that the place was husk with him in it aswell. In her tweet, she said it was about "mourning"...mourning whom?-- a empty shell that happened to play music completely unrelated to itself.

She read the Mayte book presumably or should have..if she did , she could have mentioned his compassion for his dead son, or his romantic letters to his wife, or gotten the info right about the rare instance of one Dancer (not them all) getting her pay docked or read her description of his religious reasons for what he said to Oprah--all before her generalization that finding 'tenderness' in Prince was hard. . If she had followed any stories about his ping-pong playingn right after he died, she would have known that ping pong was a social thing Prince did with many associates (not just a reason to bang MJ in the nuts--that story was completely unneeded) and that he and MJ didn't play in Paisley. If she had done even the most basic research, she would have known that no one prescribed him fentanyl.

I am not upset for the sake of it. I do think that there were some problems with P being too private, mysterious and compartmentalized for his own good, but ignoring the fellowship and humor he was able to squeeze into his workaholic lifestyle (in a thousand articles that came out after he died), and even ignoring baby pictures of Yara Shadidi and others found in his office in PP in order to perputate a more stream-lined narrative is wrong and lazy. Its like loading the deck.

As for associates not coming on here, they talk plenty in interviews and are writing books. i honestly don't think they are going to say anything different here. As for you telling me to deal, I forgot that Prince never got criticized when he was alive...he was soooooo sanctified. Yeah, right. ..When he died, it was nice to hear some good stories for a change..because there weren't that many when he was alive. Are we going to assume that all good stories are lies and unimportant or dishonest?. There are a few moderaters on his very thread who have read every negative story there is about Prince and even they dislike the article...are they just naive fans?? I don't accuse you of being a hater; please don't make accusations about fans based off the dislike of an article from a woman who knew him no more than long term fans did (presumably less) but has the New Yorker prestige to create a caricatiured narrative. I work with mildly autistic kids and they can be hard to read and reach but they still have their moments of warmth and bonding...making unfair generalizations about them is as wrong as what this woman is doing in my opinion. Those little breakthrough moments of bonding are extremely important and mean more than you know.

[Edited 6/18/18 22:44pm]

[Edited 6/18/18 23:00pm]

Okay while you mentioned you have issues with the museum, the journalist also expressing her similar dissatisfaction, it is kind of odd, you are having an issue with it which doesn't make any sense. Sounds hypocritical. As a reminder, the article focused more on her time at Paisley Park and wishing she saw more media of Prince as a human (like playing basketball or goofing off with people he closed with) that was her main criticism not attacking Prince personally or are we reading it differently? That is why the title is 'Paisley Park, Prince's Lonely Palace.' If you want her to mention about his good deeds, then address that to the museum management to possibly have a room dedicated to all the charities he donated and another room filled with personal moments. From what I heard from the visitors, they were allowed to see his rooms of his albums and his achievements or whatever that was music focused. Once again her main purpose was to write an article about her visit and what she saw. I think you are expecting too much out of this. So I don't know why you are overreacting an article that is going to be archived in a few weeks or so and also out of the org's first page results in another few days or so? Yet Prince's legacy has the potential to last long as Mozart or more so, regardless of the critics and the such. It is not that serious.

,

[Edited 6/19/18 0:01am]

[Edited 6/19/18 0:52am]

purplerabbithole said:

I am sorry if I am coming off too OTT. Here is the deal. This is a sad sore subject and I just think it deserves all the nuance and sensitivity allowable. Her article, in my opinion, doesn't cut it. And I am not the only one who thinks that. If you looking for any Prince humanity at PP, and you ignore the pictures Prince kept in his office of his staff members kids while stating that it was impossible to humanize prince..(she said that), than I think that is lacking the sensitivity needed to take on such a subject. If you pick only a negative story from Mayte's book and ignore the warmer ones while stating that the tenderness and lust in his music seemed nearly absent in his life, then you are cherry picking with an agenda. She didn't just say that PP didn't show enough intimate stuff, she implied that there was no intimate stuff to be had...(did she know about Andy Allo's 2011 love letter being kept amongst his stuff?)> Its not like anyone gets to go upstairs and look at Elvis' bedroom. Its a museum...of course, its going to keep some things private. And he had stuff in different homes and storage facilities. I do think his last years seems alone and sad, but just because stuff is buried, we shouldn't assume it doesn't or didn't exist. For all we know he had thousands of intimate or at least playful emails and some pictures on his computer. Prince was a compartmentalized and secretive as hell. but we shouldn't assume that his music comes from a vacuum and there weren't hidden recesses in his heart. He was human...she should look closer or at least admit that she doesn't have the resources to do so. .Before she assumes that things are just what meets the eye, she needs more research or at least to admit that she was just scratching the surface and didn't feel like PP was providing any answers or details. I think we will agree to disagree but keep in mind that my issues with the article are not coming from a fan who needs prince sanctified. If she read Maytes book, she would know that P liked goobers in his popcorn.. or the kind of humanizing touch she said was lacking when she visited his kitchen. Paisley is being run by people who didn't know PRince. What are they going to provide. He used to make eggs with curry..he couldn't retweet for shit. He loved movies and borrowed/stole them from Morris, he liked to doodle on his lyrics and letters... His associates know. She said something about it being sad that P would watch people dance from a dark corner. True, that is sad but I do recall reading about him dancing with folks and renting out rooms and DJ's to just hang out with a girlfriend and listen to music. Had she never seen P invite folks up on stage to dance with him?? Its a show but much more intimate than his RockNroll hall of fame show....LIke i said, nuances are needed here. Too complex for simple sob stories.

ladygirl99 said:

Okay while you mentioned you have issues with the museum, the journalist also expressing her similar dissatisfaction, it is kind of odd, you are having an issue with it which doesn't make any sense. Sounds hypocritical. As a reminder, the article focused more on her time at Paisley Park and wishing she saw more media of Prince as a human (like playing basketball or goofing off with people he closed with) that was her main criticism not attacking Prince personally or are we reading it differently? That is why the title is 'Paisley Park, Prince's Lonely Palace.' If you want her to mention about his good deeds, then address that to the museum management to possibly have a room dedicated to all the charities he donated and another room filled with personal moments. From what I heard from the visitors, they were allowed to see his rooms of his albums and his achievements or whatever that was music focused. Once again her main purpose was to write an article about her visit and what she saw. I think you are expecting too much out of this. So I don't know why you are overreacting an article that is going to be archived in a few weeks or so and also out of the org's first page results in another few days or so? Yet Prince's legacy has the potential to last long as Mozart or more so, regardless of the critics and the such. It is not that serious.

,

[Edited 6/19/18 0:01am]

[Edited 6/19/18 0:52am]

But she expected more personalized experience being a tourist at Paisley Park, not in Mayte's book. I am sure if you go to museums to learn about people, you also want to learn about the life they live as a person as well as their professional life at that site. That what some of the fans complained about when they visited Paisley Park too much focus on his professional life and yes Prince was all about the music but he still had time for personal things too. Other celebrities museum had all types of things of their personal side like their hobbies, personal letters, etc. I guess as usual Prince was atypical and I believed even she didn't expected that during her visit.

Yeah I wish the people at the museum would work with Prince's associates to add more personal things so tourists would know his human touch include his charity work but I read articles that some of the associates aren't happy with how the people are running the museum. So...

And since you are dissatisfied with the article, I don't know what else to tell you other than her opinion is her opinion, and I strongly advised you that it is best to leave it at that. I am sure there are going to be a dozen of more positive articles about Prince, but there also going to be some raw and honest ones too.

purplerabbithole said:

Well, D'angelo was probably pretty young when he met P in 2000. And Prince was paranoid. But that being said, he sometimes had a reason to be at least a bit weary of people. HIs music had been leaking out for years

.

Mostly because of his own negligence.

ladygirl99 said:

purplerabbithole said:

I am not really dissing on Alan for this article. I don't agree with everything he says but his story with Prince is his own and I can't fault his honesty...as long as he is completely honest about himself, his intentions, the good and bad of life with P. etc etc. This article, by the way, did nothing even close to humanizing or showing different sides. All it did was dehumanize, demonize and turn him into a tragic caricature like Richard III or Macbeth..

Like it or not it still the journalist's perspective. Her story is not going to affect his legacy, I don't think. I don't get why fans are so desperate for Prince to be some flawless creature now he is dead. Opinion are assholes.

A journalist is entitled to her perspective (if it's an opinion piece, which I'm not entirely sure this is meant to be). She is not entitled, however, to make shit up.

And before you dismiss me as a mere fan, I should say that, in a former career, I was an award-winning journalist.

raw and honest are not necessarily the opposite of positive. If she is going quote Mayte's book, she should quote correctly.IF she wants to determine the nature of Prince's personality by using 2 quotes, Paisley park, and a few scattered details, she should admit that her research is limited.

ladygirl99 said:

purplerabbithole said:

I am sorry if I am coming off too OTT. Here is the deal. This is a sad sore subject and I just think it deserves all the nuance and sensitivity allowable. Her article, in my opinion, doesn't cut it. And I am not the only one who thinks that. If you looking for any Prince humanity at PP, and you ignore the pictures Prince kept in his office of his staff members kids while stating that it was impossible to humanize prince..(she said that), than I think that is lacking the sensitivity needed to take on such a subject. If you pick only a negative story from Mayte's book and ignore the warmer ones while stating that the tenderness and lust in his music seemed nearly absent in his life, then you are cherry picking with an agenda. She didn't just say that PP didn't show enough intimate stuff, she implied that there was no intimate stuff to be had...(did she know about Andy Allo's 2011 love letter being kept amongst his stuff?)> Its not like anyone gets to go upstairs and look at Elvis' bedroom. Its a museum...of course, its going to keep some things private. And he had stuff in different homes and storage facilities. I do think his last years seems alone and sad, but just because stuff is buried, we shouldn't assume it doesn't or didn't exist. For all we know he had thousands of intimate or at least playful emails and some pictures on his computer. Prince was a compartmentalized and secretive as hell. but we shouldn't assume that his music comes from a vacuum and there weren't hidden recesses in his heart. He was human...she should look closer or at least admit that she doesn't have the resources to do so. .Before she assumes that things are just what meets the eye, she needs more research or at least to admit that she was just scratching the surface and didn't feel like PP was providing any answers or details. I think we will agree to disagree but keep in mind that my issues with the article are not coming from a fan who needs prince sanctified. If she read Maytes book, she would know that P liked goobers in his popcorn.. or the kind of humanizing touch she said was lacking when she visited his kitchen. Paisley is being run by people who didn't know PRince. What are they going to provide. He used to make eggs with curry..he couldn't retweet for shit. He loved movies and borrowed/stole them from Morris, he liked to doodle on his lyrics and letters... His associates know. She said something about it being sad that P would watch people dance from a dark corner. True, that is sad but I do recall reading about him dancing with folks and renting out rooms and DJ's to just hang out with a girlfriend and listen to music. Had she never seen P invite folks up on stage to dance with him?? Its a show but much more intimate than his RockNroll hall of fame show....LIke i said, nuances are needed here. Too complex for simple sob stories.

[Edited 6/19/18 0:52am]

But she expected more personalized experience being a tourist at Paisley Park, not in Mayte's book. I am sure if you go to museums to learn about people, you also want to learn about the life they live as a person as well as their professional life at that site. That what some of the fans complained about when they visited Paisley Park too much focus on his professional life and yes Prince was all about the music but he still had time for personal things too. Other celebrities museum had all types of things of their personal side like their hobbies, personal letters, etc. I guess as usual Prince was atypical and I believed even she didn't expected that during her visit.

Yeah I wish the people at the museum would work with Prince's associates to add more personal things so tourists would know his human touch include his charity work but I read articles that some of the associates aren't happy with how the people are running the museum. So...

And since you are dissatisfied with the article, I don't know what else to tell you other than her opinion is her opinion, and I strongly advised you that it is best to leave it at that. I am sure there are going to be a dozen of more positive articles about Prince, but there also going to be some raw and honest ones too.

Genesia said:

Man, that is some sloppy reporting - and some really poor writing.

Much better pieces have been written, but in spite of the piece's flaws, she did recognize that he was unprecedented in the realm of pop stardom. To me, the money quote is from Tommy Barbarella, who said, "He touched somethings, especially in those people who were outcasts, or felt different. . . . He made it O.K. to be different."

The writer also recognized that the perceptions of Prince -- some which which are on display in her own darn piece -- changed, maybe because "there was a sense that not very many people could make or would make music like this anymore . . . His work began to feel increasingly inimitable and precious."

For its flaws, and the holes it tried to poke in his personal history, it upholds the special nature of his artistic legacy. In spite of itself.

And it's not like we haven't heard variations of these kinds of stories about him before.

I'll take the wheat and burn the chaff.

Genesia said:

ladygirl99 said:

Like it or not it still the journalist's perspective. Her story is not going to affect his legacy, I don't think. I don't get why fans are so desperate for Prince to be some flawless creature now he is dead. Opinion are assholes.

A journalist is entitled to her perspective (if it's an opinion piece, which I'm not entirely sure this is meant to be). She is not entitled, however, to make shit up.

And before you dismiss me as a mere fan, I should say that, in a former career, I was an award-winning journalist.

So telling her truth is making shit up?

I should say that, in a former career, I was an award-winning journalist.

And? Congrats?

Telling her truth???? Its not her truth we are talking about. She stated that he regularly fined and didn't pay dancers for weight gain..this is misinformation. She said that P was prescribed fentanyl--not true. She stated that he played ping pong with MJ in Paisley--not true. As for her interpretations of P's lack of personality, tenderness etc, yes, that is her opinion, but it is opinion based on limited info and she could at least admit that. I am not a journalist, but I majored in English in college...there are basic standards for persuasive writing (and I believe she is attempting to persuade readers that the lack of intimacy she felt with Prince during her tour was due to Prince's general lack of humanity/interpersonal connection) that I think she fails to follow (factual accuracy, and acknowledging possible contrasting information and reconcilling it with your thesis).

ladygirl99 said:

Genesia said:

A journalist is entitled to her perspective (if it's an opinion piece, which I'm not entirely sure this is meant to be). She is not entitled, however, to make shit up.

And before you dismiss me as a mere fan, I should say that, in a former career, I was an award-winning journalist.

So telling her truth is making shit up?

I should say that, in a former career, I was an award-winning journalist.

And? Congrats?

[Edited 6/19/18 13:01pm]

purplerabbithole said:

Telling her truth???? Its not her truth we are talking about. She stated that he regularly fined and didn't pay dancers for weight gain..this is misinformation. She said that P was prescribed fentanyl--not true. She stated that he played ping pong with MJ in Paisley--not true. As for her interpretations of P's lack of personality, tenderness etc, yes, that is her opinion, but it is opinion based on limited info and she could at least admit that. I am not a journalist, but I majored in English in college...there are basic standards for persuasive writing (and I believe she is attempting to persuade readers that the lack of intimacy she felt with Prince during her tour was due to Prince's general lack of humanity/interpersonal connection) that I think she fails to follow (factual accuracy, and acknowledging the contrasting information and reconcilling it with your thesis).

ladygirl99 said:

So telling her truth is making shit up?

I should say that, in a former career, I was an award-winning journalist.

And? Congrats?

Maybe the journalist meant they played ping pong at an LA studio and David Z confirmed this. They also played basketball too at Paisley Park. They met quite a few times. Maybe the journalist got the details mixed up of the locations but I don't think it was malice.

So why don't you complain to New Yorker about the article instead of going back and forth with me?

And I was talking to another poster THANK YOU. I am pretty much done debating with you on this topic so this forward you will be ignored as this going around in circles for argument sake and it's ridiculous.

BartVanHemelen said:

purplerabbithole said:

Well, D'angelo was probably pretty young when he met P in 2000. And Prince was paranoid. But that being said, he sometimes had a reason to be at least a bit weary of people. HIs music had been leaking out for years

.

Mostly because of his own negligence.

Might be Prince having a last laugh..

with all these bootlegs becoming more and more readily available

no one will need to buy from The Estate,

and no one will make any money off his back...

I think he,d be pleased...

ladygirl99 said:

Genesia said:

A journalist is entitled to her perspective (if it's an opinion piece, which I'm not entirely sure this is meant to be). She is not entitled, however, to make shit up.

And before you dismiss me as a mere fan, I should say that, in a former career, I was an award-winning journalist.

So telling her truth is making shit up?

I should say that, in a former career, I was an award-winning journalist.

And? Congrats?

Telling her truth?! To say that Prince was prescribed fentanyl (just one example in this piece) is not her truth. It is making shit up about another person.

If she had confined herself to writing about her own experience at Paisley Park, I would have no quibble whatsoever. But she veered off into writing a story about Prince. A sloppy, erroneous story. That is not journalism - or, at least, it should never be considered such.

And bad writing is just bad writing. This is really bad writing.

I get the vibe that when she was assigned the story and made to travel to Paisley Park, she was not really a serious fan or a fan at all. She got there and it felt distant and cold. So, she did some quick research (via online sources and summaries of books) to confirm her feelings and this article is the result. Even if a lot of what she said was true about Prince's more isolated ways, it feels like she is painting a one-dimensional picture (due to her omission of any conflicting, more positive, or more up-to-date information) , thinks Prince was pathetic (rather than sympathetic), and didn't have the time or inclination to do some real digging.

[Edited 6/20/18 8:47am]

Genesia said:

ladygirl99 said:

So telling her truth is making shit up?

I should say that, in a former career, I was an award-winning journalist.

And? Congrats?

Telling her truth?! To say that Prince was prescribed fentanyl (just one example in this piece) is not her truth. It is making shit up about another person.

If she had confined herself to writing about her own experience at Paisley Park, I would have no quibble whatsoever. But she veered off into writing a story about Prince. A sloppy, erroneous story. That is not journalism - or, at least, it should never be considered such.

And bad writing is just bad writing. This is really bad writing.

So complain to New Yorker and the journalist as she got her detail info at the end of the article about it geez. Ranting is just pointless to me.

There is a difference between making things up and unintentional errors, I believe she did the former.

[Edited 6/20/18 10:41am]

ladygirl99 said:

Genesia said:

Telling her truth?! To say that Prince was prescribed fentanyl (just one example in this piece) is not her truth. It is making shit up about another person.

If she had confined herself to writing about her own experience at Paisley Park, I would have no quibble whatsoever. But she veered off into writing a story about Prince. A sloppy, erroneous story. That is not journalism - or, at least, it should never be considered such.

And bad writing is just bad writing. This is really bad writing.

So complain to New Yorker and the journalist as she got her detail info at the end of the article about it geez. Ranting is just pointless to me.

There is a difference between making things up and unintentional errors, I believe she did the former.

[Edited 6/20/18 10:41am]

Are you a personal friend or something? Because you are spending an awful lot of time defending this hack.

"Unintentional errors" - what a pile of bullshit. It's called checking your facts. Any journalist worth his or her salt knows that. And this why journalism is dying.

So people continue to rant on here and not going to the New Yorker for their complains since this article is the most important thing to worry about in this world per others? I would love to hear the response from the journalist

[Edited 6/20/18 12:48pm]

ladygirl99 said:

So people continue to rant on here and not going to the New Yorker for their complains since this article is the most important thing to worry about in this world per others? I would love to hear the response from the journalist

[Edited 6/20/18 12:48pm]

When I have time, I'm going to try to reach out to the journalist. This article really sucked and she didn't have her facts straight.

PennyPurple said:

ladygirl99 said:

So people continue to rant on here and not going to the New Yorker for their complains since this article is the most important thing to worry about in this world per others? I would love to hear the response from the journalist

[Edited 6/20/18 12:48pm]

When I have time, I'm going to try to reach out to the journalist. This article really sucked and she didn't have her facts straight.

ladygirl99 said:

So people continue to rant on here and not going to the New Yorker for their complains since this article is the most important thing to worry about in this world per others? I would love to hear the response from the journalist

[Edited 6/20/18 12:48pm]

i agree that "ranting" here and initiating contact with the editor/magazine/journalist is a better course

than just the former. A good reminder for us all. thx.

Fans have tweeted the writer. But I am sure she will just feel victimized and call you all fanbots or whatever.

BTW, raise your hands if you think Prince was a saint, perfect, above reproach, innocent of anything bad ever said about him? I will wait. Actually, I won't because I will be here all day waiting for no hands to go up, listening to the crickets. I am stunned that people actually are saying he is sanctified on his site just because some people don't automatically believe every salicious thing they read about the man.

[Edited 6/20/18 13:37pm]

SkipperLove said:

Fans have tweeted the writer. But I am sure she will just feel victimized and call you all fanbots or whatever.

BTW, raise your hands if you think Prince was a saint, perfect, above reproach, innocent of anything bad ever said about him? I will wait. Actually, I won't because I will be here all day waiting for no hands to go up, listening to the crickets. I am stunned that people actually are saying he is sanctified on his site just because some people don't automatically believe every salicious thing they read about the man.

[Edited 6/20/18 13:37pm]

Has the writer tweeted anything back?

BartVanHemelen said:

purplerabbithole said:

Well, D'angelo was probably pretty young when he met P in 2000. And Prince was paranoid. But that being said, he sometimes had a reason to be at least a bit weary of people. HIs music had been leaking out for years

.

Mostly because of his own negligence.

Yep...That Prince SURE WAS ONE LAZY MOTHERFUCKER. Never did shit. Sat on his ass constantly.
[Snip - luv4u]

SkipperLove said:

Fans have tweeted the writer. But I am sure she will just feel victimized and call you all fanbots or whatever.

BTW, raise your hands if you think Prince was a saint, perfect, above reproach, innocent of anything bad ever said about him? I will wait. Actually, I won't because I will be here all day waiting for no hands to go up, listening to the crickets. I am stunned that people actually are saying he is sanctified on his site just because some people don't automatically believe every salicious thing they read about the man.

[Edited 6/20/18 13:37pm]

The criticim doesnt stem from folks thinking he was a saint. Nobody here believes that (except Laura). The crticism lies in shoddy journalism which should be concern for all, regardless if it concerns certain opinion that fall or dont fall in line with ones own.

Damn...it was the New Yorker, too. SMH.

I agree. That's exactly the point i was trying to make. Some people on this threadi(in their defense of the article) think to criticize this article is to sanctify Prince. They think he is sanctified on this website. I don't understand that thinking.

SkipperLove said:

I get the vibe that when she was assigned the story and made to travel to Paisley Park, she was not really a serious fan or a fan at all. She got there and it felt distant and cold. So, she did some quick research (via online sources and summaries of books) to confirm her feelings and this article is the result. Even if a lot of what she said was true about Prince's more isolated ways, it feels like she is painting a one-dimensional picture (due to her omission of any conflicting, more positive, or more up-to-date information) , thinks Prince was pathetic (rather than sympathetic), and didn't have the time or inclination to do some real digging.

[Edited 6/20/18 8:47am]

She probably watched those Reelz documentaries.

SkipperLove said:

I agree. That's exactly the point i was trying to make. Some people on this threadi(in their defense of the article) think to criticize this article is to sanctify Prince. They think he is sanctified on this website. I don't understand that thinking.

Well...the loudest mouth in defending this article is someone who (unless s/he is a trolling reuser, which is entirely possible) has been here for all of two months, so draw your own conclusions.

namepeace said:

SkipperLove said:

I get the vibe that when she was assigned the story and made to travel to Paisley Park, she was not really a serious fan or a fan at all. She got there and it felt distant and cold. So, she did some quick research (via online sources and summaries of books) to confirm her feelings and this article is the result. Even if a lot of what she said was true about Prince's more isolated ways, it feels like she is painting a one-dimensional picture (due to her omission of any conflicting, more positive, or more up-to-date information) , thinks Prince was pathetic (rather than sympathetic), and didn't have the time or inclination to do some real digging.

[Edited 6/20/18 8:47am]

She probably watched those Reelz documentaries.

It's funny cuz it's sad.

Latter. She is trying to bring back the good (bad) old days on this website. Oh, well, maybe she is just preparing us for the later more ugly books about P from folks who have axes to grind.

Genesia said:

SkipperLove said:

I agree. That's exactly the point i was trying to make. Some people on this threadi(in their defense of the article) think to criticize this article is to sanctify Prince. They think he is sanctified on this website. I don't understand that thinking.

Well...the loudest mouth in defending this article is someone who (unless s/he is a trolling reuser, which is entirely possible) has been here for all of two months, so draw your own conclusions.