Even if the people in question strive for complete honesty, you have to assume a considerable degree of compression and construction in their memories. It is very interesting, but it can never be more than circumstantial evidence that needs further data to be considered reliable. Again, nothing to the decrement of anyone who posted information on the subject, but you just have to be extremely careful with material like this.[/QUOTE]
Of course. The plural of anecdote is never data.
But still - the stories told by virtually every person who has ever spoken about their contact with Prenter basically confirm the narrative that he is the worst thing that ever happened to Freddie, and by extension the band.
There has to be something to be said for that.
Costa86 · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
Note that I am not questioning Apocalipsis_Darko nor miraclesteinway's (or Peter Freestone's) motives, honesty and integrity, but when it comes to subjects like this, I kick into professional-historian-mode, and sadly have to point out that this is all hearsay. The quotes/paraphrasings provided are in the third-degree (quoting or paraphrasing the testimony of a person who was two steps removed from the subject) and made decades after the fact. Even if the people in question strive for complete honesty, you have to assume a considerable degree of compression and construction in their memories. It is very interesting, but it can never be more than circumstantial evidence that needs further data to be considered reliable. Again, nothing to the decrement of anyone who posted information on the subject, but you just have to be extremely careful with material like this.[/QUOTE]
I agree.
When you think about it, all of the Christian Bible is hearsay, including the Gospels, and yet more than 2 billion people believe in it. Not even the historian Josephus' reference to Jesus is probably completely factual.
No wonder the aliens want to keep close tabs on us bunch of idiots with nuclear weapons in our bunkers.
miraclesteinway · Member since
Thanks for the comments guys.
It's understandable that a god-daughter of Prenter would want to protect him. The chances are that she knew his good side, and it's not as if even complete arseholes can't be loving towards some people.
Knowing what I know now, about the whole Freddie/Paul escapade, I can see that during the Prenter years, Freddie behaved differently and at times his head was so far up his own backside he couldn't even see daylight. By the way I don't think Freddie was a narcissist. Oh, yes, I think he probably could have the traits at times, but I think it's more that he was fully aware of his abilities, and his status. I don't think for a minute that he believed that he was more special than anyone else, except for during the Prenter years. You can see in the '70s interviews he'd make quips about "I love having so much money" etc, and he'd talk about talent and stuff, but it seemed more from the point of view of an ordinary man who had somehow hit the jackpot due to hard work and dedication.
During the Prenter period, Freddie seemed to act like a god, and then post Live-Aid onwards, he seems to be back to a more rounded and mature human being.
At times I get the feeling that although Freddie was hard in some ways, and knew what he wanted, that there was also this very humble side to him that was very grateful for what he had been given. That seemed to be absent from say, Hot Space to Bad Guy...
Stelios · Member since
^^^ By the way i dont tnink Freddie was a narcissist either. Actually this is a serious personality disorder and Freddie prooved to be quite the opposite, a rather balanced and well adjusted person.
However some "narcissist traits" were there but in a very functional way.
musicland munich · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
Note that I am not questioning Apocalipsis_Darko nor miraclesteinway's (or Peter Freestone's) motives, honesty and integrity, but when it comes to subjects like this, I kick into professional-historian-mode, and sadly have to point out that this is all hearsay. .[/QUOTE]
What`s definitely is not a hearsay is that Prenter sold him to the tabliod for about 30.000 bucks. And the story was circulating for weeks...give us headlines like "Phone call of terror" and
" He liked his men hunky", and many more. Freddie himself confirmed the storys, more or less.
miraclesteinway · Member since
Well, actually thomasquinn, you are right. Without empirical proof, everything is hearsay.
I can't back up anything I've posted about Freddie's HIV test or Paul Prenter's relationship with his family. Technically, I could put you in touch directly with the people who told me, but I wouldn't do that anyway. I'm happy enough for people to take or leave what I say. As you say, from a professional historian's perspective, there is no evidence.
When there's no evidence for something, it doesn't mean of course that it didn't happen, but it's really for the reader to decide if it's information that adds to the debate.
A friend of mine who is a 'cellist was talking to this woman about playing a Brahms cello sonata. Over dinner she said 'Well, you're playing it this way, but Brahms wanted it played completely differently!' My friend said 'How do you know that?' the lady replied 'Joachim told my grandmother that Brahms told him'. Joachim was a violinist in Brahms circle of friends, but the particular piece of information given was never written down by Brahms. It could be said that this is a reliable piece of information from the horses mouth, but there have already been four people involved before the information gets to my ears, and each time the story is told, it could have been changed slightly so that by the time it IS written down, it has completely changed its meaning.
So the two big information bombs I have dropped in the past week - one about Freddie's HIV test in 1985, the other about Paul Prenter's relationship with his family - are completely second hand pieces of information. In Paul Prenter's case, he definitely fell out with his brother, my friend's father in law. In family feuds, all sorts of things can be added and taken away from stories to make them suit.
In the case of the HIV test, I have no reason to believe that the lady in question didn't test the blood, or at least no reason to think she wasn't present in the lab, but I can't be sure. All I can be sure of in both cases is that I was told these stories. All you, as a reader, can be sure of is that I am writing these stories down here. None of it can be proved, possibly not even by speaking to my original sources.
luthorn · Member since
That was a great interview, very open and deep. Thank you for this.
