littlemissG said:

Do you think if Prince had a do over he would have built Paisley Park? Or a smaller version of it? It became an expense rather than a money maker that pretty much forced him into constant touring and releasing albums not stop because bills had to be paid. It is also quite a surprise to me that Graceland had to do major repairs to the heating and cooling systems before they opened it to the public. Then there is the still unused egg building. Was it over ambitious from the start? [Edited 6/22/18 7:42am]

was Paisley Park too much of a burden?
On the famed New Years Eve 87 boot where Miles Davis is a guest star, Prince states at the beginning the ups and downs fiscally of the Park/Label. Seems like even THEN it was something to be reckoned with. I wonder how many tours and albums as one offs were completed just to keep that place running. And what his music and such would have been like sans having the Park as something that needed continual attention to keep it afloat.
There is something to be said (yeah? what?) about travelling to other studios and the ambiance of the city that studio is n, making do with what's available and not. Having everything there at your whim, like PP, did it influence the music? Anyone ever work from home for a spell? Theres a difference in your work practive when you have all day, in your own home, draws, hair uncombed etc.
Was PP an albatross around his neck or was it a blessing? both?

I think Prince was playing checkers while Michael Jackson was playing chess. After MJ had the monster success of Thriller, he delved into business in matters regarding publishing (acquiring the rights of the Beatles etc catalogue) where if you read up on it, he and his team had to come up with 20=25 million. After Prince had monster success with Purple Rain selling 10 mil, he has WB buy him his xanadu of Paisley Park. I'm wondering if Prince had focused more on the business side than the creative side and castle side, he could have purchased his own Paisley Park with publishing rewards etc. Yeah, Paisley Park is still standing and no doubt worth more than the reported 10 million it cost to build back in 85-87, and maybe being on the creative side with it used for concert stage build ups and such, Prince saved more than if he didnt have his own private paid for studio, concert hall. Because we see whats happened recently with the Beatles publishing that MJ owned. I was thinking this while listening to Parade. Is Parade greater than the sum of all that business nonsense? Could it have been created with a main focus being on the art of the deal like Michael was practicing at the time? And is the world better for it? Is Prince better for it. Or is the music better for it, rather. Which is/was ultimately more important?

I think he would have it as it is today

I wish he had found another way to be prolific, to mentor other musicians, to keep being a Minnesota boy, to invite locals to cheap shows than the isolated burden of Paisley Park. Paisley Park would have been better if it had just stayed in his heart. It wasn't all bad; but ultimately it did less good for him than it could have if it weren't as isolated and homogeneous as it was. The problem with crutches. Great stories from there though.

Think about how much great music was made during those cold winter nights? Prince had plenty of money to fund Paisley Park while he was alive. The issue that I see is how do they keep it going now that he is not coning out with an album each year or touring and any revenue generated from the music is separate from Paisley Park? I question whether the museum revenue can keep the place afloat.

What would keep the place afloat is if they had screenings of unseen concerts at Paisley. A summer residency for the Prince Live on the Big Screen would have been a huge money maker.

We are all willing to give them our money for to keep Paisley Park and his music allve, but the inability for the Estate to get speak with one voice has cost them. Take our money while we are alive.

thedoorkeeper said:

I think he would still build it. Sure it was a money pit but that freedom to create whenever he wanted was apparently his dream. And sure MJ invested but did those investments bring him any sort of happiness. Prince died in his home. MJ died in a rented house after being driven out of Neverland.

Did that money pit give him freedom though actually. Or drove him to HAVE to create all the time..to keep the lights on. Becasue he created some really great music prior to PP being built.

The financial obligations of PP were one thing (he seemed to be able to handle those more or less); the thing I would question is if by establishing this sort of sealed, controlled, fairly remote world where he interacted only with people he allowed in, it hampered his ability to collaborate with other artists (and the world in general) in a way that could have added new perspectives to his music.

disch said:

disch said:

The financial obligations of PP were one thing (he seemed to be able to handle those more or less); the thing I would question is if by establishing this sort of sealed, controlled, fairly remote world where he interacted only with people he allowed in, it hampered his ability to collaborate with other artists (and the world in general) in a way that could have added new perspectives to his music.

Very good point.

littlemissG said:

Do you think if Prince had a do over he would have built Paisley Park? Or a smaller version of it? It became an expense rather than a money maker that pretty much forced him into constant touring and releasing albums non stop because bills had to be paid. It is also quite a surprise to me that Graceland had to do major repairs to the heating and cooling systems before they opened it to the public. Then there is the still unused egg building. Was it over ambitious from the start? [Edited 6/22/18 7:42am]

NONSENSE

donnyenglish said:

Think about how much great music was made during those cold winter nights? Prince had plenty of money to fund Paisley Park while he was alive. The issue that I see is how do they keep it going now that he is not coning out with an album each year or touring and any revenue generated from the music is separate from Paisley Park? I question whether the museum revenue can keep the place afloat.

What would keep the place afloat is if they had screenings of unseen concerts at Paisley. A summer residency for the Prince Live on the Big Screen would have been a huge money maker.

We are all willing to give them our money for to keep Paisley Park and his music allve, but the inability for the Estate to get speak with one voice has cost them. Take our money while we are alive.

I believe so. I read somewhere the museum stays packed. And also if people concerned about the weather and traveling that could hinder the number of visitors, Prince was also popular in Canada and Canadians could easily help keep the museum going since Minnesota is one of those Northern border states.

I agree pretty much what you said. I also think music classes would help keep the place afloat or have a music academy or music charter school too. Heck Mayte is hustling well by doing bellydancer classes and I believe she is doing some cooking classes too. So Paisley Park has the potential stay profit if the estate/operators consider the educational route.

Strive said:

Not sure what Prince had in mind exactly but let's not forget that in the mid 80's to mid 90's Prince became a mini-entertainment industry all by himself: there was Prince himself, the recordings, the tours, the movies, the music videos, then there was Paisley Park the label; Paisley Park the recording/mixing studio, filming complex, rehearsal space and concert venue; Paisley Park the songwriters/producers' pool; the Glam Slam clubs; the NPG Stores and catalogue retail; the attempts at publishing magazines; the Prince comics and all the nonsense from clothes to candles and perfumes and finally even the Love4OneAnother charity...

.

Prince probably lost contact with reality at some point, believing he could be an entertainment brand all by himself, but Paisley Park Studios were part of this dream: before he closed it to outside acts in 1994, lots of people would record, mix, play, rehearse and shoot there: it briefly was a profitable, reputable place for creative people to work and meet, even if some reports suggest that WB forced certain artists on the studio to recoup their investment, and that Prince would rather not have the likes of REM working there.

.

Of course, it later seemed like a somewhat eerie, abandonned place when Prince turned it into his private castle after 94. But in the end he managed to keep it until the end, didn't he? So why shouldn't he have a recording complex when other stars have other fancy things such as dozens of race cars, castles in England and shit like this?

Perhaps, a scaled-down version

It would have more storage if he could redo it. (So, bigger!). And it was a financial burden. All he had to do was do a small tour to afford it! 10 cities done!

The design of his paisley park home is awesome .YES building paisley park was a good idea even tho its very expensive to maintain.Having privacy and space to think and create is key to success.

littlemissG said:

Do you think if Prince had a do over he would have built Paisley Park? Or a smaller version of it? It became an expense rather than a money maker that pretty much forced him into constant touring and releasing albums not stop because bills had to be paid. It is also quite a surprise to me that Graceland had to do major repairs to the heating and cooling systems before they opened it to the public. Then there is the still unused egg building. Was it over ambitious from the start? [Edited 6/22/18 7:42am]

it was a good idea, just overblown in my opinion. Studio fees were ridiculous and he was a guy who really didn't need all the folks that studios had to screw with his music. He should have done it his way, and he did it all the time too so it would have been expensive any way you cut it. I've heard his first album put him nearly a million in debt, i've heard lower figures too, but the point stands, it was expensive in those days and there were all these time constraints on recording too because it was priced by the hour. As a musician myself, i'd have to say I would do what he did, only on a much smaller scale and with fewer people. You do need solitude to do that kind of work, people are the biggest issue for me, i never get the privacy to do my work, not without chatter, people wanting to talk, people talking around me. so i'd do it on a much more limited basis myself. Then, I think the downsides to PP were it was his own world, with his own rules and that is never good for anyone. We all need limits and reminders of our own basic humanity, so as that one lady said in the police interview, he needed to stay out of PP at least in his last days. Too easy to isolate, to feel a false sense of comfort, with no one to point out any truth to him. It killed him.

OperatingThetan said:

Prince certainly wasn't 'releasing albums non-stop' to pay for Paisley, particularly in the later years. His prolific nature is something else entirely. Prince was paid $1 million or more for every concert he performed and charged even more for private gigs. Just a few of those per year would likely have kept Paisley running. Plus Prince had several properties and tracts of land he could've sold but chose not to. Any disrepair is likely due to it simply not being Prince's priority or point of focus. He could've lived a luxurious and lavish lifestyle at Paisley but clearly prefered something much simpler. His priority was creativity and he obviously placed a high value on it. In that sense the building of Paisley Park will always have been the best decision for Prince.

He was creative before PP.

It can be argued that the music before PP had more fire to it.

rdhull said:

OperatingThetan said:

Prince certainly wasn't 'releasing albums non-stop' to pay for Paisley, particularly in the later years. His prolific nature is something else entirely. Prince was paid $1 million or more for every concert he performed and charged even more for private gigs. Just a few of those per year would likely have kept Paisley running. Plus Prince had several properties and tracts of land he could've sold but chose not to. Any disrepair is likely due to it simply not being Prince's priority or point of focus. He could've lived a luxurious and lavish lifestyle at Paisley but clearly prefered something much simpler. His priority was creativity and he obviously placed a high value on it. In that sense the building of Paisley Park will always have been the best decision for Prince.

He was creative before PP.

It can be argued that the music before PP had more fire to it.

i guess it could. However, I think his Paisley Park idea was to create his own Motown but he actually didn't like competition (the time) so it would never work that way although maybe it could have if he'd been more open, not just to competition but also to newer forms like hip hop, that's the only ways i could see it working. the minneapolis sound like most sounds don't last very long, it was heard on radio for maybe what? five years? that's a long time for a sound to influence, play etc.., in the pop world. A smart business man would have known that and been ready with fresh new shit.

PeteSilas said:

[ snip - luv4u]

voph said:

[ snip - luv4u]

Don't you dare turn this into a Prince vs. Michael Jackson thread Why are you bringing his name up at all?

Who can say? Having never been there, I'm particularly uninformed. But since this is the internet, I won't let that stop me: I can think of three rock star compounds off the top of my head: Graceland, The Neverland Ranch, and Paisley Park. Putting aside (although maybe we shouldn't) that all three stars died the same way, all three also became more remote, eccentric, and bizarre as time went on. I happen to love Michael, Prince, and Elvis, but not for the records they made during their isolated fortress years.

.

So, NO, I vote that it was NOT a good idea.