This thread fascinates me.  I agree with Don Satz's comments about
inadequate management decisions.  It seems that after a number of
realtively fat years, the specter of lean ones on the horizon sends
managers (whose bottom lines could have been much more significant
contributors to corporate reserves had they not been profligate and
spendthrift when times were apparently good) scurrying for cover,
crying 'devil take the hindmost' and 'sauve qui peut.'

In totally unconnected fashion I heard today that several of the
mid-sized distributors -- who have built their businesses through careful
management of resources and informed risk-taking -- have sufficiently
strong relationships with Tower that they have resisted the entreaties
for a year's credit and have resolved the apparent crisis in much more
agreeable terms.  Prominent among these is Bayside Entertainment, who
will apparently be carrying the Naxos brand into all Tower stores.

I wonder what this means for the continued growth of Internet purchasing
of music? Will inveterate buyers (of whom I suspect there are many on this
List) switch more of their habit to online vendors -- and thus perhaps
reduce the extent of their "impulse" purchasing? And what will happen to
the new convert to our art form? How will they know what to try if the
stores carry only a small portion of the available range of recordings? How
will those of us committed to trying to extend the interest in classical
music to new listeners react to what may become a wider trend?

So many questions.  So few real answers.  And so many regrets for
opportunities that continue to be lost.

On the other hand, there is an opinion that says Tower has instituted a
perfectly sensible and business-like policy that will keep it in the market
as a major player for the long term.  What do I know? Precious little --
otherwise I would own a chain like Tower!!!

Tim Mahon
Alexandria, VA