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