Wal-Mart Bashing Run Amok

It doesn't seem totally fair to pick on what may be the first professionally published work by an intern, but I feel like with Max Fraser's lamenting the end of Tower Records in The Nation, anti-Wal-Mart sentiment has truly gotten out of control. The problem here, apparently, is that the relative decline of Tower Records vis-a-vis "big box" retailers like Wal-Mart and Target is bad for independent music, since said stores stock fewer unique albums than did Tower. To which I say, fair enough, but as Fraser himself notes the other side of the story is the rise of internet distribution of music. It's impossible for me to imagine anything that will be more aided by online sales than independent music.

A place like EMusic that doesn't require a physical inventory has every incentive to stock (virtually) any album whatsoever that a record label is interesting in having them stock, something that no brick-and-mortar record store could ever claim. Meanwhile, "discovering new musical acts while browsing the stacks and interacting with a knowledgeable staff" doesn't seem like an especially optimal method. The online world features a number of useful discovery tools. At its most basic, lots of website will "recommend" albums purchased by other people who bought the same ones you bought. On a more sophisticated level, Pandora will recommend new things based on formal analysis of bands' musical styles -- it tells me, for example, that "Ode to Rock" by Manda and the Marbles features "meandering melodic phrasing, major key tonalities, and many other similarities" with The New Pornographers.

Last.FM also does recommendations, this time through a social-affinity analysis and lets you filter for obscurity when searching out similar bands according to what, exactly, you're trying to accomplish. There may be much to fear in the bold new digital future, but this isn't it. All that's offered on the other side is "As Russ Solomon, the 81-year-old progenitor of Tower Records, remarked to Joel Selvin of the San Francisco Chronicle recently, 'Who's going to download an opera?'" Opera fans, I would assume. Why wouldn't they?

Comments

As I've written of elsewhere, I mourn the loss of Tower as much as anybody. I spent big chunks of my paychecks in Towers over the years and my daughter and I have in recent years revived the tradition my parents and I established of visiting the Tower at Bay and Columbus whenever we went into The City.

With all that, though, I find hard to find Tower's demise as emblematic of anything more than the failed business practices of one chain. Yes, on-line sales certainly cut into their sales at the brick and mortar establishments, but I never hesitated to buy from Tower on-line when its prices were competitive with Amazon or BMG. Tower was slow, as the record companies have been as well, to adapt to the new realities of the 21st Century music business. Other established record stores, such as Rasputin and Amoeba in the Bay Area, seem to be keeping up, though, further evidence that physical record stores aren't doomed to extinction; only those that fail to adapt are.

Posted by mrgumby2u | November 27, 2006 7:41 PM

This site has a cool interface, but it follows pandora's model rather than the better social-affinity model of lastfm.

Posted by joeo | November 27, 2006 7:56 PM

I guess many opera fans may not be as savvy with the interwebs as they should be.

Posted by otto | November 27, 2006 8:14 PM

I have downloaded several operas. It's great to be able to find recordings from particular singers you're interested in, easily. The Velvet Underground and Nico is Lou and John and Nico wherever you buy it, but I've got a half dozen versions of Carmen, some pretty obscure and quite notable.

That said, I'm ashamed to admit that my favorite actual record store...is the Tower Records that used to be on B'way and 4th.

(record store? Ehh, never mind)

Posted by dan | November 27, 2006 8:15 PM

I will soulfully mourn the loss of Sam Goody and Best Buy one day.

Jesus Christ.

Posted by guy | November 27, 2006 8:15 PM

I've never thought of Tower as an independent record store. I guess I'm spoiled though, living in places with stores that actually stock good independent music in different formats: Newbury Comics in Boston, Reckless Records in Chicago, Amoeba in LA, not to mention the surplus of small record shops most big cities still have. Ah, the power of the niche...Anyway, I agree with MrGumby, Tower never really seemed to figure out how to change with the times. They rarely ever had what I wanted, and if they did, it was too pricey. I'm not sad to see them go.

As a side note, I was in Amoeba Records in LA several weeks ago when the announcement was made that Tower was going under, and one of the store employees declared this fact over the PA, to general cheers from the very crowded store (to be fair, the cheers may have all come from Amoeba employees).

Posted by keith m | November 27, 2006 8:16 PM

Soon -- I'd guess by 2015 -- there will be no digital media of any kind sold in brick-and-mortar stores.

Posted by Realish | November 27, 2006 8:40 PM

Dan, okay. But I mean more that if you surveyed people coming out of your local opera house, I think you'd find many were iTunes-clueless.

Posted by otto | November 27, 2006 8:58 PM

I'd hope they'd be iTunes-clueless. No one should listen to an opera encoded at 128 kbps, much less pay to do so.

Posted by guy | November 27, 2006 9:12 PM

"To which I say, fair enough, but as Fraser himself notes the other side of the story is the rise of internet distribution of music."

Apart from the failure of Tower Records and other chains to adapt their business models to the changing realities of the industry they paid their workers like - what? - three dollars an hour? I would guess that the demise of some of these chains may actually be *good* for independent stores, and anyhow Virgin has a way bigger selection than Tower ever did (Virgin is still in business, isn't it?). On the other hand, you kind of had to stop at that Tower in the village even if you actually bought the thing at Bleeker Bob's or somewhere.

Posted by Linus | November 27, 2006 9:14 PM

I was prepared to say; yes it does more harm than good to bash walmart for trivial issues because it takes away from the more important ones.

but then i actually read the piece.
to term it 'walmart bashing run amok' is absolutely ridiculous.
He doesn't even mentioning the store until 8th paragraph of a 12 paragraph story, and is merely stating the obvious, that the market is being more and more controlled by the typical big box phenomenon of undercutting everyone else and limiting choice. (with customers still, what was it, buying retail at a rate of 6 to1).

not everyone uses the internet, especially older folks who can remember vinyl (have you even owned a record player?). Sure things change over time, but in the meantime choices are limited, and besides, I remember when they said there wouldn't be any books in the future either. I imagine there will always be some kind of market for hard copies.
There have been dozens of options for acquiring news, but it is still the traditional outlets that dominate the scene, and you can easily imagine this (or the next while at least) being the case in music as well.
Rather deterministic of you I'd say.

and your comment: ""discovering new musical acts while browsing the stacks and interacting with a knowledgeable staff" doesn't seem like an especially optimal method." It's called human interaction. you gotta get out more.

Frankly it seems you were just fishing for a post.

Posted by b. | November 27, 2006 9:15 PM

What I said wasn't meant as a defense of Tower Records btw.

Posted by b. | November 27, 2006 9:16 PM

People download operas all the time. The problem is that, as the commenter above points out, this isn't something you want ripped at 128kbps. This is why FLAC/APE and other lossless formats are very popular among fans of classical and opera online.

Of course these formats don't have DRM and you can't exactly pay for this sort of thing. If the music industry would just get off their asses and start providing a product via download that is of decent quality -- instead of suing their customers -- they might do pretty well.

Posted by mmm | November 27, 2006 9:17 PM

It's pretty rare that someone is iTunes clueless but is however clued into lossless formats.

Posted by otto | November 27, 2006 9:27 PM

Meanwhile, "discovering new musical acts while browsing the stacks and interacting with a knowledgeable staff" doesn't seem like an especially optimal method.

I never, ever dealt with music store people at places like Tower. They never seemed like they had the time, the inclination, or the knowledge to make my browsing more effective.

But when shopping for vinyl, both at second-hand record stores and at stores that specialize in vinyl for DJs (mostly 12-inch singles), it's unthinkable to me that one would operate any other way. The guys at the counter are always sitting around, halfway through lunch, talking with customers about the music they have (and the music they wish they had). Sometimes they stroll out among the bins and pull out some wax they think will suit a customer's fancy. It's a lot of fun, and no online preference-matching engine could ever replace it.

Posted by dj moonbat | November 27, 2006 9:29 PM

Tower was very overpriced. I went there for their clearance sale and it was still not as good as a place like J & R.

I used to work across the street from the uptown store and stopped shopping there regularly long ago. New releases that cost $18.99 at Tower were usually $4 less at J & R.

Posted by Randy Paul | November 27, 2006 10:14 PM

Why isn't it totally fair? Like, welcome to the NFL, d00d...

Posted by Brad DeLong | November 27, 2006 10:26 PM

Yeah, the more interesting issue here isn't some chain store going out of business (good local record stores with their suboptimal knowledgeable staff will always have a place) but the record industry model as a whole and how it encourages piracy, with record stores being just collateral damage.

Opera and jazz fans basically have to download music illegally if they want to download it at all— forget lossless formats, you can't even get something like 256 kbps MP3s from iTunes, and eMusic's high-end plan only allows 75 downloads a month. And once you have the taste for free music, it's hard to get back into the habit of paying for it.

Posted by guy | November 27, 2006 11:00 PM

In the 80's Tower filled a HUGE void in cities like Fresno that had a thriving punk scene but for whatever reason didn't have many independent record stores. But as soon as they started becoming more Wherehouse-like (egads, I worked at the Wherehouse for quite some time), the writing was on the wall. Plus, everyone I know who worked at Tower hated it, liberal grooming standards notwithstanding.

So yeah, I've missed the old Tower for awhile now. I shed no tears for whatever just went bankrupt.

As a side note, downloading music has made me rediscover my mid-90's passion for vinyl. If I want to have a physical copy of something I really love, a CD isn't going to do. Since I'll have it on mp3 anyways, what is the point of having a CD? I asked the fine folks at No Idea records if I bought record from them, they could email me the mp3's for a few bucks more. Never heard back though.

Posted by Gerald | November 28, 2006 12:18 AM

I download opera. I got La Traviata from eMusic a while back, and the quality (around 200 kbs VBR) doesn't sound at all compromised.

Posted by Matt F | November 28, 2006 12:33 AM

I don't know about Opera fans separated out from classical music fans, but classical music downloading has actually apparently been quite strong. Downloading a whole opera is a bit difficult right now because not everyody has the bandwidth or the harddrive space and I assume the offerings are somewhat slim, but all of those things will change. Furthermore, online storefronts are in many ways superior to bricks and mortar storefronts even for classical fans who prefer to buy the physical artifact -- at a bricks and mortar store I have to chose among the handful of versions of a given work, and more likely than not I won't be able to preview them in a meaningful way. If I can go to Amazon, get a list of every version of Gotterdamerung ever recorded, ranked by other people's opinions, and listen to samples of each one I'm considering, I'm in great shape. And fans and potential fans who don't live in a major metropolitan area have the same access as everybody else for a change. The classical section at the Lincoln Center Tower Records was huge and great, but your average Coconuts or Borders has a relatively meager selection.

It's probably true that a significant segment of the opera and other classical music fanbase is elderly and not web-savvy, but the future has to be the non-elderly market and fighting the digital distribution trend would be a great way to miss the chance to capture that market.

The classical music recording industry is in serious trouble due to the combined factors of dwindling audience, increasing production costs, and the simple fact that most people who want a copy of a given piece already own it or are going to buy somebody else's recording. From my perspective, digital distribution and centralized web-based retailing of physical media is mostly upside.

Posted by Galen H. Brown | November 28, 2006 12:41 AM

I am an opera fan, I own an iPod and I use the Apple music store, and I'm reasonably computer savvy. I haven't downloaded any complete opera and I doubt if I will any time soon. Reasons (I can expand on these, but this is enough for now): (1) Selection is fairly slim. (2) The interface of programs like iTunes is geared toward pop music; it's a poor match for someone who wants to have, say, a dozen different performances of La Traviata. (3) The interface of online music stores is a poor match for opera. They tend to be oriented toward individual tracks (which they call "songs"), they don't make it easy to browse through complete albums, and they don't highlight information that's absolutely crucial for people who care about this kind of music. It's not always easy to see who's singing which roles. You often have to look twice even to see whether an album is a complete opera or an excerpts disk. You get more out of looking at the back cover of a physical disk in a physical store. (4) When you download an opera you don't get a copy of the libretto.

Those are the main reasons, anyway. You will note that none of them are insurmountable obstacles. There's no inherent reason that downloading opera recordings couldn't be at least as good an experience as buying plastic disks. For the most part, what these reasons come down to is that the people who are writing mp3 management software and setting up online music stores haven't given much thought to interface issues that are specific to opera. That, in turn, is probably because it's a niche market. Someday the situation might improve; until then, I'll probably keep buying most of my music on CD.

Posted by Matt Austern | November 28, 2006 1:08 AM

How strange. Back in the 90's I remember reading articles where Tower was the example of the big soulless national chain that was driving nice independant local stores out of business. I guess it all depends on perspective.

Posted by Doug T | November 28, 2006 7:45 AM

I'm with Doug T on this one. I guess it depends on what kind of music you listen to - for fans of alternative rock Tower had very little to offer. Tower was one of the better sources of Jazz and Classical, especially the great classial annex in LA, but for at least the last 10 years Tower has been content to let its classical departments deteriorate and whatever knowledgeable staff they used to have has long since departed.

As a serioud music fan for over 30 years I can honestly say I never discovered a musical rock act by "browsing the stacks." How many people buy a CD by looking at the cover? And I can't even remember the last time "knowledgeable staff" helped me out, even when there were still a lot of smaller shops. Either the staff wasn't all that knowledgeable or they were so hipper-than-thou that they were useless. Before the internet we used to listen to the radio, read music magazines and talk to friends. What has changed is that I no longer listen to the radio and rarely read music magazines - now I can get info, and usually much better info, from websites and listen to actual music before I buy. Tower is a loss for classical fans, but for rock no loss at all.

Posted by vanya | November 28, 2006 9:00 AM

I used to go to the Tower on 4th & Broadway, but as I got older, I found myself more and more at the (much better) record store right across the street. The staff was always a bit of the (as vanya says above) "hipper-than-thou" crowd, but usually better than the Tower people. I guess I'll have to go to the Virgin Megastore now. 6-of-one, half-dozen-the-other, as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by Al | November 28, 2006 9:45 AM

I'll miss Tower for the fun of browsing at the Pennsylvania Ave. store, one of the few browsable shops in downtown DC. But I admit I haven't bought much there in recent years except for sale and clearance items. I don't bother with downloads, but most of the things I want are available much cheaper through internet mail order. Amazon Marketplace seems to be my main source of CDs these days; you'll find everything Tower ever carried and much more. Even with shipping added on, prices are usually 30-50 percent below Tower's list prices. Unfortunately for chains like Tower, the world has moved on. I doubt that many independent record stores will be able to survive outside of a few special locations like college towns. Even here in DC, the record shop is becoming as rare as the second-hand book shop, of which there used to be dozens.

Posted by Virginia Dutch | November 28, 2006 10:11 AM

My last two purchases from the iTunes store were a performance of La Traviata and a Porcupine Tree album. This may mean something. Other than "dang, ain't you the broad-minded lil' hipster 40-something".

Posted by Bruce Baugh | November 28, 2006 10:12 AM

[singing in best soprano voice]:
Povera donna, sola
Abbandonata in questo
Popoloso deserto
Che appellano America . . .

Posted by rea | November 28, 2006 11:26 AM

Wow, thanks for the link to Pandora... that's one cool site.

Posted by diakron | November 28, 2006 11:30 AM

Linus,

As a parent of daughter who left Tower last spring when the handwriting was on the wall, I think you're quite wrong about the way they treated their employees, at least in California. It was a rather wonderful place for her to work with excellent support and career opportunities. And some of the staff were pretty knowledgeable and helpful, although they'd dropped most of the classical support a while back except for the big store in SF. Don't know about other less mass marketed genres, but that will not be replaced by the internets or larger retailers.

It's also possible that Tower was better in Northern California than elsewhere....

Posted by Gene O'Grady | November 28, 2006 2:23 PM

As others have hinted, downloads may actualy revitalise the distribution of classical music, since you don't have the overheads of inventory. The Philadelphia Orchestra is taking that route (and it may even lead to higher quality recordings than the CD format allows), while John Eliot Gardiner is releasing recordings on CD through subscription.

When you're on the fringes of the CD-selling business, it's easier to experiment with new formats than if your business model is built around shipping 100k items of product in the first week of release.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | November 28, 2006 3:44 PM

There used to be a Tower records next to the mall in Denver, but i seem to remember it blowing ass. Especially when they are several really cool record shops within a few mile radius. one of which just recently underwent a large expansion.

Posted by CHAD | November 28, 2006 4:57 PM

Aside from the rather cheap potshot at my inexperience, I thank you for a fair and thoughtful response to my Nation piece. I would only point out, for those who did not follow the link and read the article themselves, that the title of your post--"Wal-Mart Bashing Run Amok"--is regrettably disingenuous. Wal-Mart, and the impact that like-minded retailers have had on the music industry, is certainly a part of my article, but it is only one part; although I have no problem with Wal-Mart bashing, I would hesistate to think of my article that way. Instead of focusing on my concerns about Wal-Mart (which I'm not sure you disputed, ultimately, despite the title of your post), you might have addressed other issues I bring up about music's digital future--such as the loss of the shared cultural space provided by Tower and other record stores--for which EMusic, Pandora, and Last.FM would seem to be inadequate palliatives. Likewise, I wonder if all opera fans would agree with your final quip; or if there is not something to be said for the fact that certain types of independently produced music--such as zydeco, gospel, or norteno--have not made the transition to the digital universe as smoothly as Neko Case and The New Pornographers.
But rather than dismissing digital music whole cloth, I did try in my article to acknowledge some of its advantages over the Tower model, and I thank you for the insightful points you bring up here. And, as I am only a meager intern, I'm grateful for the mention.

Posted by Max Fraser | November 28, 2006 10:46 PM

Just because internet music shopping (let's say) is an all-round is superior alternative does not mean that we should not be concerned about Wal-Mart's driving the (let's say) superior IN-STORE music shopping alternatives out of business.

(1) Lots of people do in fact and will continue to shop in stores and not on the internet, even if the latter the neo-classically perfect wave-of-the-future way to do things. And when I say lots, I mean lots.

(2) Wal-Mart also exercises a certain amount of discrimination/censorship in that which materials they choose to stock is to some extent motivated by considerations other than what will make the most money to stock. This practice is so well known with respect to their selection of print literature that I don't feel it requires a cite to verify. Whatever the merits of this practice, surely most people would agree that its a problem when carried out by such an enormous retailer. Again, some people shop practically nowhere else but Wal-Mart.

So, while "Wal-Mart Bashing" is indeed a noisome and unhelpful practice this piece overreacts by ignoring serious problems with the direction the retail market seems to be taking.

Posted by Purple141 | November 29, 2006 5:19 AM

Here's the thing: legal downloading has limitations too.

So, rather than level the playing field, itunes has not helped me at all in getting new music from anywhere other than America.

To get, say, the Lily Allen CD -- I can get it as an import at Tower or order it online.

I cannot download it in Itunes or even from Itunes UK since I have an American billing address, I cannot use Itunes UK.

So, now, without Tower, there is one less place to browse or price-shop on any non-US releases.

I think this is more a fault of itunes than anything else but it infuriates me to no end that, in the so-called digital age, I still have to order my UK music and load it to Itunes here rather than just buy downloads from the UK.

Retarded and backwards to an extreme. Thanks Itunes.

Posted by glenn | November 29, 2006 4:29 PM

PS to my first post: Tower sells some full length rock import CDs for $29.

Even factoring in a bad exchange rate and shipping that is usually a good $10 more than simply ordering the same item from an online retailer in the UK.

that is bad biz on Tower's part.

Posted by glenn | November 29, 2006 4:31 PM

I don't think of Tower as alternative by any stretch, but their selection and service were generally worth the price (especially at sale time).

And, unlike J&R, you didn't (don't?) have to go from one effing store to another to pick up Ron Carter, Bill Bolcom, Johnny Cash, and Nanci Griffith at the same time (or figure out ahead of time if you could afford all three, while still discovering a new Shawn Colvin or the reissue of Bernstein's 1959 recording of Shostakovich's Fifth or the original VSOP album (and, yes, I mean vinyl; the latter has never been released on CD).

Going to have to shop B&N now; listening stations must substitute for informative clerks. Suboptimality rules.

Posted by Ken Houghton | November 29, 2006 8:12 PM