This is the kind of blog post I dream of writing... Loved it!

(Except that I -- guilty pleasure -- really like Starbucks. And Barnes & Noble, but I doubt I'll ever buy a CD at either place ever again... just too damn expensive.)

Cinnamon Pumpkin Lattes..... *joy*

Nothing wrong with liking Starbucks' drinks. I'll probably even buy Hear Music releases from them in the future. What I won't do is go in there and buy the Dylan disc. I'll bide my time until one shows up in the local used CD shop.

I always wonder about the flip side of this: WHY would Mr. Bob Dylan allow Starbucks to have this insane window on his new release? Or did no one ask Mr. Bob Dylan? I find that hard to believe, but it's possible. I hate to say it, but I think some of the blame lies with him (and Alanis, and anyone else who goes along with the snooty exclusivity thing).

Such artists (or labels, or whoever had this swell idea) may claim that distributing through Starbucks gets their music to more people, but they forget that while there may be 57 billion Starbuckses in DC and New York and the like, there still is not ONE in Anderson, S.C., and a million other midsize (or smaller) towns like it. So what are people there supposed to do if they want this album?

Download it illegally off the Internet, I guess. Oh well!

The blame, if that's the right word, is definitely shared by the artist. I'm guessing that they figure the Starbucks crowd is their target audience anyway.

I'm OK with artists finding other ways to market their music. I'd prefer if they perfected selling it directly to the fans. For established artists, that route certainly would work.

Good call, Stacy. We'll exact our revenge on the greedy bastards one byte at a time.

Sean makes an excellent point. Starbucks can't sell the disc, let alone sell it exclusively, without Dylan (or Dylan's people) being party to the agreement.

Starbucks might be evil, but it's in business purely to make money. Evidently, so is Dylan, which makes for an interesting evolution for a guy who used to be in favor of times that were a'changin'...

Sure, the coffee sucks. We like Peet's. But have to admit, it's easier to get in and out of a starbucks to buy a cd then it is a music store.

Think of it as a blessed convenience. Maybe someday we'll buy our Flatt and Skruggs at Dunkin'.

I can't understand why so many of you cannot look at this from the artist/writer's viewpoint.

It is a business, we are not out here to provide you with free entertainment, we have bills to pay just like you do.

When was the last time you said to your boss "Hey, you're pretty cool, don't worry about paying me this week" ??

Most musicians do not make zillions of dollars from our recordings, we get a tiny slice of the pie - pennies per CD, usually, more if we have a decent contract. So every time you steal a free download, or dupe off a CD, or buy a used copy that we see no royalties from, you do us absolutely no financial good at all in return for all those agonizing months we spent in the studio.

At the same time you have a perfect right to buy used, it is legal. How are we expected to respond?

The reason Starbucks got these record distribution deals is because they are BETTER DEALS FOR THE ARTISTS. A higher percentage goes into their pockets, so that in old age they aren't working as WalMart greeters, or wasting away in some dumpy trailer on the outskirts of Reno.

You have a good point -- for struggling artists. Dylan isn't exactly the definition of "struggling." And it doesn't exactly fit with what Dylan supposedly stands for. Would Mr. Guthrie have done what put more money in his pocket, or would he done what was best for fellow man? Would he have supported Wal-Mart or the mom-and-pop operation?

While this post definitely is taking Starbucks to task for exclusivity deals (which make it hard for some fans to get -- see Stacy's point about Anderson, S.C.), it's also nailing Dylan -- 20 years ago, no one imagined he would sell lingerie or shut out independent record stores. And in a way, Dylan is selling out people like you, Jim. If he would put his weight behind backing something like, say, CD Baby instead of a corporate monstrosity, maybe you could find a happy medium -- getting the best deal you can while supporting the little guy.

Jim, don't be upset over Stacy's and James' comments about "downloading" them. That was sarcasm. No one here supports ripping off artists by sharing files.

However, I think the majority of us *do* support being able to swap stuff in a "mixed tape" sort of fashion, but that's a different topic.

Not rippin' the writers, really - I know anyone with enough concern for the music to post here isn't like that. I really appreciate the viewpoints on this string, and don't want anyone to feel like I'm getting all personal with them. Just wanted to elbow up to the bar and throw my own torn-up, dirty dollar down.

Dylan is a brilliant poet, but he was always about making money, has always cut sharp deals. Even he now admits his biggest dream back in the day was a middle-class lifestyle. Guess he overshot a bit.

Woody was definitely different, completely opposite side of the coin, never gave a damn for a dollar, a passionate socialist and labor organizer, and Arlo is very much like him - just loves the music and the workers.

Have to say that even artists you don't see as struggling are struggling - a record deal or even a string of them are no guarantee of prosperity.

I LOVE Derek over at CD Baby, gonna buttonhole him at this year's AMA Conference and plant wet sloppy kisses all over his bald head. He did a great thing, really opened the door to a ton of hardworking talent - and then tells everybody WORK HARDER every chance he gets!

It would have been cool for Dylan to support that effort. Cool, but completely out of character.

How's Raleigh these days? Haven't been back there in a coon's age, I used to hang out at PC Goodtime's Drinking Emporium down near NC State. I was raised just south of there, in Sanford, and used to hike the woods where B Everett Jordan Lake is now. Time marches on.

I'm all for artists getting a better deal. In fact, if my favorite, well-established artists want to break away from the major record labels and sell their music directly to me, I'll gladly hand them 100 percent of the profit. For the artists who aren't well-known, there are a lot of outlets, such as CD baby and Miles of Music, that don't make a living at the expense of the little guy. Just for the record, though I didn't comment one way or the other, I do not support illegal downloading. Hell, I barely participate in legal downloading.

Breaking up is so very hard to do - especially when you are locked into a publishing contract.

CD Baby is a wonderful service, but sending retail traffic to it is the artist's job. What Starbucks has is customer traffic, and not just "virtual" traffic, real flesh-and-blood folks.

The business will travel to where the people are, not vice versa. Trying to draw or steer a crowd is much more expensive than selling to a crowd that is already there. Lower marketing budget equals higher returns.

Have to admit, I don't like Starbucks coffee too much. I like my blends a bit lighter and mixed with bourbon.

I was happy to watch it --

[url=][/url]

I was happy to watch it --

[url=][/url]

You need it. Believe me.

[url=][/url]

You need it. Believe me.

[url=][/url]

You need it. Believe me.

[url=][/url]

[url=http://broalmanone.com]broalmanone.com[/url]

pcnqzyhj jblsovit jmyqtbnu ynzqidsw aemhsq merdt yabvw

pcnqzyhj jblsovit jmyqtbnu ynzqidsw aemhsq merdt yabvw