Starbucks: One Beatle to Go
By: Lior | in: Music |With over ten thousand shops in twenty nine countries, the precision Starbucks brand is shaking its beans to the beat of the nicest guy in music: Sir Paul McCartney. With projected exposure to the tune of six million coffee drinkers, the former Beatle is part of an unprecedented move that is, arguably, proportional in scale and scope to MTV Europe’s introduction with “Money For Nothing” by Dire Straits in 1987.
Many brands with a global, consumer reach – perhaps most notably, Levis – have launched fledgling artists to the top of the charts. However, Starbuck’s distinctly music-centric ethos and trademark flavor for the arts make this deal particularly powerful on all fronts.
I have always associated the coffee chain with obscure World music and lounge Jazz but don’t mind stirring my latte to more mainstream sounds. I can only imagine that anything Starbuck’s chooses to place in heavy rotation will surely become popular, mainstream or not. So why Paul?
With the assumption that Starbuck’s music label, Hear Music, wanted to launch with a bang (exit Afro-Cuban congas and improv sax), surely other major acts were on the menu as worthy contenders? I wonder who Hear Say went after first. Are Peter Gabriel or Carlos Santana, for instance, not a better fit for their renowned infusion of non-Western cultural musical motifs and bi-lingual lyrics in their music?
A deal like this is a God send to any artist, especially with the knowledge that his or her record is the only item on the playlist. I hope that Hear Say will swiftly follow up with something more unique to the palette than Paul McCartney and somehow preserve the eclectic environments we identify with Starbucks’ coffee bars. But I’m not holding my breath as this signing alone has taken the best part of a year to secure.
Could it be that Starbuck’s is tirelessly looping the same record over and over to discourage its customers from hanging around too long? Now there’s a thought.. and who would ever blame Paul? He’s just such a nice guy.
So, has anyone heard the record? I don’t really do Starbucks.
Paul McCartney - Dance Tonight
Posted on June 9, 2007
Comments
11 Responses to “Starbucks: One Beatle to Go”
Leave a Reply
-
Categories
-
Search
-
Archives
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
-
Blogroll
- Auto Parts for Brains
- Baron VC
- Berkeley Place
- Between Thought and Expression
- Captain Obvious
- Each Note Secure
- Emonome
- EtherBomb
- Fangasm
- FensePost
- FreeIndie
- Funeral Pudding
- Here Comes the Flood
- Hit Chaser
- Independent Clauses
- Life on the _Grid
- Modern Music
- Motel De Moka
- Mozzer’s Musings
- Naama Hillman
- Nialler9
- Obscure Sound
- Phish & Chips
- Pinch My Salt
- Racket Scan
- Ramblings from the Marginalized
- Ryan’s Smashing Life
- ShowClix Blog
- Silence is a Rhythm Too
- Similar Music Sites
- Small Town Romance
- The 405
- The Covers Project
- The Drill Down
- The Late Greats
- The Music Network
- The Music Slut
- The Pop Cop
- The Technofile
- Tomer Kaplan’s photo-blog
- We Are Listening
- Webomatica
- Who Needs Radio?
- YouLicense - Music Licensing Marketplace
- YouLicense Music Industry Blog
- ZME Music
-
Admin
-
Who wouldn’t want to release a song as happy as that? And from a guy in his sixties (seventies?) no less.
Had a quick listen to the album…sounds like a McCartney album…
Starbucks puts so many chemicals in their coffee I’m surprised they have not been sued yet. I’ve had their coffee six times and every time afterwards, I end up getting ill. This was confirmed by others I know, who all stated the ill effects from differing Starbucks. Sinus infections and sore throats are the most common.
Stick to the good ole gas station brands of coffee, not Starbucks.
Some more interesting stuff here:
http://tinyurl.com/23au5x
Big name, big money for Starbucks. Widen the audience and support for Starbucks with am unoffensive generally accepted legend. More out of the pockets of coffee-chocoholics. And, ultimately more money and influence for the Jewish lobby in the US to promote Zionist propaganda and ultimately support the New World Order. Look it up–you’ll see. Incidently, I remember seeing the wonderful comedian Jerry Seinfeld live in Richmond, Virginia several years ago doing a funny bit on morning coffee big cup carriers. He referred to the cups with the green labels. He called the company “Four Bucks.” The audience roared with laughter.
Anyway, Jerry Seinfeld was doing this bit on morning big cup coffee carriers. You know, the ones you see carrying their coffee in the street so carefully wanting everyone to step aside. Jerry referred to the company with the green label as “four bucks” and the audience roared with laughter.
Heh, I’m just old enough to remember when Starbucks was a local startup here in the Northwest. Back in the day Starbucks was the little guy bringing really good coffee to a world swamped with Sanka and Nescafe. I don’t drink coffee myself but it was generally regarded as a very good thing when Starbucks succeeded, a victory of the quality little guys over entrenched big money crap.
How the tables turn! Starbucks is now a victim of its own success with the cool brigade. As is Paul McCartney who said a VERY long time ago that all he was interested in was writing silly love songs. Look, Paul McCartney makes Paul McCartney kind of music. No one would write off the latest Neil Young album in a sentence saying. “This new album, it sounds like a Neil Young album.” What does THAT mean? And if Neil lent one of his songs (as he did) to a REAL corporate giant no one would start talking about how it meant “more money for the Jewish lobby in congress”. It’s a nice song, give the old guy and the little coffee company that could a break.
OK D, didn’t mean to diss Macca. It takes me 3 days and 4 drafts to come up with a good review…for everything else, there’s snide one sentence conclusions.
Saying that a Neil Young album sounds like a Neil Young album is saying a lot…same applies for Mr. McCartney. Do I prefer Neil Young? Sure. Am I a Beatles fan? Not really. Do I respect McCartney’s body of work, damn right!
As for Starbucks as a record label, why not? There’s a shortage of labels anyway, and anyone who attempts to get good music across is fine by me.
At the moment it’s Neil Young who is signed to an evil record company who’s suing little kids.
My apologies, Char.
This is kind of like the MySpace question. Does popularity on MySpace translate into record sales? I suppose the beauty of Stabucks music is that it doesn’t get in your way. Who would want to be distracted whether it’s reading, writing, coding or chilling. In that sense maybe Paul is a good fit…
He’s officially sold more copies than he’s ever sold before:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6763019.stm