As of today the editorial pages of both the New York Times and the Wall St. Journal have offered their thoughts on the new album by the Eagles, “Long Road Out of Eden.” (The album, you will recall, was offered for sale only at Wal-Mart; prompted a revision of the Billboard charts, which previously had excluded CDs not universally available; and ended up topping the charts that week with 710,000 copes sold.) The Times editorial, from last Sunday, discussed the prime criticism of the album—that the band, with its latter-day anthems attacking environmental despoliation and corporate greed, had gotten in bed with a big source of such problems—and ended on a cautious note:

Have the Eagles sold out? Mr. Henley says that by doing business with Wal-Mart, he has more influence and easier access to the company’s executives, including the ones responsible for trying to make the company more environmentally conscious. His argument is almost certainly bolstered by the strong sales of ”Long Road Out of Eden.”

We hope, with him, that he has the influence he suggests, otherwise this arrangement may well turn out to be nothing more than a long road to Wal-Mart.

The WSJ editorial ($), impishly hedded “Desperados,” took a much rosier view:

In cutting out the record company, the band cut itself in for a bigger share of the per-album profits. While it might have expected fewer sales from restricted availability, that doesn’t seem to be happening. Wal-Mart’s retail price of under $12 for the two-disc album has allowed smaller retailers to stock up on the album at Wal-Mart and then resell them with a markup.

The Eagles aren’t the first to try new ways to sell a record. Garth Brooks signed an exclusive deal in 2005 with Wal-Mart and has sold millions of records. Beyonce has released an exclusive DVD through the store. Joni Mitchell and Paul McCartney are selling their music through Starbucks. Billy Joel’s daughter, Alexa Ray, is trying to establish her own music career by doing an exclusive with Target.

These and others are evidence that Napster and its filesharing successors weren’t the death of the music business but a smart bomb that forced the creation of new delivery models. Apple’s iTunes is the most famous. But the Web has allowed thousands of bands to find new audiences, and even create global niche brands. Thanks to the Internet, a Norwegian metal band named Enslaved has been able to fill small town bars and auditoriums in the U.S.

The unexpected, wholly thrilling appearance of Enslaved on the WSJ ed page comes from a NYT piece on the band from a week or so ago. The editorial concluded:

We believe in property rights as much as anyone, but when technology is changing, businesses have to change too — and that includes the business of music. So let’s applaud Mr. Henley, Glenn Frey, Joe Walsh and the other Eagles for some creative capitalism, however politically incorrect.

The trouble here, as with Starbucks’ selling the latest Paul McCartney album, is that these are one-time PR events. The Eagles deal isn’t the start of something new, it’s a last gasp. Barring the band’s conjuring up some new radio hits, the next Eagles album will not be as notable, and selling it only through one retailer probably won’t make any sense. This will of course also be true for Paul McCartney and Elvis Costello and whatever other fading stars are looking for a way to call some attention to themselves when they have a new product to sell.

Financially, it probably was a smart move for the Eagles, just as the Starbucks alliance was a smart move for McCartney. They both will get more money for their crummy new album than they otherwise would. The McCartney record had a high price, as I recall; Starbuck’s strategy was to make the CD as expensive as its upscale clientele would tolerate. Wal-Mart’s audience isn’t so much downmarket as it is more suburban and rural, and carried a much-more-reasonable $12 price tag. (It’s a two-CD set, too.) In both cases, to varying degrees, the retail outlets are subsidizing the artists’ profits. Starbucks’ motivations were mostly marketing driven; they got million of dollars worth of publicity on the deal. For Wal-Mart, the deal was a more traditional loss leader, designed to get folks into its stores to buy the Eagles album and some other crap, as well.

What is down market, in the end, is these artists’ ever-more-limited options when it comes to selling actual records. (Both make kazillions touring.) I said above that selling the next Eagles CD through one retailer probably won’t make sense. When Wal-Mart inevitably passes, however, there may be another, slightly grimier outlet looking for a little buzz to liven its image: K-Mart, say, or possibly Linen ‘n’ Things, or maybe 7-Eleven. I hope I live to see the day the new Eagles album is offered for sale exclusively at the Cracker Barrel.