Some music retailers and managers are a bit miffed that music is being given away free with newspapers. If you live in the UK you will typically see single or double CDs containing well known current ‘hits’ or ‘classics’ from earlier years packaged into some form of ‘collection’. The record companies do of course get paid for the songs that are published, but the retailers and managers complain that this makes fans less likely to buy established artist’s albums. They also complain that this gives the impression that ‘music is cheap and disposable’.

That’s because the majority of mainstream music is cheap and disposable. Dummies. It’s designed that way.

Readers will also note that the record companies are not complaining – after all, they get paid for the music, and it’s a cheap way of reminding people that certain artists are still out and about, or that their music is available for purchase. It is merely another marketing device. Those that are annoyed by the practice are ultimately trying to protect their ‘patch’. Be it the act of selling music, or the act of managing artists. If the artists decline, or retailers end up with less custom, then they lose out.

Ultimately it’s all about the need to manage musicians and to treat musicians with respect. And to treat music as a proper career, rather than the ‘cheap and disposable’ entity that it has become in the eyes of the majority of the public – intentionally or not. I’ve previously written about more democratic ways that the music industry can behave, largely through the artist taking the lead in their career. Trouble is, that still leaves the music managers and retailers out of pocket. Bless ‘em.