|
I too used to get wound up about but now having worked in the industry, for a while, it's so rife, you just can't let it be a concern.
The only thing that does still annoy me about it is when certain artists get jobs based on work "they have done", and really it was someone else, who A) won't get credit and B) does not then get the higher paid gig that comes through off the back of that ghost work.
I can think of one hiphip/pop producer who did exactly that, and there's a clear difference between what they were making a few years ago, and the quite crap pop fodder they're pushing out now that he's actually making it himself (albeit with serious support from engineers and sub producers etc).
For me, as I look at the line between ghost and producer is very blurred anyway. If you take someone like sasha, who produced so many great tracks throughout the 90's, you had no idea Charlie May was behind 90% of them (but in fairness with Sasha producing as well), until many years later when he came out of the shadows, and Sasha helped him to fame.
Nearly every composer I've ever worked with ha assistants or sub composers contributing to their works and in some extreme cases doing entire chunks if not whole scores, while it's passed off as the work of said famous composers.
I know one EMMY winning composer, that barely does a stroke of work throughout a series, apart from write the initial theme, and review what assistants wrote.
It's part of the game and the ladder to get experience so you just have to accept it.
I suppose the only bit I really don't like is when the person taking the credit has no talent - i don't mind if they could actually do the work to that required caliber, but choose not to out of whatever contraints so get someone to do it for them, but that's a different thing to getting someone to work that you can't and passing it off as your own. Taht for me is the moral boundary.
|