name/less: an ode to ghost-writing Saul Revell
While ghost-writing is hardly new to the music industry, its prevalence over the past few decades has swelled to an unprecedented degree. Rather than it being rare for popular artists to employ professional songwriters, it’s become the norm. One concern that naturally arises when confronted with this trend is that it somehow undermines music’s place in culture as a form of artistic self-expression. How can an artist’s music be said to be something special and creative if they haven’t created it themselves, but rather employed someone to do it for them? The core of this concern is that people’s attitudes to music are rooted in their perception of what music is and that these attitudes and this perception are what gives music the prowess it has in persuading an audience. This relationship between artists, music, and audiences relies on the perceived nature of what being an artist that releases music is. This perception in turn relies on the fact that artists previously wrote their own music far more often than not. By undermining this system, we risk undermining the value that music is able to bring us. Another related issue is that ghost-writing alters the nature of what an “artist” is. Rather than artists being both creators and players of music, they’re now more akin to brands. This is, of course, is not necessarily a bad thing. After all, what’s wrong with music being treated in the same manner as other modern commodities? An initial response to this is that music simply isn’t the same as other modern commodities and the fact that it has been so commodified doesn’t change this. One feature of music which sets it apart and that ought to be explored is the perception of music by its audience. Appreciators of music do not (and should not) have the same attitude towards music as they do towards material 62
There are 4357 pelicans in the Pelican Office...I counted.
