sherpa BY-SA is quite close to the GPL in some regards, which I think is a good license for software (Why use MIT and risk your work getting taken over by a proprietary company to misuse in the future?)
Personally I actually prefer to use Apache-2.0 or MIT because of the fact that it doesn't require software which ends up using it to be under the same licensing and is allowed in closed-source software. That would grossly impact adoption of software I write to little or no benefit to myself. Downstreams that could use it under a more permission open source license may end up going with an alternative solution or just using my code as a reference point for their own implementation if it's copyleft instead, because any sensible legal team for a business would take a quick look at it, look up prior case law on GPL enforcement, and decide it would not be worth any hassle. Then you get into the whole non-sense of GPL-2.0-only vs GPL-3.0-or-later vs AGPL vs LGPL licensing, whether or not you can use a library in a closed-source nature so long as you're not expressly "linking" against it, etc.
No "work" is being taken over. If they are redistributing my work, like shipping it in a piece of software (say an app), there are legal requirements in §4 of the Apache 2.0 license which requires them to reasonably disclose this and provide recipients of the work or derivative a copy of the license of my software. It is fairly common nowadays for closed source applications to provide a subsection in their settings for accessing licensing and it puts them in the legal clear with minimal effort.
If they end up adopting it, that helps to legitimatize my software, which could improve adoption of it. They may even contribute changes back (which would be licensed under Apache-2.0). If you are viewing it as "taking over" something you are expressly opting to put under a license which allows them to make modifications, then you shouldn't be looking at licensing it solely in that manner in the first place.
Most of the CC licenses are indeed the equivalent to GPL but for creative works that aren't software.
What scares me about not including NC in my license, when making music for instance, is that theoretically it can get associated to a product out of my control,
That can happen regardless of the license.
Using NC solves this issue, but now I've made it difficult to actually use the work. Let's say a film maker hears my song. CC-BY-SA is perfect. He can just use it, credit back, license any changes to my work the same way, nice and easy.
On the contrary, I don't know any media company that would opt to use any SA licensed content because that would require them to do the same as well, let alone one that requires them to provide attribution (not viable in a "traditional media" e.g. radio / tv / movie form). NC would also be out of the question. They would rather pay for a license which allows them to use it in commercial purposes and modify it, maintain the rights to whatever work they create, etc. It's why music licensing is as popular as it is, why companies (or even individuals, in the modern era of stream and content creation on places like YouTube) pay a subscription fee for access to a library of sound effects, music, even video clips.
Licensing it solely as CC would be a mistake in my opinion. I would consider a dual-model like Kevin Macleod has for all the music he puts under Incompetech. If you want to use it for free, you must attribute him, which respects CC BY 3.0, which allows for commercial purposes without having to expressly license their own work under the same. If you do not want to attribute him or there is no reasonable way to do so, that is what licensing per work is for.
https://incompetech.com/music/royalty-free/licenses/
