#song: chloe or sam or sophia or marcus

[lemonycranberries]

and you saw my bones out with someone new who seemed like he would've bullied you in school-

[torturedpoetsadprose]

“So if you wanna break my cold, cold heart, say you loved me. And if you wanna tear my world apart, say you'll always wonder.”

[twinge-of-cosmicangst]

[andichoseyou]

The Eras Tour surprise songs parallels

June 3, 2024—Lyon, France: Glitch / Everything Has Changed (mashup) and Chloe or Sam or Sophia or Marcus

[dearreader]

taylor saying “you turned me into an idea of sorts” in chloe et al. and saying “i’m the girl of his american dreams” in fresh out the slammer saying that he had an idea of her that was unattainable and not feasible and when it wasn’t really got upset at her for it…

[crumblinggothicarchitecture]

While I agree with most of your posts

I think bringing up grammar in song writing is just kinda weird

Like as long as a song isn't as egregiously grammatically incorrect as 'I'll do what I should have did' (thank you deacon blue) it just isn't a relevant criticism?

Even the song writer you respect most probably doesn't write their songs like an essay they can lose marks for. And that's a good thing! Songs would be a lot worse if writers were worrying about these things

It's just such a bizarre thing to bring up- and unfortunately it kinda makes your other points look less valid because it comes across as weird and petty and like you'll drag Swift for anything (Plus obsessions with 'correct' grammar is just rooted in abliesm, classism and racism- so yeah not a good look)

Plus bringing up your literature degree... like you never studied poetry? Which famously plays with grammar and sentence structure? Like that's inherent to the genre and while very little of TTPD is poetic, lyrics are still most similar to poems then they are to essays or journal articles

Sorry you just really hit a nerve here cos it's just such a ridiculous thing to bring up.

Okay, yes people don't write songs like essay's. However, they often still use determinable grammar rules in art.  

You are keying into the difference between prescriptive and descriptive grammar rules. 

The prescriptive rules are ones that you are most likely to find first listed in dictionaries or textbooks. Descriptive grammar rules contend with the dialectal differences and slang. In either case, rules and stipulations or exceptions are noted in various linguistic analysis of the demographic's dialect. Both subgroups of grammar are consistently evolving as the use of the English language changes over time.  

Before I move on, I just want to say that I am well-aware of the deep history surrounding the debates on proper grammar. These debates, of course stem, from sociohistorical issues surrounding class, race, and ableist attitudes. You are correct. However, the academic conversation on grammar and linguistics has advanced dramatically into the subdivision of grammar-practices with respect to dialectal and cultural differences. I judge Taylor Swift's grammar as similar to my own, since she claims to be from my “neck of the woods.” Thus, I feel it is entirely appropriate for me to throw metaphorical tomatoes at her.  

 In the juncture of this difference on prescriptive and descriptive, I want to make that point that people who utilize the difference well often take prescriptive rules and bend them to fit their specific thematic point, thus the lyric forms to its set of descriptive grammar rules. These artists do it with such finesse and precision, unlike Taylor Swift, that it’s nearly awe-inspiring.  

For instance, Kendrick Lamar uses many AAVE typical syntactical structures to make his music personalized art. He won a Pulitzer for it. Take, as an example, the intro to his song “Humble” in which he writes, “Nobody pray for me / It been that day for me” (2017). This is not grammatically correct according to the prescriptive grammar rules laid out in the 1940’s. However, linguistic scholars do not operate on so strict a pendulum anymore. Notice, too, that Lamar is not actually breaking any grammatical rules, only playing with the purpose and form of his syntax, when we take into account the dialectical intention with which he uses “it been” as a poignant use of the past participle form of the verb “to be.” Thus, the simple sentence of “it is” changes into the “it been” as a subjective call first to his cultural dialect and to the thematic gesture of the song. As the phrase “it been” leaves out the helping verb “have” which would put the phrase into present progressive tense should it be present; however, it’s noticeable absence as a stiff detraction from prescriptive grammar rules, focuses Lamar’s thematic point on moving the audience to mediate on the past as it intrudes on the present time. His use of language discrepancy between prescriptive and descriptive rules focuses recognition on his dialectal culture and on his main thematic point as it hinges on making sure to notice where you’ve been in life in order to stay humble and live with authenticity. He is a masterclass on descriptive grammar being used in such a beautifully artistic way that I am damn near in tears for his music.  

Okay, moving onto to your point about poetry not being grammatically correct. You are quite wrong here, because poetry "plays" with syntax but it does not throw the rules out. Much like the example I laid out above, poetry does the same thing wherein it plays with prescriptive grammar in a thoughtful way that often ties into the moral or theme of the work. Poetry centers on a different form of syntactical methodology... yes, you are right. However, the emphasis is still on the necessity of understanding grammar structures like poetic feet, meter, rhyme scheme (etc). It's not a free-for-all. The best poets of the last 6 centuries have been some with the most linguistically precise sentence structure that I've ever read. I can give you examples, but if I do that this answer will become a million words long.  

I am, however, sorry to have struck a nerve or come-off like a know-it-all. I was only expressing my frustration that Taylor Swift is apparently one of the biggest artists in the world and she doesn't even bother to ask a friend if the meaning of her phrases gets lost in excessively languishing grammatical structures. For instance, in her song “Chloe or Sam or Marcus or Whatever” she is stacking so many phrases hinging on coordinating conjunctions that the meaning of the phrase itself loses any poignant message. She writes:

Named Chloe or Sam or Sophia or Marcus And I just watched it happen As the decade would play us for fools And you saw my bones out with somebody new Who seemed like he would've bullied you in school And you just watched it happen (Chloe or Sam or Sophia or Marcus).

In this stanza alone there are 6 coordinating conjunctions stacked together, interspersed with additional prepositional phrases and 2 extra relative clauses. It is the most egregious run-on sentence I have ever seen published before. I've seen better, cleaner prose in the work I've graded from High School freshmen. Not only could she have said it in less words, but the way she is writing it makes it drag on and on. The meaning gets lost, and any emotional impact is shut down because people get lost in the wordiness.

It’s a failure on her part, and it’s clear how just writing a run on sentence with no meaning is so much different than the way that someone like Lamar is masterfully arranging language to fit his purpose.  It's offensive that she gets to make a million-billion dollars off so little effort. 

Sorry, I wrote you an essay, but I am so incredibly passionate about writing. Also, I’ve been listening to Lamar a lot today because of his recent diss track, and it just reminded about how much of a lyrical genius he is. Sorry, I detoured into a rant about how cool he is too. And I need people to understand that I am not critiquing Swift because I need to dunk on someone in order to bolster my own sense of self-worth. I just want better mainstream art, and I want people to have better, stronger art with which to engage.  

I did not mean to hurt your feelings.  You are quite right that obsession with "proper" grammar is bullshit; however, I am not looking for some old fashioned "proper" nonsense. I want people to write like Lamar, with intelligence and passion while he bends the notions of grammar, not like Taylor Swift with obvious run-on obfuscated and stupid phrases.

edit: Also, good writers do actually worry about grammar. It has to do with illocutionary forces behind the phrases. The best among us knows the language inside and out, and that is why they are the best writers.

Edit 2: Also, I've been thinking about this, but what do you think literary and poetry critics do? You say it's bizarre to critique Taylor Swift’s poor grasp of the English language? Of course, I'm critiquing that... she's the one who calls herself a writer. I don't go around checking everyone's grammar, but if you call yourself a "good" writer and a poet, obviously expect people to analyze the words on the page.

[yesimtrashforit]

Chloe or Sam or Sophia or Marcus - Taylor Swift (Byler) edit

[letters-adressed-to-the-fire]

pov: you’re addicted to the “if-onlys” (or me when I’m over-analyzing Chloe or Sam or Sophia or Marcus)

Yes, I’m gonna analyze the entire song. No, I don’t need an introduction. Yes, let’s dive into it.

Let’s start with the very interesting use of the word "hologram".

"Your hologram stumbled into my apartment"

We’ve seen Taylor use "phantom" and "ghost" to talk about past relationships in other songs (for example: loml), but we’ve never seen her use "hologram." Why? Well, this suggests she might be talking about something more present, as if the relationship had become so worn out that he stopped being a real person to her and turned into a hologram—something close yet untouchable.

But, this line, followed by “hands in the hair of somebody in darkness” paints a picture of someone cheating. So, even if Taylor intended this, the ambiguous nature of the verse means it’s necessary to approach it from a different angle too.

Yes, the idea of her coming into her apartment and being followed by the presence of the person she loved, does resembles the idea of a ghost. But the use of "hologram" indicates something different this time, she’s talking about the person’s current actions, and given Taylor’s past relationships with famous people, it makes sense that she would know when they started seeing someone new.

So, what does this mean? With these lines Taylor is bringing a completely different emotion to the song, one that permeates throughout: The rarely discussed how, when someone you loved starts moving on, you’re left wondering, "Why am I staying behind?" and "Why does it still hurt?"; and how this can lead to drowning in "what ifs" and trying to remember why it didn’t work out.

"As the decade would play us for fools And you saw my bones out with somebody new Who seemed like he would've bullied you in school"

In the same note, this part of the verse mirrors Taylor's narrative but from the guy’s point of view. She’s now saying the same thing happened to him.

There’s something common in both perspectives tho, Taylor is not just saying “you’re with someone else”, she’s saying “you’re with someone else and that makes me angry”. In the first lines, the mention of names like "Chloe or Sam or Sophia or Marcus" emphasizes her anger and condescension, showing that she doesn’t care about the specifics of who he’s with, just that it’s not her. Paralleling this, the line “who seemed like he would’ve bullied you in school” suggests she’s trying to provoke her ex by mentioning something that would bother him, not because the new partner is a bully (obviously), but because it’s a sore spot for her ex.

"And I just watched it happen" "And you just watched it happen"

Here, we are already introduced to one of the key elements of the song: the act of watching. Throughout all the song, Taylor will resort to this bit to depict a sense of helplessness.

In the first verse, it is used to portray how both parts of the relationship watched each other drift apart without trying to reconcile.

“And I couldn't watch it happen” “And you just watched it”

In the second verse, she couldn’t bear to watch, indicating she took action to stay away from him; which was also possible because the guy didn’t do anything to stop her.

“Like it never happened?” “It just didn't happen”

By the third verse, she dropped this act of watching, now she’s stating facts and contemplating whether pretending it never happened is a viable way to move on.

Now, we’ll move to the chorus.

To start, we need to discuss the double meaning behind the line “I loved you the way that you were”: Did he love her for who she was without needing to change, or did he only love a past version of her? Both interpretations are equally devastating.

“If you wanna tear my world apart Just say you've always wondered”

Then we are presented to the most heart-wrenching part of the song. Taylor is already wondering, and it would destroy her to know she’s not alone in this. This could mean either she’s hoping to get back together, or she fears she’ll never move on. Imagining a scenario where they meet years later and he admits he’s always wondered about their potential could terrify her, showing how significant this person was to her.

*Part 2 in a few days!!! I'll be discussing some metaphors and some alternative interpretations (because I'm me and I love to complicate things)*

[foxes-that-run]

Chloe or Sam or Sophie or Marcus is haylor coded too. And it mentions orbit (satellite) and the idea of some sorts which is like saying my mind turns your life into folklore

This one is one of the clearest about him.

[4ugust]

what does lyon, france have that i don’t????

[allamericanb-tch]

so if chloe or sam or sophia or marcus is about matty healy are we to assume that maroon is also about him

[lemonycranberries]

YOU NEEDED ME BUT YOU NEEDED DRUGS MORE?????

[wilderflowergirlie]

Chloe or Sam or Sophia or Marcus but it’s just Remus, Grant, and Sirius

[likea-black-widow-baby]

Marvel Women as The Tortured Poet's Department + Anthology Songs

Valkyrie: Fortnight

Peggy: My Boy Only Breaks His Favorite Toys

Jane: Down Bad

Simmons: Fresh Out The Slammer

Melina: Florida!!!

Wanda: Who's Afraid of Little Old Me?

Pepper: I Can Fix Him (No Really I Can)

Gamora: loml

Natasha: I Can Do It With A Broken Heart

Carol: The Alchemy

Kate: Clara Bow

Maria Rambeau: The Black Dog

Dottie: imgonnagetyouback

Bobbi: The Albatross

Daisy: Chloe or Sam or Sophia or Marcus

Kamala: I Hate It Here

Angie: I Look In People's Windows

Nakia: Cassandra

MJ: Peter

May: The Bolter

Cassie: Robin

[dearreader]

hello fellow members of the tortured poets department.

id like to continue entering into evidence analysis from previous days i missed. next is chloe or sam or sofia or marcus

previous day's here:

standard tracks: masterpost

anthology tracks: the black dog, imgonnagetyouback, the albatross

chloe et al. is similar to my explanation to evermore’s theme of “a love album about heartbreak”. because at it’s core it’s a song about heartbreak and longing in a similar fashion to champagne problems or tis the damn season.

the narrator is still reeling and dealing with this heartbreak and knowing it was the right decision but still can’t recover from it. like i was thinking about it because, i’ve mentioned this before, but addiction runs in my family and how heartbreaking the “you needed me but you needed drugs more/and i couldn’t watch it happen” is. and a common theme on the album is having to chose to save yourself over a relationship (“sacrificed us to the gods of your bluest days”) and the longing that comes from that and the constant wondering of what could’ve been or come from it.

so in chloe and oomfs it’s the narrator thinking about this relationship that happened and they crashed into each other at one point but the narrator bolted and left this person but it haunted them for years. and when they eventually came back together they realized it wasn’t anything anymore and they were romanticizing their past and what they had and that’s the only way they can have each other is in the memory of their old love and the idea of what they could’ve been instead of what they actually were. and the narrator criticizing them for it but her also doing it herself by wondering what would’ve been if they hadn’t run. even with knowing what they know they still can’t ever get the feeling gone. the idea of them and the love that could’ve been us always there…

if we do look at the album like this and the relationship the narrator leaves there old partner for, it can be seen as the person she always wondered was a "what if..." but never tempted her until her relationship was slowly dying and killing her. then she remembered the fleeting memories of happiness and what ifs and ran back to him and vice versa, both abandoning everyone to be together, and running on nothing but the memory of feelings and touches between each other. only for both to realize it's long since dead but neither is ever going to fully move on because they'll still try to find some way for them to end up together but it'll never happen because they broke up for a valid reason the first time and nothing can bring them back to life... dancing phantoms on the terrace/are they second hand embarrassed that i can't get out of bed/because something counterfeit is dead... would it be enough to just float in your orbit/could we watch our phantoms like watching wild horses/cooler in theory but not if your force it to be...if one thing had been different/would everything be different today?...will i always wonder?