#savvy taylor

[mostlybrunettes]

[jaredsdiary]

bones. Savvy Taylor. NY 2017

instagram.com/jaredkocka

[digitalfountains]

Savvy Taylor by Larsen Sotelo

[worldofbeauties]

Savvy Taylor

[discluded]

Mile has said it's a give and take relationship hence he has to give and put effort if truly wants to be close to apo. He describes apo as a horse that will either kick you or give you a experience of a lifetime. That tells me apo doesn't let just anyone in and is very guarded so mile's actions spoke volumes to apo. Mile's gentle approach won him over and in return he gave back. Their relationship is delicate because it's full of dedication and understanding. Its one were both are equals.

Yeah! Mile talked about it at the Kisfarger event. I posted about it here 😍

I think Apo’s personality is a lot like a horse, very strong. When a horse is not familiar with a person, it’ll kick you, but after you get to know it and earn its trust, the horse can take you to so many great places. Apo is a very bright and cheerful person with high energy, similar to horse.

Apo comes off to me as a kind of person who is able to make a space feel inviting when he's On ™️. But just because he makes you feel close to Apo-the-public-figure doesn't mean he's close to you or you are to him, Apo the person.

ALSO Mile speaks of the horse metaphor with personal knowledge. Did y'all know he's an award medalling equestrian? I CAN'T BELIEVE MILE IS ALSO A CANON HORSE GIRL THIS MAN IS UNREAL

Spooking a horse sounds like a horrifying experience, as someone who's ridden a horse like one (1) time in my life.

We've often seen glimpses of how Apo at work / in front of the camera is not the same as private Apo. That's not artifice, I'm not the same person at work as I am in private tho neither version of me are fake. But you can be a person who has ridden a horse or you can a person who handles a horse and has a relationship with it. And if you're the horse whisperer, you better be ready to put up the work up front first.

Mile knows that that kind of hard work in relationships pays off.

[taylorswiftstylequestions]

hot take: swifities are not doing her any favours going after new female artists for deigning to exist either extremely inspired by Taylor or doing their own thing

I don't know who is doing this and about who - but I choose to focus on the people who recognize that seeing Taylor's influence on the next generation of songwriters is a credit to her status as a living legend.

And further, that being able to see Taylor not only ascend to crazy new heights in her own career but the fact that she's able to do so while also taking an active role in protecting and nurturing the next cohort of voices for future youths who need the comfort and safety of music that Taylor's once provided is an immense privilege and joy and it's obvious that Taylor herself couldn't be prouder and more honoured to be in the position to be that safe space for young artists that she didn't have herself coming up in the industry.

[rechenzentrum]

DAAAAMNNNNN

[evermoredeluxe]

there’s this guy on tiktok who has done studying in marketing and discusses downfalls of different celebs (or sometimes positive takes), and he did a “downfall of TS” series (which is ironic to make in the current economy even if you believe in it fully), and i do think he has some great insight in general and ofc he knows what he’s talking about, but it’s just wild to me that people analyze taylor’s relationship with us as one-sided. yeah i have a parasocial rs with her, but that woman has a parasocial rs with us too and people don’t realize that. idk how to explain to people, but she literally talked about eras tour and us being her everything last summer when… you know… yeah. and i feel like so many people think she’s being fake, but you can’t fake a connection. he talked about her being business-savvy and how that takes away from the authentic feel, but to me at least, it just makes me feel proud of her for getting her worth and being smart, like i actually want her to do well and be happy. he talked about fans feeling like they’re one message away from her, and ofc i feel close to her and like i know her because she shares herself so openly, but i highly doubt any fan genuinely believes that (even young fans) esp post 2020.

i feel like people analyze her by thinking that her authenticity is fake when that’s not true at all. she’s untouchable, but she manages to be grounded and honest to her fans and be generous through it all. i feel like lil things that connect us to her are unknown by the public, which i actually like and prefer btw. most recent example is red herring, and her, as always, letting us know before the world. and im not even go into everything she shares about herself as a human and her struggles via her music (which obviously are accessible to everyone, but are not being analyzed by everyone, and she knows we love analyzing). or how she is currently telling us stuff about her life via mashups that, again, she knows we will analyze and the general public won’t. this missing component of people’s understanding of her and her relationship with us truly hinders analysis of her as a person or even as Taylor Swift (the brand).

[mostlybrunettes]

[jaredsdiary]

coldplay yellow on repeat. Savvy Taylor. NYC 2018

instagram.com/jaredkocka

[digitalfountains]

Savvy Taylor by Larsen Sotelo

[thecarnivorousmuffinmeta]

How long would Death Note be if Light was actually a completely law-abiding, if vaguely narcissistic, citizen during the kira murders who just so happened to tick off L's "he's a serial killer" radar?

I mean, that's the thing, he wouldn't tick off L's radar

Why Did L Suspect Light Anyway

L does single-mindedly pursue the theory of "Light Yagami is Kira" to an utterly insane degree, even accepting for things like "he conveniently got amnesia for no reason" and "even though I put cameras in every corner of his house I didn't catch him" and "even though I handcuffed him literally to my side I couldn't catch him"

It is nuts.

However, I will give L credit, he didn't pick Light out of a hat.

L's initial theory was simply that Kira was in Japan and taking a stab in the dark probably the Kanto region. Light confirmed this for him due to an egotistical hissy fit with L having to put in very little effort.

This brought L to focus on Tokyo.

L further figures out fairly early on that Light has a student's schedule, not a working adult's in Japan, and this is because Light at the time didn't realize he could control the exact time at which a person dies and by the time Light changes his method it's already too late.

Now, what happened then is that Light intentionally tipped his hand. After Lind L. Taylor, Light took L's existence extremely personally and nursed quite the grudge and the vendetta. To "win" as Kira, to prove he's a god to himself and the populace, he must personally kill L. As a result, Light does many things that put him in danger/do nothing to help him as Kira just to have his chance at L.

The big one is that he starts using information only known to the Japanese police force. He intentionally does this so that L focuses enough on Tokyo and the police there that Light can get a firmer grasp on him, what Light didn't account for was that L would immediately narrow in on him and him alone or the lengths he'd go to in order to investigate Light as a suspect.

But thanks to Light, L did know that whoever was doing this had access to police information not available to the public. Now, Light was likely hoping L would assume it was a cop, but L expanded his search to the police and their family members, presuming that family members may have access to these networks due to insecure home practices and such (which Light does).

Now, L never explains canonically why he's so certain Light is Kira, but if I'm putting myself in his shoes I can take a wager as to why Light made him go "ding ding ding".

L's looking for the type of person who would become Kira. He already knows this person is Japanese, likely a student in a rigidly structured school day (so not in university), but someone with good enough English to have followed the Lind L. Taylor broadcast, someone savvy with the internet so as to kill international criminals.

What he also knows is that Kira is obsessive, manic, single-minded, and unquestioning of his beliefs. Kira is also someone with an absurd amount of faith in law enforcement and the justice system (Light... doesn't spend too long questioning whether or not the people he sentences to death are guilty of the crimes they were sentenced for/the life circumstances which might lead to someone committing a heinous crime and whether or not that matters) which makes sense for a workaholic policeman's son in homicide whose son idolizes him.

Not to mention that, aside from his hatred of L, Kira is extremely respectful of the police in general. He never goes after the Japanese police the way he does L (only the FBI agents tailing him) and it's clear that his great rivalry is with L, not the Japanese police, interpol, or any kind of cops.

So, we're looking at someone who really respects the law... without understanding what the law even is, why it exists, or why "no, Light, murdering thousands of people does not magically make you exempt".

Adults typically don't act like Light does. Even after the six-year time skip, Light's still obsessive but he has changed greatly from the boy he was. And Mikami, an adult who is inspired by him and kills in the same way is... a very different kind of person ultimately driven by a victim mentality.

My point is, it would make sense for L to suspect a teenager rather than an independent adult. The schedule lines up, the personality lines up, and while this is very likely a highly precocious individual (and someone who knows he's very clever) they still feel young.

So, L narrows it down to a set of families and look what we have: Light Yagami, brilliant young man who scores first in the country on every exam he ever takes, talented in athletics at a national level, has succeeded at everything in his life and is the pride and joy of his family, utterly adores his police chief father and has repeatedly shown interest in following his career path and even taken steps towards doing so as a high school student.

And L says "bingo".

But Back to Your Question

Putting aside whether or not anyone else would ever go as ham killing the types of people Light did for no particular reason (Misa, for example, would probably have only gone after her parent's killer. Mikami would have gone after his childhood tormentors/his mother. Higuchi went after corporate rivals) there's also whether they'd have that police information from Japan (probably not likely), and if they'd act the way that Light did.

Basically, while it is a nice thought... I don't think L would suspect Light in these circumstances as he'd ultimately be dealing with a very different person who acts in very different ways.

Light would never tip off his radar.

[simply-ivanka]

If Taylor Swift Had Endorsed Donald Trump

Democrats would scorn her business savvy, cap her ticket prices, and fret over her huge carbon footprint.

Wall Street Journal

By Allysia Finley

Forbes estimates Taylor Swift’s net worth at $1.3 billion. Despite her liberal leanings, the singer-songwriter has amassed her wealth the old-fashioned way: through hard work, talent and business savvy. Her endorsement of Kamala Harris last week is rich considering she owes her success to the capitalist system the vice president wants to tear down.

“The way I see it, fans view music the way they view their relationships,” Ms. Swift wrote in a 2014 piece for the Journal. “Some music is just for fun, a passing fling. . . . Some songs and albums represent seasons of our lives, like relationships that we hold dear in our memories but had their time and place in the past. However, some artists will be like finding ‘the one.’ ” She has become “the one” for hundreds of millions of fans worldwide with lyrics that chronicle relationship woes women commonly experience.

Ms. Swift took advantage of her ardent fan base in 2014 by removing her catalog from Spotify in a bid for higher royalties. “Valuable things should be paid for. It’s my opinion that music should not be free,” she explained. “My hope for the future, not just in the music industry, but in every young girl I meet, . . . is that they all realize their worth and ask for it.”

She also criticized Apple Music for not paying artists during the streaming service’s free trial, prompting the company to change its policy. As she jeers in a hit song, “Who’s afraid of little old me?” Apparently, Big Tech companies.

Last year she reportedly raked in $200 million from streaming royalties on top of the estimated $15.8 million she grossed per performance during her recent “Eras” tour. Some fans have shelled out thousands of dollars on the resale market to see Ms. Swift perform. Americans have even traveled to Europe when they couldn’t get tickets in the U.S.

Her fan base may be more loyal and enthusiastic than Donald Trump’s. JD Vance scoffed at the idea that the star’s endorsement of Ms. Harris could influence the outcome of the election. The “billionaire celebrity,” he said, is “fundamentally disconnected from the interests and the problems of most Americans.” Maybe, but she certainly taps into the problems of young women.

Democrats hope to use Ms. Swift’s endorsement to drive them to the polls. But it isn’t difficult to imagine what the left would be saying about her had she endorsed the Republican antihero. It might go something like this:

The billionaire has gotten rich by ripping off fans, avoiding taxes and harming competitors. Time for the government to break her up. Unlike rival artists, Ms. Swift writes, performs and owns her compositions. This vertical integration allows her to charge exorbitant royalties and ticket prices.

Tickets for her “Eras” tour on average cost about $240. That’s merely the price for admission—not including food, drink or Swiftie swag. VIP passes that include memorabilia go for $899. How dare she make young women choose between paying for groceries or rent and going to a concert.

The Federal Trade Commission must cap Ms. Swift’s ticket prices at a reasonable price—say, $20—and ban her junk fees. Concertgoers shouldn’t have to pay $65 for an “I Love You It’s Ruining My Life” sweatshirt.

Her romance with Kansas City Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce also unfairly boosts their star power, letting them charge more for endorsements. As Ms. Swift writes in one song, “two is better than one.” Mr. Kelce reportedly signed a $100 million podcast deal with Amazon’s Wonderly. By breaking up the couple, the government could reduce their royalties and ticket prices.

Ms. Swift, the self-described “mastermind,” also dodges taxes on her “full income,” which includes some $125 million in real estate and a music catalog worth an estimated $600 million. “They said I was a cheat, I guess it must be true,” Ms. Swift acknowledges in her song “Florida!!!”

Under the Biden-Harris administration’s proposed billionaire’s tax, she would have to pay a 25% levy on the $1 billion increase in her fortune since 2017. But that isn’t enough. Ms. Swift should also have to pay taxes on the appreciating value of her “name, image and likeness,” which the Internal Revenue Service considers an asset.

How much is her brand worth? Easily billions. She might say, as she does in a song, that her “reputation has never been worse.” True, Miss Americana’s image took a hit after reports that her private-jet travel in 2022 emitted 576 times as much CO2 as the average American in a year. When Ms. Swift sings, “It’s me, hi, I’m the problem, it’s me,” she’s correct. She and her fat-cat friends are what’s wrong with America.

Appeared in the September 16, 2024, print edition as 'If Taylor Swift Had Endorsed Donald Trump'.

[kaylorisrwal]

Two days ago, the NFL posted a short teaser clip to get fans excited for the upcoming season. This 28-second video was shared across platforms like Twitter, TikTok, etc, and something stood out to a lot of people: Taylor Swift was shown FIVE DIFFERENT times in this brief clip. That’s more than any of the actual NFL players featured in the entire video. Naturally, people are wondering, "Why is Taylor Swift being shown so much in an NFL promo clip? Shouldn’t the focus be on the players?"

Now, this didn’t surprise me as much as it did others, and here’s why. This confirms what many of us (the more intelligent ones in the Taylor fandom) have been saying all along: Taylor Swift is in a strategic, contracted partnership with the NFL.

I believe this partnership is specifically aimed at boosting female viewership, which it already did last year. During last season, the NFL saw a massive increase in female viewers, nearly 50% of their audience. While I won’t speculate on exact percentages, it’s clear that Taylor’s presence at the games has significantly contributed to this growth. Her engagement with the games, both by attending and talking about them online, has drawn more attention to the NFL, particularly from women.

Given that, it seems highly likely we’ll be seeing a lot more of Taylor Swift at games this season. The fact that she was featured so prominently in these promotional clips suggests that her relationship with Travis Kelce isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. If there were even rumors of them “breaking up”, she wouldn’t be such a major part of the NFL’s marketing strategy.

Now, let’s take a moment to think about Miss Taylor Swift, Miss loves her money, Miss Captalist, Miss Marketing, the savvy businesswoman who once said, “Romance is not dead if you keep it just yours” and “I’ll save all my romanticism for my inner life.” Do we really think she’d allow her relationship to be used as a marketing tool by a corporation as huge as the NFL without benefiting from it in some way? And for those who aren’t aware, PR benefits go far beyond just money. It’s also about maintaining a certain image and expanding influence.

If Taylor weren’t gaining something from this arrangement, I doubt she’d let her social capital be used so freely. And the NFL isn’t just showing any famous NFL girlfriends. If they were, they would’ve included Simone Biles, who’s been in the spotlight all summer following her incredible Olympic run. She’s been supporting her husband at his NFL games, but she wasn’t featured in this promo at all. Maybe because Simone doesn’t have a contract with the NFL like Taylor does. Simone is there as a supportive wife, while Taylor is there to boost viewership and keep people talking about football.

[thejakeformerlyknownasprince]

Animorphs and SIX

Hi there! Cates here! Unlike Bug/Sol, I have listened to SIX, and I unapologetically adore it. So I asked her if I could take a crack at the ask about an Animorphs/SIX fusion.

To me, the way to do a match up of SIX and Animorphs would be to match each Queen with a host. The whole point of SIX is that the queens’ stories/lives are reduced to “just one word in a stupid rhyme” “cause in history [they’re each] fixed as one of six and without [Henry VIII] they disappear.”

SIX interrogates the familiar way we’ve always told a certain story, basically forcing us as the audience to confront our own complicity in silencing these women by only seeing them through the lens of a powerful man. Catherine of Aragon is a bitter divorcee, Anne Boleyn is a homewrecker, Jane Seymour is an ideal wife and mother, Anne of Cleves is ugly, Catherine Howard is a sl€t, Catherine Parr is a caretaker. Their stories don’t matter. Their voices have been silenced. They aren’t allowed to say who they are, all that matters is the shell presented to the world. They are disenfranchised and largely powerless, and they’re entirely defined by the man who literally dictated if they lived or died. Sound like any characters we know?

For me, a quick pairing would go as follows:

Catherine of Aragon: Alloran. Life did NOT work out the way he planned. Has a strict moral code. Brought low from a position of power and fame. Stuck in his role for a loooonnngggg time.

Anne Boleyn: Eva. Seen as a means to an end by the Yeerks, is much cleverer and more politically savvy than they’re anticipating, refuses to apologize for who she is, calls the Yeerks on their hypocrisy and bullshit.

Jane Seymour: Taylor. Seemingly wants what’s being offered (power, community, wealth, safety), but it’s a mistake to view her as blindly devoted to the cause. She’s grabbing as much power as she can in a situation where she’s largely disenfranchised and overlooked. She may not always understand the Yeerk empire, but they’re the best game in town and she’s pouring herself into her work because at least they didn’t toss her aside.

Anne of Cleves: Jake. The marriage doesn’t last long, ultimately he ended up with all the power and advantages from the situation. It wasn’t pleasant for him, but he came out on top. And he outlives the Yeerk Empire.

Catherine Howard: Tom. He’s a naive teenager who gets dragged into an impossible situation because he has a crush. He’s passed from Yeerk to Yeerk, each one seemingly worse than the last. He dies young, never having a chance to give voice to his own story, a child whose childhood was stolen.

Catherine Parr: Karen. She’s dragged into things against her will, but her imprisonment is NOT her whole story. She’s not looking to make waves or overturn the status quo, but she has so much life to live beyond her brief period of enslavement to the Yeerks. No one is going to remember her, but she probably doesn’t care because she’s too busy living her life.

[ironwoman359]

i saw your tag about how in 500 years we WON'T be calling britney spears' "toxic" classical music, and i am willing and able to hear this rant if you so wish to expand upon it :3c

You know what, it's been over six months, so sure, why not, let's pick today to have this rant/lesson!

To establish my credentials for those unfamiliar Hi my name's Taylor I was a music teacher up until last year when the crushing realities of the American Education SystemTM led me to quit classroom work and become a library clerk instead. But said music teaching means that I have 4+ years of professional classical training in performance and education, and while I'm by no means a historian, I know my way around the history of (european) music.

So, now that you know that I'm not just some rando, but a musical rando, let me tell you why we won't be calling Britney Spears or [insert modern musician(s) that'd be especially humorous to today's audience to call classical] "classical music."

The simple answer is that "Old music =/= Classical music," which is usually the joke being made when you see this joke in the first place.

As funny as this joke can be when executed well (this is one of my favorite versions of said joke, especially since this is a future world where there's very little accurate surviving info about the culture from the 21st century), there is VERY little likely of this actually being how music from today is referred to in the future, because, again, music being OLD does not automatically make music CLASSICAL.

If you'd indulge me a moment, have a look at these three pieces from the early 1900s, which is now over 100 years ago. That's pretty old! You don't have to listen to the whole of all of them if you don't want to, but give each around 30 seconds or so of listening.

All three pieces are over 100 years old, but would you call "In the Shade of the Old Apple Tree" classical? Or "The Entertainer?" Most likely not. You'd probably call these songs "old timey" and you may even be savvy enough to call "The Entertainer" by it's actual genre name, ragtime. But if either of these songs came on the radio, you wouldn't really call them classical, would you? They're just old.

Whereas Mahler's Symphony No. 5, now that sounds like classical music to you, doesn't it? It's got trumpets, violins, a conductor, it's being played by a philharmonic! That's a classical musicy word!

The short answer of why we in the real, nonfictional world won't be calling Britney Spears's "Toxic" classical music in 100 years is it simply doesn't sound like classical music.

.....and the long answer is that Mahler's Symphony No. 5 isn't actually classical either.

See, music, just like everything in culture from dress to art to architecture changed with the times, and therefore 'classical music' is technically (although not colloquially) only one of about four to five musical periods/styles you're likely to hear on one of those "classical music tunes to study to" playlists.

Our dear friend Mahler up there was not a classical composer, he was a composer of the late romantic era.

So now, because I have you hostage in my post (just kidding please don't scroll away I had a lot of fun writing this but it took me nearly 3 hours) I'm going to show you the difference between Classical music and the other musical eras.

These are the movements we'll be dealing with, along with the general dates that define them (remembering of course that history is complicated and the Baroque Period didn't magically begin on January 1st, 1600, or end the moment Bach died) :

The Baroque Period (1600-1750)

The Classical Period (1750-1820)

The Romantic Period (1820-1910)

The Impressionist Movement (1890-1920)

You'll notice that as time goes on, the periods themselves grow shorter, and there starts to become some overlap in the late 19th to early 20th century. The world was moving faster, changing faster, and music and art began changing faster as well. Around the beginning of the 20th century music historians quit assigning One Major style to an entire era of history and just started studying those movements themselves, especially since around the 20th century we were getting much more experimentation and unique ideas being explored in the mainstream.

Even the end of the classical to the beginning of the romantic period can get kind of fuzzy, with Beethoven, arguably one of the most famous classical (and yes he was actually classical) composers in history toeing the line between classical and romantic in his later years. The final movement of his 9th symphony, known as Ode to Joy, far more resembles a romantic work than a classical one.

But, I'm getting ahead of myself.

To oversimplify somewhat, here are the main characteristics of said movements:

The Baroque Period (1600-1750)

Music was very technical and heavily ornamented. This coincided with a very "fancy" style of dress and decoration (the rococo style became popular towards the latter half of this period). The orchestras were far smaller than we are used to seeing in concert halls today, and many instruments we consider essential would not have been present, such as the french horn, a substantial percussion section, or even the piano*. Notable composers include Vivaldi (of the Four Seasons fame), Handel (of the Messiah fame) and Bach:

*the piano as we know it today, initially called the pianoforte due to its ability to play both softly (piano) and loudly (forte) in contrast to the harpsichord, which could only play at one dynamic level, was actually invented around 1700, but didn't initially gain popularity until much later. This Bach Concerto would have traditionally been played on a harpsichord rather than a piano, but the piano really does have such a far greater expressive ability that unless a group is going for Historical Accuracy, you'll usually see a piano used in performances of baroque work today.

The Classical Period (1750-1820)

In the classical period, music became more "ordered," not just metaphorically but literally. The music was carefully structured, phrases balanced evenly in a sort of call and response manner. Think of twinkle twinkle little star's extremely balanced phrasing, itself a tune that Mozart took and applied 12 classical variations to, cementing it in popularity. And speaking of twinkle twinkle, memorable melody became more important to the composition than ornamentation, and many of our most universally known melodies in the west come from this period. The orchestra also grew bigger, adding more players of all kinds as now we didn't have to worry about overpowering the single-volume harpsichord, and additional instruments like more brass and woodwinds were added. Notable composers include Haydn (of The Surprise Symphony fame) Beethoven (of, well, Fame), and Mozart:

Pay attention to the size of the orchestra here, then go back to the Bach concerto. Notice how in that very typical Baroque setting, the orchestra sits at maybe 20 people, and that here in a Classical setting, there's nearly two times that!

The Romantic Period (1820-1910)

In the romantic period, it was all about BIG FEELINGS, MAN. It was about the DRAMA. Orchestras got even bigger than before, the music focused less on balance and became more dramatic, and there was a big focus on emotions, individualism, and nationalism. Discerning listeners will notice a lot of similarities between romantic symphonies and modern film scores; John Williams in particular is very clearly influenced by this era, any time I'd play the famous Ride of the Valkyries by Wagner in a class, the kids would remark that it sounds like it should be in Star Wars. A lot of romantic composers were German, including Beethoven, if you want to call his later works romantic (which I and many others argue you can, again, compare Ode to Joy to one of his earlier works and you can hear and see the difference), but you also have the Hungarian Liszt (of the Hungarian Rhapsodies fame), the Russian Tchaikovsky (of the Nutcracker and 1812 Overture fame), and the Czech Dvořák:

See how this orchestra is even bigger still? Modern orchestras tend to vary in size depending on what pieces they are playing, but the standard is much closer to this large, romantic size, and it's far less typical to see a small, intimate Baroque setting unless specifically attending a Baroque focused concert. Also I know I embedded Dvořák because Symphony From a New World slaps but please also listen to Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No.2 it's one of my all time favorite pieces and NOT just because of the Tom and Jerry cartoon, alright? Alright.

The Impressionist Movement (1890-1920)

A bit after it began but definitely still during the romantic period, a counter movement began in France that turned away from the emotional excess of romanticism and focused less on standard chord progression and explored more unconventional scales. This music was less worried about how it 'should' sound and was more concerned with evoking a certain emotion or image, giving you an "impression" of an idea. Debussy is by far the most well known name in this movement, even though he personally hated the term 'impressionism,' lol.

Notice the way the periods build on each other naturally, literally, physically builds on the orchestras that came before, evolving in style and structure until you get to the late 19th and early 20th century when things were built up so big that a response to that excess started to develop, first in the impressionist movement, and then into 20th century music in general, which got much more experimental and, as we say, "weird." (frickin 12 tone scales, man)* *i do not actually dislike the sound of 12 tone, it's interesting and unique, but it is HELL to analyze in music theory, which is unfortunately when a lot of us classical musicians are first introduced to it, therefore tarnishing our relationship to the genre as we cannot separate it from our own undergrad anguish

Even if you're not a super active listener and you have a harder time discerning the difference between, say, late baroque and early classical, you cannot deny that the first piece I've linked by Bach and the last piece I've linked by Debussy sound completely different. They're both orchestral pieces (I intentionally chose all orchestral pieces as my examples here, getting into solo works, opera, and chamber ensembles would take too long), but other than that, they couldn't be more different.

Wait, so what are we talking about again?

Classical Music is first a period of music, a specific artistic movement with music typically written in Europe between 1750 and 1820 with a specific sound that is distinct from these other styles I've outlined here.

And Classical Music is second a genre. Because while academically and historically Baroque music is not classical, and Romantic music is not classical...colloquially it is. They sound similar enough that it makes sense to put them on the same playlists, the same radio stations, the same 'beats to study to' youtube compilation videos. While individuals may have favorites and preferences, it's not far fetched to say that if you like listening to one of these styles, you'll at least like one of the others.

But whether you're being broad and referring to our modern idea of the classical genre, or you're being pedantic like me and referring to a specific period of musical history (or modern compositions emulating that style, because yeah, modern compositions of all of theses styles do exist), I think we can all agree that, as much as it slaps, "Toxic" by Britney Spears is not classical music, and 500 years is unlikely to change our perspective of that.

A Traditional Ballad though?

Yeah, I can see us calling it that in 5 billion years.

(the full version of this scene is age restricted for some reason, but you can watch it here)

Anyway, thanks for reading y'all, have a good one!