RANTING/VENTING MEGATHREAD 3.0

Some points-
1) Rock is not the center of the modern music universe. What I've noticed is the people most annoyed with Kpop are invariably strong rock/country listeners. People who are into EDM/Top 40/Rap/or most of all- A broad variety of music (virtually any music genre) are far less likely to be bothered by it.
2) Related to the first, if you're going to go down the "their fans are awful and have issues" route, do the rock fans bashing on Kpop really want to go down that route?
3) We're almost at the 30th anniversary of 'Smells Like Teen Spirit'. Get over it. Time passes you by. Learn to age gracefully.
4) Also, music in the 90s does not stop and start with Nirvana. Just as music in the 60s does not stop and start with the Beatles. Sorry, but Kurt Cobain's death was not the biggest music death of the 90s. That was 2Pac. A figure far bigger and more significant than Cobain and whose genre of music still persists to this day. And Motown was bigger AND better than the Beatles+The Beach Boys+The Rolling Stones. Yeah, I said it.
5) People listen to music for different reasons. Also, not everyone likes the cacophony of guitars and angry frustrated yelling. Some people like vocals and I dunno, songs that aren't full of anger and frustration. Maybe something mildly happy.
6) Kpop is lip-synced during the live performance for dance songs. That's because they're also dancing. During ballads, they sing live. Also, no one seems upset when performers in other genres sing but don't play instruments. Or even when their favorite rock band has a lead vocalist who doesn't play an instrument.
7) As far as defensiveness and insecurity, this is like the umpteenth rant about how Kpop sucks. How many threads/posts have Kpop fans started about how other music sucks? Who is being defensive and insecure here?

"I think your music is crap"
"I disagree+reasons"
"You're being insecure and defensive because you don't agree with me that the music you like is crap."
 

1. i mentioned nirvana once. actually, i was just quoting someone else (i don't even really like nirvana)
2. what's wrong with rock music fans? seriously. did i miss something?
3. yeah sure. but the fact people still listen to it 30 years later must mean something. i'd be surprised if any current kpop song is listened to 30 years from now
4. was just an example (and i don't even like nirvana, as i said)
5. yep
6. do western pop artists ever lip sync while dancing? not sure they would get away with it (i swear i've just "scandals" in the past of artists being accused of it. so i guess it's not acceptable generally?)
7. kpop is....whatever. people can like what they want. but the fans are often insane. that's my only point. i wouldn't be upset if someone said my favourite band sucked. but getting defensive over (wrongly) perceived slights? ughhh

as for 6...

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=who+lip+syncs

https://www.thetalko.com/12-celebrities-who-admitted-to-lip-syncing/

i didn't really give enough of a shit to google it, but the fact that these lists exist and it's considered a "scandal" makes me believe that's it's the exception, not the norm (unlike kpop)

i didn't really give enough of a shit to google it, but the fact that these lists exist and it's considered a "scandal" makes me believe that's it's the exception, not the norm (unlike kpop)

i think its only a scandal because the expectations are different (especially for some of the singers on that list who don't really dance). i don't think anyone would suggest that k-pop idols (or anyone else) should be able to dance and sing at the same time. you might argue that they shouldn't be dancing at all (or that they should be dancing less), but that's a different argument.

I saw a Kpop band recently, at some outdoor festival in central Seoul. It was boy band called Ceviche or something like that. They came on stage to mild applause and each of the 7 members had identical dyed platinum blonde bowl cuts. It's a high impact look, for sure. Anyway, they did lots of dances and what not. Most of the members were wearing tight pants with puffy button up shirts, but one member, I guess he was the bad boy, had an NBA, Minnesota Timber wolves jersey on. Overall, they weren't very good. 4/10

I agree that having a knowledge of music theory can increase a person's enjoyment when listening to music, especially if the music is complex or interesting. What I don't quite get, though, is how some people seem to think that understanding music theory somehow means they can no longer appreciate music that isn't complex. I gained a whole new appreciation for jazz when I picked up some jazz theory so I could sit in on bass with a local jazz band, but I didn't suddenly lose my ability to enjoy listening to the Ramones.

I totally get why people complain about K-Pop, as a person who dislikes most of what I've heard of it, but I don't think "It's too simplistic for people who actually understand music" is a particularly convincing argument against it.

i didn't really give enough of a shit to google it, but the fact that these lists exist and it's considered a "scandal" makes me believe that's it's the exception, not the norm (unlike kpop)

i think its only a scandal because the expectations are different (especially for some of the singers on that list who don't really dance). i don't think anyone would suggest that k-pop idols (or anyone else) should be able to dance and sing at the same time. you might argue that they shouldn't be dancing at all (or that they should be dancing less), but that's a different argument.

maybe that's why the songs are so unmemorable? half it kpop is the performance and dancing, rather than just about the music. i dunno

i didn't really give enough of a shit to google it, but the fact that these lists exist and it's considered a "scandal" makes me believe that's it's the exception, not the norm (unlike kpop)

i think its only a scandal because the expectations are different (especially for some of the singers on that list who don't really dance). i don't think anyone would suggest that k-pop idols (or anyone else) should be able to dance and sing at the same time. you might argue that they shouldn't be dancing at all (or that they should be dancing less), but that's a different argument.

maybe that's why the songs are so unmemorable? half it kpop is the performance and dancing, rather than just about the music. i dunno

i think that's fair. there's definitely some middle ground between the average BTS fan who says "they're the best musicians to ever live" and the average ""music appreciator"" who says "BTS is a bunch of talentless phonies"

2. what's wrong with rock music fans? seriously. did i miss something?

What's wrong with Kpop fans? I think in both cases nothing is wrong. But if you're going to belittle one group, then turnabout is fair play and there is a lot that can be said about people getting into their mid-late 30 or are in their 50s and 60s and are stuck in 1993 or 1970 listening to the same old stuff and getting upset that kids are listening to something different and getting butthurt that people don't like their band or don't care about their music. If there's ever a group of music fans that is the mirror image of Kpopstans, its rock fans. Not everyone has put rock at the center of their musical existence for the past 60 years, but some rock fans act like it should be.

yeah sure. but the fact people still listen to it 30 years later must mean something. i'd be surprised if any current kpop song is listened to 30 years from now

Why? People still listen to Bobby Brown, New Edition, Kylie Minogue, etc. etc. 30 years later. People still listen to The Supremes and the Delfonics. People still listen to Disco. As for actual old Kpop, people still listen to stuff from back in the day. If something still gets airplay 10 years later, it's probably going to get airplay 30 years later.

Just because YOU don't like it, doesn't mean it will be forgotten.

do western pop artists ever lip sync while dancing? not sure they would get away with it (i swear i've just "scandals" in the past of artists being accused of it. so i guess it's not acceptable generally?)

Depends on how much they're dancing. If you're doing any kind of dance that would require heavy activity and respiration while performing it, you're going to lipsync.

but the fans are often insane. that's my only point. i wouldn't be upset if someone said my favourite band sucked. but getting defensive over (wrongly) perceived slights? ughhh

Like I said, I think rock fans are some of the most insecure music fans out there. As I've said- How many threads do Kpop fans go on and tell other people their music sucks? Zero. How many threads do rock fans go on and tell kpop fans their music sucks? A ton." That's like, the definition of insecure. It's the rock fans who blow a gasket when you don't agree that "Insert Rock Band X" was the greatest of all time or the greatest of the decade.
 Heck, 30 years ago rock fans blew up a bunch of disco records and started a riot because of that insecurity. It's kind of similar to what you're seeing here with their Kpop hatred. "OMG, these people of different backgrounds are coming in and making this music that's taking the spotlight off of us and casting it somewhere else, and even worse, instead of being moody and anger filled, they are happy and bubbly. We need to trash it!"

Or how about the shock that you don't know/care about some "legendary" rock band?
"You don't know who Green Day is?!?!?!?!?!"
"No, do you know who Patti LaBelle is?"

In some ways rock fans come across as culturally isolated as Kpopstans.

... can be appreciated on different levels, some of those levels require a certain understanding of how it works.

very true. pro-level reaver/shuttle micro looks relatively easy if you don't know what it takes to make it happen

NERD!!!!!!!

(Wait, I think I just outed myself as a nerd for getting that reference)

I did it because I like music and wanted to appreciate it on a deeper level.

Music is an art and with art 50% is emotional and subjective and expressive. It can't be quantified or analyzed and can only be vaguely theorized.

Some songs are remarkably simple in composition and structure, but they became "great works" through the emoting of the performer or the significance of their lyrics as emotional expression. Likewise, a piece can be technically brilliant but still utter dreck because it doesn't do anything. It has nothing to say. Also, as I've repeatedly said, with music, film, art, etc. A good 50% of viewers/listeners, do so to experience the emotions of the character/artist. They rate the work on how powerful or fulfilling that emotional experience was. Not on the technical aspect of its composition.

I don't really get BTS, but they're obviously speaking something to some people. I think before we totally trash it, maybe we should listen and understand why the people who like it, like it.

That's like, the definition of insecure.

The definition of insecure is to keep on posting on a thread about music and about how you're right and we're all wrong. 

 

Music is an art and with art 50% is emotional and subjective and expressive. It can't be quantified or analyzed and can only be vaguely theorized.

Are you saying music as a whole can't be quantified or analyzed, or that the part of music that is subjective can't be? If the latter, I'm with you. If the former... not so much.

Music can absolutely by quantified or analyzed, which is really all music theory comes down to. Much like linguistics, music theory is descriptive, not prescriptive. Even simple songs can be broken down and described using music theory. Doing so won't tell anyone whether or not a song is "good," obviously, it will just tell them whether or not it conforms to the "rules" of a particular style of music (which often differ wildly, eg. jazz vs polka, or baroque vs mumble rap).

That's not saying that songs that don't conform to standard Western musical practice are "bad" or "wrong," of course, much like African American English isn't "wrong" just because it doesn't follow the same grammatical rules as Standard English.

Well thank god for that!  Please teach us poor, uneducated laymen riff raff more about music so we can enjoy it properly!

The only rule of music- If you like it, listen to it.

Why anyone takes it beyond that and starts judging people and getting all upset that people like different stuff is beyond me.

So the only rule of music is to like,listen to it and shut up about it. Unless you're Demartino who's allowed to write pages slagging off different genres and the people who like them, with impunity

So the only rule of music is to like,listen to it and shut up about it. Unless you're Demartino who's allowed to write pages slagging off different genres and the people who like them, with impunity

I'm not slagging anyone off. I'm simply pointing out how if someone is going to make a bunch of disparaging remarks about Kpopstans, that one could do the same thing about the people slagging them off and that maybe, just maybe, it might cause someone to realize "Hey, bashing people for their taste in music is a crappy thing to do. Maybe I shouldn't do that. Maybe there are some gaps in my taste. Maybe I'm doing the same thing that I think they're doing."

Again, if Kpop fans are so bad, how come they're not always on these threads talking about how much other kinds of music suck? Why do you feel the need to do that? They don't. For a bunch of alleged 16 year olds, they sure seem to be more mature about this than some.

I also notice that a lot of the music trash talking almost exclusively begins whenever a boy band is the subject. Doesn't seem to come up as often when girl groups are mentioned. 

Anyway: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/09/the-science-of-snobbery-how-were-duped-into-thinking-fancy-things-are-better/279571/

I actually, sincerely, without looking at the tiny shorts and midriff tops, think the girl bands are much better. I'm not a fan of pop music in general, and the musicians in the current US or UK Top 10 (if that's still a thing) would be completely mysterious to me. BUT, after months of hardcore resistance and clinging to the belief that Westerners who claimed to like K-Pop were using it as a substitute for personality, some of the girl groups grew on me. In terms of the music simply being catchy, fun and flaunting some genuinely quite interesting production techniques, as well as bonkers music videos, they massively outperform the boy bands. There is no boy band equivalent to BlackPink's "Whistle", for instance. I've yet to see a boy band video as fantastically stoopid as Red Velvet's "Dumb Dumb", or, okay, as sexy as Hyuna's "Red". As someone else said, the boy bands have never left the era of N*Sync and NKOTB. I understand there's a market for that and has been for decades, so fair enough... But I will credit the producers of the girl bands with making music that at least sounds fresh and 21st century, even if it is largely a mishmash of pre-existing genres. For what it is, I think it's done more successfully than most western pop. I'll take Hyuna and Blackpink over Shawn Mendes, Ed Sheeran, Arianna Grande, Maroon 5 or Lady Gaga any day.

Again, if Kpop fans are so bad, how come they're not always on these threads talking about how much other kinds of music suck? Why do you feel the need to do that? They don't. For a bunch of alleged 16 year olds, they sure seem to be more mature about this than some.

You'd have to be deaf to hear that.

Why aren't 16-year-old Korean K-pop fans posting on threads on Waygook?  A website predominantly for foreign native teachers working in Korea?  Is that what you asking as a way to show their maturity about music?  Seriously?  You're asking this?  In bold?   

I did it because I like music and wanted to appreciate it on a deeper level.

Music is an art and with art 50% is emotional and subjective and expressive. It can't be quantified or analyzed and can only be vaguely theorized.

Some songs are remarkably simple in composition and structure, but they became "great works" through the emoting of the performer or the significance of their lyrics as emotional expression. Likewise, a piece can be technically brilliant but still utter dreck because it doesn't do anything. It has nothing to say. Also, as I've repeatedly said, with music, film, art, etc. A good 50% of viewers/listeners, do so to experience the emotions of the character/artist. They rate the work on how powerful or fulfilling that emotional experience was. Not on the technical aspect of its composition.

I don't really get BTS, but they're obviously speaking something to some people. I think before we totally trash it, maybe we should listen and understand why the people who like it, like it.

My students like it because: BTS is handsome and I love them! <- their exact words.

I did it because I like music and wanted to appreciate it on a deeper level.

Music is an art and with art 50% is emotional and subjective and expressive. It can't be quantified or analyzed and can only be vaguely theorized.

Pretty much every professional musician will disagree with you. You get a call from a client, "Hi, we need a track for our laxative commercial by 5pm" You look at the storyboard and it's a guy in discomfort, followed by him being given the product and finally relief. You've got 3hrs to compose, record and mix the track.
From your training, you know exactly how to convey these emotions through sound. Discomfort has a sound and it's very tense and dissonant, ok, so maybe starting with some dominant or augmented chords to give that jaring and uncomfortable feel, the tension builds up to say the min/Maj 7th chord, which you use as a bridge and to convey the idea of discovering a clue, finally it resolves to a basic triad tonic, or a sus2 if you want to add a bit of extra openness. The resolution creates a feeling of relief  and release. If you wanted extra campiness, you could arpeggiate the final chord with a harp to give it that stereotypical light and airy feel. 

Done, you record, mix and send off your work. You get a call back, client loves it, but the melody is to similar to a popular song and the client is afraid of a copyright issues. No problem, you quickly reharmonize the entire track, modulate it a bit and boom, similar thing but somehow different. "How did you do that?" client asks, "magic" you reply, remembering the time your parents thought you were a computer whizz when you turned the router on and off to get the internet back online.

Not just corporate work, you think Vivaldi didn't know exactly what he was doing when he composed the 4-seasons? He knew exactly which emotion and feel he wanted his listener to experience and when. It's no lucky accident that each movement sounds like it's respective season.

Want something to sound contemporary and urban? 7th and 9th chords played on the appropriate timbre
Want something to sound badass? power chords and a well-timed  flat-5 (blue note)
Want to dial up the emotion? Lock the melody right onto the harmony, particularly on the changes and play vertically.

Musicians know all the tricks in the book. They've trained how to make you feel exactly which emotion they want and when.

Movies like to push the idea that composers get their inspiration through dreams, pentagrams painted on the ground, muses, tooth-fairies or whatever, because that's more interesting for the audience to watch. While a story is a very useful starting point, the true creative process of composition is actually rather dull, frustrating, logical and mechanical. 

I never said there was ANYTHING wrong with simple music. Getting the listener to experience what is appropriate, be that the theme for Frozen, which is actually pretty well done, or supremely sour, reharmonized Amazing Grace to a bunch of jazz nerds, that's the TECHNICAL ABILITY of a musician; being able to accurately make the listener feel exactly what they want. You think I'm going to expect people to be impressed at my "technique" by showing off my guitar chops and doing a 200bpm 4-octave sweep during  the wedding march? A musician can use their skills to get the listener to tap their feet to a simple folk song or float away on a dream, whatever is appropriate to the story.

BTS is a product, but still, a pop act. Pop acts like MJ, Madonna, Blondie, The Beatles etc. can rely on a lot more than music to make themselves popular, famous and great. Popular music itself has broad appeal because, from a musical point, it utilizes pretty safe choices. MJ could dance, The Beatles created youth culture, Bowie built on that culture and set trends, so did Madonna. BTS is a carefully formulated act that's incredibly successful. Perhaps it's a cultural difference between East and West. All the Western artists I mentioned innovated on dance, fashion or  cultural scene. BTS is simply carrying the torch.

Again, BTS is extremely popular and they're good at what they do (dominate a market). The worst adjectives I can use to describe them is bland and dull.

You'd have to be deaf to hear that.

Why aren't 16-year-old Korean K-pop fans posting on threads on Waygook?  A website predominantly for foreign native teachers working in Korea?  Is that what you asking as a way to show their maturity about music?  Seriously?  You're asking this?  In bold?   

Fair point, but there are Kpop fans on here amongst ESL teachers. Why aren't they on these threads? And yeah, Just out and about or on twitter I don't see Kpopstans going on other musicians fan pages or twitter accounts and just trashing their music and telling everyone to listen to BTS or whatever.

Regardless, that still doesn't address why some feel the need to do it here. I think Chinguetti was getting towards it when she pointed out how none of the girl groups get ragged on and why, psychologically, people here might get the urge to rant about it. It's similar to the anti-Disco angst.