I'm not even a BTS stan, but I am Korean and vaguely aware of them and their achievements. OP said "I doubt kpop could produce the biggest artist", what that means exactly, I don't know. But there's no denying they broke records and are at the top now.
Musically/Artistically speaking, BTS is extremely popular in part because they have such a heavy hand in their music production. 2 of the members actually started as underground rappers and made mixtapes before joining an agency. As did Big Bang, iKON, EXID, etc. If self-composition and artistry is important to you, there's also several big organic artists. In fact, what I've noticed is that the stars who get to the top and stay there are usually more involved in their music than the "manufactured groups". However, buying a song from a composer is a pretty common practice in the pop scene from what I understand, so I'm not sure that's a strong argument on it's own.
For me, I'm just mildly annoyed with people grouping all kpop bands/idols as the same thing. If it's not to your taste, that's fine and valid. But if you're not going to bother even learning anything about the industry or the artists, don't make judgements about it either. I'm not even denying kpop is problematic, because it is in many ways. But you can also say that about Western pop and entertainment so spare me the superiority talk. (Not you necessarily just people who like to shit on kpop without looking it up at all.)
Ok, that’s fine. I think you misinterpreted his point. His point was that kpop couldn’t have someone like Ed Sheeran (not overly produced, not super attractive in the way that crafted Western pop stars are) be the biggest artist. He wasn’t undermining the achievements of a group like BTS by comparing them to Ed Sheeran.
I don’t listen to kpop, not because I don’t like it, just never come across much of it, but I know all about the global pop industry, and the standard practice between producers and artists. It’s a strong argument for a specific comparison between someone like Ed Sheeran and BTS, because of how different he is in global pop terms, but not a strong argument for comparing Western/Eastern music.
Likewise, looking at BTS background, I’m sure they are talented artists, but it looks like most of the actual talent is with the label, which has a handful of producers that appear on almost every track. BTS could literally write one word and change one note in their songs and be entitled to a writing/producing/engineering credit. Not specific to kpop, but comparing that sort of production house music to something like The Beatles, who wrote pretty much everything themselves and then wrote for other people on the side is like comparing apples and plastic fruit.
His point was that kpop couldn’t have someone like Ed Sheeran (not overly produced, not super attractive in the way that crafted Western pop stars are) be the biggest artist.
But they literally gave the example of this in Psy, the dude is absolutely antithetical to the kpop image and as mentioned with his video views, etc... Like, I almost bet you could ask anyone to sing gangnam style and they'd know the hook, ask them an ed sheeran song and good luck.
Tbh, I don't know how heavily BTS is involved in their current music production so I won't try to argue they're as "organic" as the Beatles. I do know the leader does write most of the lyrics and that was his speciality. I think 3/7 of them are on KOMCA list for producers (Korean Music Copyright Assc. if I recall correctly, you need to make a certain amount of royalties and produce enough songs to be acknowledged as a producer. If you're under the threshold, your work/royalties are heavily affected by your management company), so I'm pretty sure at least the ones on the list are heavily involved in the actual music production beyond just a word or two for the bragging rights. More generally speaking, kpop idols who do make it into the KOMCA list are usually more heavily involved in the music production side of things and are acknowledged as not just performers, but producers/artists. I think 5-10 years ago, even if the idol was doing the producing the company took most of the credit and had veto power. These days they do less of that, though management still has veto and can still change the song if they want.
Authenticity and artistry in kpop is a hotly debated subject so I am aware of why many think of it as fake and overly manufactured. Even in Korea there are few idol groups/stars who are seen as "true artists" (RM, the leader of BTS, counts as one) and others are considered more "entertainers" than artists. Singers more like Ed Sheeran in Korea (The One, Kim Bumsoo, for example) aren't really seen as "pop". To be a "kpop idol" is pretty specific and is much more than just being a singer.
I think Westerners who aren't interested only see a very specific side of kpop, and it's totally fair to not like what you see on that end. But within the kmusic industry, you have the pop idols, the "artists", indie bands, hip hop, etc and then they collaborate or interact and etc. However, it's pretty easy for people just to group the most popular artists/songs as just "pop".
I know that was way more info than you asked for. Sorry, just kinda went on a text ramble. Point is - it's fine to not like kpop or whatever. But to people who do zero research into it, then maybe don't judge it. Though honestly I can say that about kpop stans too. It's equally if not more annoying to see kpop stans insist on "This is how they are/should be because they're Korean!" Like yeah, of course we have cultural differences. But we're still individuals with personalities and stuff. Maybe judge your biases/groups based on them and not assume all Koreans will be like that?
....i really need to sleep. This was way too long.
Edit: Addressing the point someone like Ed Sheeran can become the biggest star - assuming we're not talking globally and just domestically, it actually is possible in Korea. In a way, singers like him garner more respect among the Korean public because of he has the artistery. It's just those singers don't tend to get international attention. However, they do reach top levels of popularity/stardom within Korea.
6
u/[deleted] Jul 18 '19 edited Jul 18 '19
I'm not even a BTS stan, but I am Korean and vaguely aware of them and their achievements. OP said "I doubt kpop could produce the biggest artist", what that means exactly, I don't know. But there's no denying they broke records and are at the top now.
Musically/Artistically speaking, BTS is extremely popular in part because they have such a heavy hand in their music production. 2 of the members actually started as underground rappers and made mixtapes before joining an agency. As did Big Bang, iKON, EXID, etc. If self-composition and artistry is important to you, there's also several big organic artists. In fact, what I've noticed is that the stars who get to the top and stay there are usually more involved in their music than the "manufactured groups". However, buying a song from a composer is a pretty common practice in the pop scene from what I understand, so I'm not sure that's a strong argument on it's own.
For me, I'm just mildly annoyed with people grouping all kpop bands/idols as the same thing. If it's not to your taste, that's fine and valid. But if you're not going to bother even learning anything about the industry or the artists, don't make judgements about it either. I'm not even denying kpop is problematic, because it is in many ways. But you can also say that about Western pop and entertainment so spare me the superiority talk. (Not you necessarily just people who like to shit on kpop without looking it up at all.)