what do you think is the worst part about K-pop? (1 Viewer)

[ChiaraStar169]

you can also give multiple if you think of more than one.

1) the dating ban - what do K-companies think their artists are, loveless robots??? Newsflash: THEY'RE NOT! they're human beings who just want to live their lives, and one part of living is finding a life partner. Every time an artist is caught dating or allegedly dating, shit hits the fan, and that's not okay!

2) the damn near impossibility to break contract (with certain companies) - I'm looking right at you, ADOR! actually, what provoked this thread was @RandAlThor reply to this one. He mentioned that them breaking their contract would result in heavy consequences. That just doesn't sit right with me. Artists should have the right to end their contracts peacefully, without having to go through hell and half of Georgia just to do so. (ofc idk that this is true with all companies, hence the [with certain companies] bit)

 

[Ahsoka]

Certain mindsets are played into way too much, at the cost of the artists. The girlfriend boyfriend image for example. And the fanbase of aggressive fans is a bit much, I think more than with many similar fanbases. Other than soccer maybe

 

[catonkatonk]

Companies have way too much power.

 

[eclipsoul]

anything other than the music ngl 😭 but i think it's mostly the dehumanization of these idols - like you gotta have the brain capacity of a 5 year old to believe a stranger you see on stage is going to fall in love with you. i see that some idols play into the fantasy because it earns them money but come on guys there is enough normal people in the world who'll support your music, you don't have to cater to these weirdos all the time...
also the normalised body shaming of young girls and even minors. when i was just getting into kpop, i watched produce101 season one as it was the talk of the town and that moment where some judge was walking around touching the girls' stomachs and then deciding based on that how much they'll eat will haunt me for a long, long time.

 

[VerrerAtHeart]

I think 1) the body shaming and 2) the willingness of companies to dungeon groups just because they're not making enough money or whatever. Also 2.5) Jellyfish Entertainment's management i.e. their inability to manage two groups at the same time. #FreeVERIVERYandEVNNEandSejeong

 

[athenaaa]

The diet culture/fat shaming
Delusional fans/saesangs
The abuse of idols by companies

 

[ChiaraStar169]

I think 1) the body shaming and 2) the willingness of companies to dungeon groups just because they're not making enough money or whatever. Also 2.5) Jellyfish Entertainment's management i.e. their inability to manage two groups at the same time. #FreeVERIVERYandEVNNEandSejeong

SO THAT'S WHERE THEY'VE BEEN!!! Jesus Christ, Smellyfish, let them OUT already!

 

[ChiaraStar169]

Companies have way too much power.

I wholeheartedly agree! I'm actually fine with them producing the artists' music for them and writing the lyrics and whatnot jbc not all Western artists are songwriters themselves so I can give them grace, but other than that, well... I'll just leave this rightttttttttttt heeeeeeeeeere.

Companies: To be successful, you must do this, not do that, eat this, wear that... etc. etc. etc.

Idols:


I'm only half joking, though. As far as giving idols a break, I'm being serious.

 

[ChiaraStar169]

The diet culture/fat shaming
Delusional fans/saesangs
The abuse of idols by companies

1) yes, totally this! this is K-pop, not How to Be Insecure 101!
2) omg remember Nayeon and her stalker? the poor girl was so upset by it - it's a wonder she stayed with Twice despite that! there's a special place in hell for people like them!
3) yes! what they did to Gaeun, for instance - so uncalled for!

 

[pinkmelodies]

Right now is debuting minors. I know it's not a new thing, but it's to the point where majority of the group are this young. Also ever since the beginning I despised fan wars since I am multiple fandoms, but that's inevitable

 

[velvet]

The fact that justice for systemically abused idols (which is every single idol) will never be served because Korean society at the high company/government level is so corrupted by private investment. In a just world every idol would be speaking out.

Edit: Also that the larger K-pop fandom, despite seeming progressive, does not do anything to tackle the consumerism/capitalism of K-pop culture. Karl Marx, if he was alive, would go wild studying the K-pop industry and looking at its exploitations.

 

[Pirioca]

The lack of idols' independence on many levels.

 

[catonkatonk]

Companies have way too much power.

So, this is the main thing for me.


But what also bugs me about k-pop is the fan culture. I know the fans are on the younger side, and maybe it's not specific to k-pop, but k-pop is my only exposure to it. And I hate it!
I'll give you a concrete example.
Twice's Sana hosts a series where she interviews various celebrities. In the next one, she is interviewing G-Dragon. For some reason, for that episode, the original host of the show, Dex, will also be joining her.
It turns out, the choice of G-Dragon for an interview instigated some angst (despite him being literally one of the most popular idols of all time). After digging into it, I realised that a lot of people really dislike him. Why, because of cultural appropriation or racism? No, lol, don't be silly.
They dislike him because he sometimes "likes" posts of female idols, and then those idols get hate trains directed at them.

There are so many levels of absurd to this.
First, the hate-trains shouldn't be happening.
Second, the idea that G-Dragon should be blamed for them, as if, you know, the hate-trains are just an inevitable consequence that he should be mindful of, is ridiculous. There is a similar thing with MHJ and Illit where people think she is the devil incarnate for instigating hate trains and, like, listen to yourselves, and take some responsibility?
Third, there's the general sense that Dex was added because fans would be weird about the interview. Like... seriously, touch grass.

The upshot is that G-Dragon gets pre-emptive hate for.... agreeing to be a guest on a show. We're like five layers of bonkers deep here.

Edit: the other thing that bothers me is the prevelance of subtle racism. Usually taking a different form than what we see in Western countries. It makes me paranoid! Like I see the reaction Blackpink Lisa gets and really wonder...

 

[RandAlThor]

you can also give multiple if you think of more than one.

1) the dating ban - what do K-companies think their artists are, loveless robots??? Newsflash: THEY'RE NOT! they're human beings who just want to live their lives, and one part of living is finding a life partner. Every time an artist is caught dating or allegedly dating, shit hits the fan, and that's not okay!

2) the damn near impossibility to break contract (with certain companies) - I'm looking right at you, ADOR! actually, what provoked this thread was @RandAlThor reply to this one. He mentioned that them breaking their contract would result in heavy consequences. That just doesn't sit right with me. Artists should have the right to end their contracts peacefully, without having to go through hell and half of Georgia just to do so. (ofc idk that this is true with all companies, hence the [with certain companies] bit)

Companies have way too much power.

i disagree.
The contracts/power exist because kpop is wholly manufactured.
Get a lawyer and completely understand the contract that is presented before signing, choose and deal with the results.
"If you don't understand it or the laws under which it will be executed, do not sign" Robert A. Heinlein has always been my thought.
Contracts exist to be unbreakable except for specific reasons, typically specifically stated or overarching law (ie minors can not sign and have it be valid.)

If someone wants to get ppl together and make a band/group that path exists much like say Bol4 who still have an agency and contracts, but are much more like a western artist with control and did have ppl just walk away.
Even in the US contracts are a thing. Many ppl do not have rights to their own music they created even.

The companies when honest are creating groups from nothing thus take the bulk of the Risk. I have no problem with hammering the bad actors like say 143 or worse. And i still believe that the cheating by the companies in the produce cases for example(clearly they conspired with the producers) should have voided all the artist contracts and made them free agents. (which given teh closed loop of teh industry may have actually punished the kids more than the companies)

Its reasonable for there to be contracts of sufficient term to give a creation a chance to provide ROI.
Also reasonable for escape clauses for gross malfeasance.
Heck even in New jeans case they can break the contract, they just have to pay the penalty.
Its totally unreasonable to think its like working at fast food ect where ppl are free to up an bail any time, but even that has consequences. For example no unemployment if ya quit in many places and reputational damage if the workplace is contacted. You cant go and open a similar company using company IP in almost all cases.

In Kpop almost everything group related is company IP. And laws on IP are just going to continue getting more restrictive not less. Ppl with deep pockets control so many ips and will work to see they continue to get paid.

 

[catonkatonk]

The companies when honest are creating groups from nothing thus take the bulk of the Risk.

Nope, not at all, because (most of them) saddle their trainees with debt. Even when they don't, artists bear the cost of production and are only paid the residual after breakeven.
Pretend you're a company:
Take in trainees from rich families and then, even if they fail entirely due to your own incompetence, you can freely chase that debt for as much as you want.

The companies have it both ways: They get to dictate the product and tell the idol exactly what to do - to often absurd and seriously unhealthy degrees - but at the same time, offload the cost of their vision onto the idols. The consequence is essentially free labour as idols forego payment for years.

An extremely typical example is Golden Child, who didn't receive payment even after 7 years. The consequence of failure, you say, but whose failure? Woolim keeps going, despite not having any money to pay its labourers, apparently. Because the benefit of failure is that they get to keep 100% of the revenue.
If Golden Child really took off, what then? Then the company still gets a huge chunk (usually 50%?) of the proceeds.
Heads you lose, tails they win.

You say that it's not like people working fast food. And you're right! If I start a takeaway, I have to pay my employees. It doesn't matter if I have made a profit or not. I have to pay them at least the minimum wage for their time (and also contribute to their pension). So now, compared to a k-pop company, I'm doubly-disadvantaged: I actually have to pay for my labour, and my labour can leave any time it wants. And yet, the fast food industry does pretty well for itself.
You could argue, "Well, no, it's not the same, because the companies bear the expense of training, and frequently of housing and food"
I would say the latter is a choice that they have made. There is no real logical reason why trainees and idols should have to room in quarters provided by the company, it's not like they're running a remote oil rig. The VCHA vs. JYPE thing shows how this is nakedly abused, with the company leasing extremely expensive property without consulting the people who it expects to actually pay for it.
It is generally expected and understood that any form of production requires capital investment. Music production is not special in this regard. Outside of the arts, it is never the case that the liability for that capital input falls onto labour.

Western labels aren't too different here, but they're dealing with a legal system that has a stronger balance towards the rights of the individual rather than the corporation.
The NJZ example is a good one here.
Here, in the UK, if I voided contract, I would have to either compensate or provide specific performance. The compensation would be the equivalent of the losses of the aggrieved party. Or in other words, the fine that I pay is not punitive, it is restorative, it is to put the person who got screwed over in the same place they would have been had I not breached contract.
So when applying to NJZ, it would be that the proceeds of any work they do would be due to HYBE. Instead, we have the ridiculous and seemingly arbitrary sum of nearly a million dollars per member per breach.
You say they have a break clause, but a break clause that has overly onerous conditions is not a break clause in actuality. If, in drafting a contract, I said you have to pay me eleventy gazillion dollars to break it, the clause would be considered an unfair term and thrown out. Yet in Korea it's like, "Oh, wow, look, It Is Written".

That of course, doesn't mean that law is always equitable, in the UK or otherwise, and so the law itself is not a good substitute for justice. What do I mean when I say this?
Well, again, consider NJZ. They have paid off their training and production costs and then some. They have provided many millions of pure profit to their company. What moral right does the company have over them? Why should the company get to dictate what they can and cannot do, or tell them that they are unable to quit? What is the moral basis of that? The basis is contractual. It is legal. Because the law favours companies.
You can point to IP law, but IP law as it currently exists is a perfect example of how the legal system disadvantages individuals (and society as a whole) in favour of corporations. That it exists it not justification. As early as the 18th century, people like Thomas Paine were questioning the justice of ownership like this. In modern economic terms, we consider net social benefit, or public benefit.
If a group does not do well and their company dungeons them while simultaneously preventing from pursuing other avenues, is there a social good to that? No. Obviously, clearly, not.
What benefit does the current set-up provide? It gives k-pop companies a degree of financial protection. The consequence is an oversupply of groups, many of whom have zero hope of success. Is this beneficial to society? No: Many of these people would be better off doing something else with their life, instead of having seven years of their life wasted by a company that is tossing a coin without having to shoulder 100% of the risk. It's actually a terrible waste of societal resources.

 

[VerrerAtHeart]

SO THAT'S WHERE THEY'VE BEEN!!! Jesus Christ, Smellyfish, let them OUT already!

IKR!! I think I'm going to make a whole different thread just bitching about Jelpi. Call me a dance mom after Abby says something catty to my daughter because I'M DONE! I CAN'T DO THIS ANYMORE!

 

[RandAlThor]

Nope, not at all, because (most of them) saddle their trainees with debt. Even when they don't, artists bear the cost of production and are only paid the residual after breakeven.
Pretend you're a company:
Take in trainees from rich families and then, even if they fail entirely due to your own incompetence, you can freely chase that debt for as much as you want.

The companies have it both ways: They get to dictate the product and tell the idol exactly what to do - to often absurd and seriously unhealthy degrees - but at the same time, offload the cost of their vision onto the idols. The consequence is essentially free labour as idols forego payment for years.

An extremely typical example is Golden Child, who didn't receive payment even after 7 years. The consequence of failure, you say, but whose failure? Woolim keeps going, despite not having any money to pay its labourers, apparently. Because the benefit of failure is that they get to keep 100% of the revenue.
If Golden Child really took off, what then? Then the company still gets a huge chunk (usually 50%?) of the proceeds.
Heads you lose, tails they win.

You say that it's not like people working fast food. And you're right! If I start a takeaway, I have to pay my employees. It doesn't matter if I have made a profit or not. I have to pay them at least the minimum wage for their time (and also contribute to their pension). So now, compared to a k-pop company, I'm doubly-disadvantaged: I actually have to pay for my labour, and my labour can leave any time it wants. And yet, the fast food industry does pretty well for itself.
You could argue, "Well, no, it's not the same, because the companies bear the expense of training, and frequently of housing and food"
I would say the latter is a choice that they have made. There is no real logical reason why trainees and idols should have to room in quarters provided by the company, it's not like they're running a remote oil rig. The VCHA vs. JYPE thing shows how this is nakedly abused, with the company leasing extremely expensive property without consulting the people who it expects to actually pay for it.
It is generally expected and understood that any form of production requires capital investment. Music production is not special in this regard. Outside of the arts, it is never the case that the liability for that capital input falls onto labour.

Western labels aren't too different here, but they're dealing with a legal system that has a stronger balance towards the rights of the individual rather than the corporation.
The NJZ example is a good one here.
Here, in the UK, if I voided contract, I would have to either compensate or provide specific performance. The compensation would be the equivalent of the losses of the aggrieved party. Or in other words, the fine that I pay is not punitive, it is restorative, it is to put the person who got screwed over in the same place they would have been had I not breached contract.
So when applying to NJZ, it would be that the proceeds of any work they do would be due to HYBE. Instead, we have the ridiculous and seemingly arbitrary sum of nearly a million dollars per member per breach.
You say they have a break clause, but a break clause that has overly onerous conditions is not a break clause in actuality. If, in drafting a contract, I said you have to pay me eleventy gazillion dollars to break it, the clause would be considered an unfair term and thrown out. Yet in Korea it's like, "Oh, wow, look, It Is Written".

That of course, doesn't mean that law is always equitable, in the UK or otherwise, and so the law itself is not a good substitute for justice. What do I mean when I say this?
Well, again, consider NJZ. They have paid off their training and production costs and then some. They have provided many millions of pure profit to their company. What moral right does the company have over them? Why should the company get to dictate what they can and cannot do, or tell them that they are unable to quit? What is the moral basis of that? The basis is contractual. It is legal. Because the law favours companies.
You can point to IP law, but IP law as it currently exists is a perfect example of how the legal system disadvantages individuals (and society as a whole) in favour of corporations. That it exists it not justification. As early as the 18th century, people like Thomas Paine were questioning the justice of ownership like this. In modern economic terms, we consider net social benefit, or public benefit.
If a group does not do well and their company dungeons them while simultaneously preventing from pursuing other avenues, is there a social good to that? No. Obviously, clearly, not.
What benefit does the current set-up provide? It gives k-pop companies a degree of financial protection. The consequence is an oversupply of groups, many of whom have zero hope of success. Is this beneficial to society? No: Many of these people would be better off doing something else with their life, instead of having seven years of their life wasted by a company that is tossing a coin without having to shoulder 100% of the risk. It's actually a terrible waste of societal resources.

sure they are free to sigh the contract or not. If the contract sucks dont sign otherwise seek judgement again pre signing.
I have very little sympathy for those who sign and then want to change teh rules. The law exists and the terms are clear.
in new jeans case they signed teh deal knowing it was for 7 years that is the moral cause, they gave their word. I feel zero pity.

There is a way to change the system. This is not the way.

We agree on the training thing, I have always found much of that dishonest (why i put the honest agency caveat.) The trainees are receiving value in the training there is a real cost there. SM's seems the fair way trainees are under contract and its all covered unless they leave early. There does need to be a solid accessible accounting unlike say Hollywood accounting games on costs and profit.

What i would prefer is cost per trainee given to them upfront and the detail of what it costs to promote in each phase spelled out (in a range) and a path to profitability clearly laid out. Ie it will take this many sales / festivals/ commercials ect to get anywhere near sustainability.

The penalty clauses are punitive on purpose. In New jeans case they were getting paid and well treated. They want to break teh contract for arguably stupid reasons and deserve a penalty. The kids can work for the folks they are under contract too similar to any sports star. ya play for one team.

 

[catonkatonk]

sure they are free to sigh the contract or not. If the contract sucks dont sign otherwise seek judgement again pre signing.
I have very little sympathy for those who sign and then want to change teh rules. The law exists and the terms are clear.
in new jeans case they signed teh deal knowing it was for 7 years that is the moral cause, they gave their word. I feel zero pity.

The k-pop system is entirely owned by a few select companies who set the rules. There is no alternative if that is what you want to do with your life.
Just because people agree to the terms, doesn't mean that an equitable exchange has happened.
It's an imperfect analogy, but in times of rapid industrialisation, children would go to work in terrible conditions, working twelve hour shifts, six days a week. They did this willingly (often at great risk to their own health). They "signed the contract", but that doesn't mean that they weren't victims of an exploitative system.
Ultimately you have to consider the opportunity costs they faced when making the decisions they did. That is to say, no matter what they wanted to do with their life, did they have the chance to enter into an employment agreement that was not exploitative in some degree or another?

I don't know. I just think it's weird to say, "well, you chose to be disadvantaged in this particular way, so I don't care that you are".

I think I fundamentally disagree that contractual law should result in punitive, rather than restorative justice. English law doesn't allow for punitive damages in contracts, and England is usually the preferred jurisdiction for international commercial agreements so, idk, maybe that makes a case that throwing arbitrary punishments in there is actually detrimental for the smooth running of business dealings. I honestly don't know how other countries do things, but I do know that if any contract I signed was allowed to have a clause that could punish me for ridiculous sums if I broke it, then I'd have to hire a lawyer every time I signed anything (I'd invite you to again consider what this means for society as a whole).

 

[RandAlThor]

The k-pop system is entirely owned by a few select companies who set the rules. There is no alternative if that is what you want to do with your life.
Just because people agree to the terms, doesn't mean that an equitable exchange has happened.
It's an imperfect analogy, but in times of rapid industrialisation, children would go to work in terrible conditions, working twelve hour shifts, six days a week. They did this willingly (often at great risk to their own health). They "signed the contract", but that doesn't mean that they weren't victims of an exploitative system.
Ultimately you have to consider the opportunity costs they faced when making the decisions they did. That is to say, no matter what they wanted to do with their life, did they have the chance to enter into an employment agreement that was not exploitative in some degree or another?

I don't know. I just think it's weird to say, "well, you chose to be disadvantaged in this particular way, so I don't care that you are".

I think I fundamentally disagree that contractual law should result in punitive, rather than restorative justice. English law doesn't allow for punitive damages in contracts, and England is usually the preferred jurisdiction for international commercial agreements so, idk, maybe that makes a case that throwing arbitrary punishments in there is actually detrimental for the smooth running of business dealings. I honestly don't know how other countries do things, but I do know that if any contract I signed was allowed to have a clause that could punish me for ridiculous sums if I broke it, then I'd have to hire a lawyer every time I signed anything (I'd invite you to again consider what this means for society as a whole).

They are 30 years into kpop and it has changed some. Its a system and mindset that is fundamentally different on group/individual dynamics than say England or the US. Kinda similar to Hollywood's first 30-50 years. hopefully with less rape.
They are going to punish the individual in favor of the group, both in the law and in the public feeling.
Think spiting in Singapore or talking on the train in Japan.

 

[catonkatonk]

Kinda similar to Hollywood's first 30-50 years.

It does remind me of that.

We now know it didn't need to be that way! Hopefully k-pop will change, but, I gotta be real, the VCHA stuff makes it sound like it hasn't changed at all in 30 years. Maybe less physical punishment, but the rest is still the same stuff we have always heard. And just like Hollywood, I really don't think it has to be that way.