#stay blackpink | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

onwriting-hrarby · 1 month

Text

respectful thoughts on concept vs aesthetic in the new kpop generation

[disclaimer: this is a very light opinion article about kpop. i am not dissing any groups mentioned, since i love them all, and i'm straying from bringing any negativity. the fact that i don't like some of the music these groups make doesn't mean i can't acknowledge their hard work. often, my critique falls to the managements.]

so, these last few weeks we've had some 3rd generation comebacks in the kpop community and some debuts and other well-known comebacks for the newer generations. but, mostly, i'm going to talk about how music in kpop has been westernalized to the point of becoming mostly generic, forgetting what made kpop since the beginning: concept.

the reason why i like 2nd and 3rd generation the most in kpop is not because of the music, dance or vocals, although i admit it irks me a lot that nowadays most idols won't sing live (like, ever), but because i think it's the pinnacle of concepts vs aesthetics.

what is concept and what is aeshetic: red velvet

let's take my amazing girls, red velvet, my favourite group, and their last comeback. when the teasers were released, we all thought we were going to go "velvet", this time (although i hope we would go red, and i have an inkling we would go red velvet). but the gloominess of the pictures, the elegance, the way they seemed out of the museum strayed a little bit further from the quirkiness of birthday and they felt more serious, much like "peekaboo" concept pictures or even "feel my rhythm's".

when the song released, we were all surprised. we love it, as we normally do with red velvet, but the problem with the main public was that their expectation of the concept of the pictures didn't correlate with the actual concept of the song.

and that's because the teasers were nothing but aesthetics. the aesthetic was dark but the concept was "red velvet". when the idea of the whole paraphernalia around the song doesn't link with the music of the song, we are not talking about a concept but about a aesthetic. a concept is cohesive in the ways we think the song: from the notes, the rhythm, to the message, the pictures, the way we promote it. aesthetic is taking what we feel "looks good" and putting it into a concept that doesn't need it. aesthetics don't tell a story, concepts do.

it doesn't mean that chill kill wasn't a good album or a good comeback. it means that it was at fault since the beginning, because we were waiting to be told a story how red velvet does, from the music itself, while it felt like they were telling it from the pictures.

(that is also what has happened with the lastest comeback of nct dream).

almost all of the 3rd generation groups, and mainly girlgroups, debuted with a clear concept: red velvet (red and velvet concept), mamamoo ("live" concept), girlfriend (kind of 'magical' sphere), blackpink, dreamcatcher, loona, and i feel like this is being left behind to accomodate more "aesthetics", and music —kpop— feels less genuine. that's why i'm not feeling very tied to the kpop sphere anymore: it's all about consumption.

bts and the consumption of kpop

i love bts, and i'm a long time bangtan fan since they debuted, but i am confident in saying that after "fake love" (maybe let's stretch to "idol") their music wasn't as striking. it wasn't that they didn't have a good production, or didn't do their best, or weren't at their best ("black swan" is still amazing in all senses, for example, and works perfectly as a song), but i think it's because they were "westernalized" in the concept vs aesthetics idea. while before bts used to have a clear concept, not only of what they meant as a group and wanted to tell, but also later as it migrated to the trilogy of "love yourself", after they hit it big in 2019 they started confusing, to my opinion, the concept with the aesthetic: they didn't do albums for the sake of telling a story or concept anymore, but for the sake of milking the cow (not the boys' fault). don't get me wrong: mots 7 still had a clear concept in the CD, but it didn't feel as whole as a BTS project anymore. rm even said something along the lines of "we have to stop because we have lost sight of what we're doing".

that's because in the west we're not used to concepts but to aesthetics: the music is not cohesive with a preestablished idea of storytelling, but with the artist. most of the bands and soloists don't change the music style as to what music their storytelling needs but to what their personal needs as an artist do. take taylor swift, for example: every cd is different, but it's cohesive in what taylor swift does. as a long taylor swift fan too, when we got from "speak now" to "red" we were utterly confused, because that's when she began changing her aesthetic, and therefore, her music, but because the concept was "taylor swift", it was still recognizable. she's not the first one: it also happened with the beatles, "revolver" being the first album to truly differ from the others, only to completely change their music with "sgt pepper's". ariana grande changes aesthetics, but her music is mostly cohesive throughout, so does billie eilish, lorde, dua lipa. we would refer to it as having a "music style".

with bts, they found a huge market in the west. it wasn't the only incursion in kpop: after bts and blackpink, twice did, too, and we also had the jopping and popping of the sm super group—which, come on, it didn't land of obvious reasons—and we have aespa, gidle, and more. but bts was the first group to hit it BIG. we will all probably remember exo, red velvet, dreamcatcher and gfriend being ultra famous overseas, but not like bts and blackpink are.

BTS started changing their music around that time. the comebacks after 2019 didn't feel cohesive with what BTS was in their roots. "boy with luv" is a pop song that took us by surprise. "on" didn't land as well as black swan even though i personally love it. "be" didn't have a clear storytelling (or maybe a pandemic storytelling, too soon, imo). the most flagrant cases of BTS losing their concept to the aesthetic was "dynamite" and "butter", but mostly "butter": when "dynamite" was out, it made our summer. it was truly AMAZING. it couldn't get better. it felt like the song we needed, and it should have won the grammy. but it didn't, so they tried to replicate the same song with butter. really: listen to it. it uses the same rhythm, structure, the same "catchyness", and mostly, the same aesthetic.

blackpink, while we can criticize about the quality of their songs and how they use the same structure too—almost to a boring, predictable result—stood true to their concept since the beginning. if we hadn't been used to BTS management of concepts, we would have found that "butter" and "dynamite" worked well in the same way "how you like that" and "kill this love" too. but blackpink always played more with the "music style" than the concept, because when you repeat a concept over and over, not only in storytelling but also the musical creation, it become your signature music (to the point of a meme, almost).

but since BTS started changing and having their much deserved fame, look what happened to other hype groups: txt released their "disco" blue hour, tried to fit it into their concept (imo, they didn't do it very well). gfriend released "mago", while it's a good song it strays too far from the gfriend we were used to (and no: apple wasn't an incursion to far away lands. it still sounded 'magical', just like gfriend did). seventeen did something similar, too. the playfulness of the 70s/80s spread without regarding the groups unique concepts.

sm stood true to themselves: they had already made songs with "disco" (shinee, 'look' by red velvet...) and in contraposition they tried to westernize the concept of NCT. it hasn't worked, because no male group will ever be BTS, even though i believe exo could have had a huge chance only if they had appeared two years after. jyp went into hybe's direction, but kept it true to their group's concepts (itzy didn't sound the same as twice or stay kids). yg wasn't in their best moments as a business, then.

with bts in the west, the whole point of kpop and 3rd generation shifted: they aren't marketing songs aligned to the concept anymore, but to the aesthetic of the song. twice concept had started radically changing with "fancy" and "cry for me", but now it feels like they are just recycling their music over and over (also because twice concept, in the ageist era we live, is difficult to maintain once the members get old.) nct is a mess, trying to have catchy lyrics that utterly don't make any sense. gidle's english songs pale in comparison to the amazing songs in korean. aespa and itzy's english comebacks haven't hit is big. it feels as if there's a "line" that one has to cross to go to the west, which is leaving all your uniqueness of your concept back in korea to make it. and only bts and blackpink have mastered this (even though "the feels" by twice was a big success). [disclaimer: when i talk about success or failure i'm not talking about numbers, but about quality of the song.]

the case of gidle, stay c and aespa

those four groups are, to me, the ones that have maintained their concept all along. i don't talk about boygroups of the 4th generation because i'm not very familiar with them, but let me tell you about discovering gidle and aespa, and then stay c and new jeans:

gidle: they are a strange case, because they don't have a clear concept. that's because their concept, just like red velvet, changes every comeback while maintaining a concept identity. when gidle debuted, i named them the "red velvet daughters" and they still have to fail me in that sense. they are truly versatile, and it feels like they can do any concept they like while maintaining an identity, even with the loss of soojin.

aespa: when they debuted, i was utterly... scared. i didn't know what sm was pulling, and everyone celebrated them as the 4th gen leaders (when itzy was still doing the best numbers). i knew they weren't going to be, because they would stick to the concept. they are still one of the best artists in the 4th generation girlgroup space, and incredibly succesful, but ive has had more sellings, for example. but: numbers doesn't prove quality. ive's music, although very good, feels like there are other groups that could make it. while aespa's music feels unique to aespa. aespa has stayed so true to their concept much like blackpink does (i truly suffered with girls, because i was demaning a slight concept change, i was getting bored) and i think it's safe to say that the kind of music they do is very impactful, always experimental, like what sm pulls best. aespa will have a longetivity that itzy doesn't have (damn, i love itzy so much) just because sm has understood aespa's concept, while jyp still has to grasp what itzy is truly doing. and if itzy gets it right, aespa and itzy will become iconic to their eras.

stay c: now, my girls. truly underrated! stay c is the reencarnation of old bubbly kpop. they are consistent, both with their concept, aesthetic and music. you don't get the feeling that they release for big masses, even if all kpop does generally. they know what they do as a group and they do it incredibly well while staying true to their concept. they have twice producer and it shows because it definitely has a feel of the early twice. they sing well, they dance well, they cooperate. they are a fully fledge group with a mission and a storytelling.

before moving to illit, the case of newjeans

now, newjeans is known to be one of the best debuts in all kpop history, and i personally have listened to their first EP a hundred times, and "ditto" is one of my favourite kpop songs ever. and the reason why they are so successful is because of min hee jin (we can hate her, but come on, she's fucking good in her job): she's a master of concepts. and new jeans had a CLEAR concept. youthful, bubbly, lovely, catchy.

but it's not going to last, i'm afraid. they are impactful and they will make numbers but i truly think that they won't be as legendary as everyone has made it to be and that's because they've taken the same bts route, but far too early. FAR TOO EARLY. their last EP may have a concept as an EP but it feels somehow disconnected to what new jeans represented the first summer. i don't think they should stick to one concept forever—they would encounter the same problems as twice—but they have changed it too quickly without giving it time to properly experiment all the layers of it. differently from gidle or red velvet, which established themselves as truly versatile from the beginning, new jeans have strayed from their path soon enough but not far enough. their songs feel catered to the commodification of content, now, and frankly, almost all of the songs in their last EP, while experimental (and i love it) sound too cohesive, to the point that you listen to the EP while not paying any attention and it might go over your head. their voices' tone, too, which were part of the concept of "youthful girls" are too similar to each other, which makes it difficult to grasp a turning point in the song. you can have same hair, same clothes, but you shouldn't have the same voices and songs over and over.

and that's why groups like illit have debuted now with much success:

ILLIT and the depersonalization of kpop

illit is, to me, the most flagrant cases of confusion between concept and aesthetic and how kpop is shifting nowadays. of course, i have done my research: i've listened to the album, watched most of the "live" performances. and while doing so, as someone who doesn't have a clue why this group was formed (as will do the 80% of the people who first listens to illit), i thought: oh, this is new jeans.

NO, i'm not saying they are the same or they are copying the girls. it's not illit's fault, as it's not all the groups i have been mentioning (the fault is capitalism): but their debut song sounds too much like new jeans, the 2nd ep. they have the same long hair. same youthfulness. and i thought, oh, well, alright. new jeans 2, it's good. it's okay.

UNLESS! i read that they were going for the "magical" concept. truly?, really? are they... magical? they have magical appearances, fairy-like, the dresses are magical, the way they move is truly magnetic (get the pun?), but their music is not.

and that's the fault of what we've been living with the last kpop nowadays: music is concept-less. they live for the aesthetic of the music, but the music feels generic in itself. because it is not unique to what the group wants to cater. they do what's selling, and try to mask it as something original, while it is not. aesthetic is not the same as concept: someone who dresses like dark academia and brings their books to a fancy library and takes pictures doesn't mean they are living for a concept. they are living for the aesthetic because they like it, but the way they experience the aesthetic will be the same as the other people, because there is only one aesthetic.

aesthetic happens when there's empty concepts, while concepts happen when one thinks about the aesthetic, embodies it to a way of turning it over and make their own thing about it.

#kpop #bts #red velvet #blackpink #twice #exo #gidle #new jeans #stay c #illit #music thoughts #hrarby musings #do not hate me please i'm not hating on anyone!#kpop feels so empty now

11 notes · View notes