AKP op-ed, re: Michelle Lee

"I think the CD/song reviews on AKP read more professionally" -- Not much! Let me assure you.

Anyway I agree completely, they're not good writers, they don't have great insight, they just shouldn't post that sort of content. They're so big, so many people will read it, and then it's just rubbish and might do more harm than good. Stick to the tabloid stuff, akp.

Same problem to some extent with Seoulbeats. I think they might've had one or two writers who knew what they were saying, but mostly it's just big statements that aren't backed up with any arguments.

I'm sure Michelle will do very well on the show, and I'm glad to see some variation in looks in k-pop, although I'm not sure she'll win. The show has one of the best line-ups of finalists I've seen on a talent show.

This is one of my favorite performances so far

Oh that's right, Rex Rowdee/Alikstae isn't doing the CD reviews anymore! I thought his were pretty interesting.

I think they might've had one or two writers who knew what they were saying, but mostly it's just big statements that aren't backed up with any arguments.
And that's why there's always such craziness in the comments xP

Ohhhhhh dang, her voice. Wow. That totally just stopped me, this performance. Wow. *_________* (And geez, how old is she!? And to have a voice like that already! Daaaaaaaang!)

I expected that article to be a lot longer than it actually was, particularly around the point steevo1018 establishes that he's not condemning the Korean mindset but sort of acknowledging it, but the systems of those acknowledgement get dismissed almost as inconsequential once he says that he's going to leave the history to "your boring professors." That's the interesting and important part! I felt like it was building toward a bigger discussion that didn't happen, but one I would have really liked see happen, especially as a comparison between how Western media shows have handled their talent shows and how Korea is going to go about it.

Because if there's one thing that has steadily gotten under my skin and made me cynical re: talent competitions is that everyone has to have some sort of personal sob story. While they can be heartening and applaudable, I find myself turning off once the soft music starts playing and the teary confessions come rolling out. I just can't take them seriously anymore and grow tired of the American success story having to be painted as stories of overcoming adversity like illnesses or disapproving parents (usually the story behind young Asian talents in unapproved arts genres, like hip-hop--which also makes me curious if these adversity stories can be stereotyped along racial, gender, age, sexual, or socioeconomic lines, hrm). (Not that these stories aren't important, but in every talent show?!)

Has anyone watched K-pop Star? Is the formula similar regarding the backgrounds and/or presentations of the contestants?

No, not much. Very little. I can hardly remember any at all, in fact! I've briefly watched some other Korean talent shows where they do include those sob stories, but I find K-pop Star to be just.. better in most every way. As I said above, better contestants, and also three entertaining personalities on the judges panel, and as a k-pop fan, an interest in seeing the contestants brought to YG, SM and JYP for training - how they differ, how fancy the studios are, and the different things the judges are looking for. It's very good fun. I've watched all 11 episodes.

What are all the different challenges they've had to go through? 'Cause from what I'm getting, it's vocal competition. Which is so intriguing considering which companies are represented - not that they don't have amazing singers, but what these companies are known for are idols, who are mostly jack-of-all-trades than masters. We know that the training regimen is pretty harsh, but I don't think it's as focused as this kind of competition, y'know? It's all very interesting.

That's the interesting and important part!
Exactly. I felt more frustrated than anything else, reading through the piece.

re: sob stories - You know, I wonder if it's also a way to justify the idolization of musicians (and having a million and one of these kind of vocal shows) and with that, reveals that music is not really considered a "true" profession, i.e. business or something. I agree that these stories are important, but it does get tiring and ends up just looking like yet another attempt for ratings.

I think we have two systems/dual interests going on here. One is that the show goes for a human interest angle, to indeed hook the audience. Yet it's also a bid on the part of the contestant to win the sympathies of the audience since so many of these shows tend to go to audience voting. So the contestant has to win the audience vote not just on a talent level, but on an individual personable level and it helps to be a sympathetic figure rather than an arrogant ass. (Which could also be an interesting reflection on the American mindset.)

Recently I caught a snippet of The Voice where someone auditioning was a classically trained vocalist, but then his story was further spun out with a "I'm singing for my mother today" aspect. His mother may have been ill at the time or recently, on top of that? Or perhaps had just been the influential and supportive force in his life? I'm not sure, but there was a definite groping for some time of connection to audience sympathies.

I don't know if there's a system of justification going on so much as a type of narrative-buildling, i.e. the little guy who chases his/her dreams and overcomes great obstacles in order to arrive here, on this stage, and you, the audience, have the power to make his/her dreams happen or not. So maybe it's an empowerment strategy, as well. Because how many contestants do you see who are rich bitches who just happen to have a bunch of free time and talent and so thought that it would be a lark? Certainly I can't imagine a network presenting them that way even if they were.

Whatever is going on, I feel like it's overdone. Bleh.

(Which could also be an interesting reflection on the American mindset.)
How so? That is, do you mean the audience vote or the different "characters" a contestant is portrayed as? Also, that character is formed by not only the contestant, but also the show (and then it starts to sound like idol-talk). There was some discussion about the Dia on the Voice, how people know her from her YT vids with Meg (wait, did I get them switched...?) but that it seemed like a different character was portrayed on that show.

re: rich bitches who just happen to have a bunch of free time - Because they can just drop an album without having to go through the whole rigamarole of a reality show? Or they could make their own reality show that follows them going through the rigamarole of dropping an album xP

Actually, where's askbask - is there any aspect of Kpop Star where the people vote for the contestant? Or is it the judges only?

I meant justification on a subconscious level, though I think it's more that fame itself is the ideal professional career ... So it's promoting money, as always.

re: Narrative building - It's overdone and I don't think anyone's really trying to do it well. I was trying to picture a vocal show where they don't explain anything about people, they just show 'em performing. It would just be like ... a recital, I guess. So the narrative functions as this signal, a marker of a play - even though it's a "reality" show, it really isn't - and so audience satisfaction comes from their effect on the narrative, not necessarily the narrative itself ...?

I'm going to stop writing now before I hurt myself.

I think different characters are portrayed in a way to win the American public, since so much is dependent on voting. It's almost like politics where you want a unique, charming personality, but one that is diffuse enough to appeal across gender, sexual, age, and ethnic lines. Cameras do something weird to people, too, and there's a whole line of thinking and study in social psychology that examines the whole Other that the camera comes to represent and how it makes individuals act. You might do things or act in ways in front of a camera that you might not do in any other situation.

Even if the contestant were really well off, say middle class-upper middle class, the networks would still find some "adversity" in their background to exploit. I find this really interesting in terms of like big groups, like on ABDC, since sometimes only one member with an adversity story would be singled out and highlighted in the quest for that adversity story. Justification may play into this, because I think the fact that you feel sorry for someone and that you're helping that person achieve their dreams helps "justify" voting for them versus any other person who's also competing. Competition reality TV show is an interesting beast. If Marie Claire the magazine is to believe, China had its own American Idol show called at some point Mongolian Cow Yoghurt Super Girl. Which I'm just putting here because I could not make heads or tails of that title and what those monikers have to do with singing or idoling at all. XD

So I think we have to look at why certain personalities and traits and stories appeal to the public. What about this formula works and what doesn't? And are we looking at two levels? That is, is there a gap between what the media assumes appeals to a majority and what actually does appeal to the pubilc? (This has been my recent mode of thinking, of trying to figure out mass media and what it means re: actual opinions of the "mass.") There's definite crafting on the part of the networks as the Beat Freaks joked after their stint on ABDC: while filming casually after the their respective appearances on ABDC with a vogue group, they joked how at this point the MTV film crew would be trying to get reactions from them about the challenge and whatnot.

Talent shows are also really interesting in that often the talent being displayed is derivative in an upfront fashion: singers cover existing songs or dancers are choreographed by professional choreographers, etc. So I wonder if part of this padding out, of giving contestants easily recognizable traits and distinguishing markers, is part of creating this "superstar" persona that detracts from how we're all being sold into being consumers of this system. XD

China Mengniu Dairy Company Limited was a sponsor of Super Girls, which is how it got its name in the show title.

"A car accident made her an orphan at the age of ten.
A pile of family debt forced her to leave school when she was fifteen.
Five years later, a competition that brought her story to light.
Meet Wang Zhixin, the Little Match Girl of super girls"



She's rather good. The first contestant I clicked on, and I lucked out. (My informants tell me that the tomboy idol look has been having a major moment in China, perhaps contributing to the government's cancelling Super Girls.)

Iirc, the government actually cancelled Super Girls because ratings were high, so they were worried about it being a "bad influence on youngsters". Variety shows are super common in TW, but they're a lot more...controlled in China.

But the whole "sob story" angle is the main reason why I don't like watching China's got talent. Every other contestant seems to have met some form of "hardship". With the other ___ got talent shows, it's a lot more common to see people...doing ridiculous stuff on tv despite the harrowing sob stories.

But I guess lack of exposure to such media attributes to the popularity of heightened sob story angle in China's got talent. (I'm not contributing anything new here, but okay).

"I'm singing for my mother today" (except that this is actually pretty touching):


The whole tomboy look has always been pretty popular in the chinese-ent though...

I'm amused by how the human interest angle disappears for the winners who actually enter showbiz, so that there's still a fairly clear avoidance of descending into Asian idolling "personality over talent" type stuff.

"I'm singing for my mother today" aspect
This reminds me of the standardized test essays, the prompts of which were always a variation of "Write about how ____ impacted your life," and the secret to a high schore was a sob story. The government sent previous essays and their subsequent scores as role models, and the highest scoring one had a paragraph containing cancer, drugs, alcohol, death/illness in the family, etc. all in one go. The class actually laughed at that one, and the teacher said "you are all horrible people," with a disapproving look on her face before also admitting how ridiculous the essay was.

rich bitches who just happen to have a bunch of free time

The case of Dia Frampton is interesting to me in that she's the only contestant I've seen on these things whom I'd heard before the show (I'd even reviewed a Meg & Dia track back in 2006). I usually watch clips on YouTube rather than full episodes*, and will often enough skip the bios, but from what I saw, NBC, presumably with at least some cooperation from Dia herself, simply suppressed and lied about her previous experience in music. Which is to say, she was presented as a shy, bookish singer-songwriter, which is not totally wrong, but she also was (not just had been, but continued to be) the lead singer of a loud-ass shemo band whose first album came out only a couple of years after (for instance) Miranda Lambert finished third on Nashville Star, and who had had an album out on a major label only two years prior to The Voice, and whose most recent album was released the very month The Voice went on air.

So the story line they concocted for her was of a short, sweet talented girl trying to overcome her shyness. And that story isn't wrong (see where a long-time Meg and Dia fan showed up on my lj to defend it), but it's drastically, dishonestly incomplete.

*I did stream one full episode of The Voice and got really antsy, despite the generally interesting singers.

No voting so far - all episodes have been pre-recorded and according to producers, when they do go live, the audience will not get more than a 40% say... making this more like a real k-pop agency audition process. 40% basically mean the judges can decide among themselves who's worthy.

Mat nails it when he complains of "big statements not backed up by arguments"; steevo1018 relied too much on phrases such as "Let's be real," rather than actual ideas. That said, I don't mind the tone of voice in itself. And if you take actual good music critics and compare what they write for free on blogs and message boards and in fanzines to what they get paid for, the former is usually better: the writing has more character and the thinking is deeper. So I wouldn't pinpoint a lack of professionalism here so much as a lack of thought.

Knowing only slightly more than zilch about Korean culture, I nonetheless doubt that Michelle's looks will be much of a barrier. Contra steevo, Michelle doesn't look frumpy and does present herself well, and talent shows are exactly where heavier singers find a way to break in. On the other hand, I don't think she's that good, and she may well lose on the merits. I take it she's on the bubble right now, having performed poorly last time up with a sore throat.

the former is usually better

Not to mention that the latter often doesn't exist anymore, and in some cases never did (which is to say I've read plenty of good stuff by writers who've never gotten paid).

My guess — again, emphasize guess — is that Korean discrimination won't particularly hit entertainers with African American features, but rather workers from Southeast Asia in low-paying jobs. Which doesn't mean other prejudices don't exist (according to Hines Ward, he ended up in America because in Korea his mother's family gave her massive shit for marrying an African American), especially given the complicated, fraught issue of American troops in Korea.