The Beatles, not BTS, suck

K-pop sensation BTS appears on the U.S. talk show "The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon," aired on Sept. 25. Courtesy of Big Hit Entertainment

By Oh Young-jin

My dear friend Prof. David Tizzard deserves more white hairs and wrinkles, not for the wisdom he usually displays in his lectures and columns but for a show of rigidity atypical of him.

In his recent column, "K-pop sucks," he was comparable to the parents who were shocked and disapproving when Elvis Presley shook his hips and sang "Hound Dog" in his first TV appearances or, more recently, to the enforcers of the "no-dancing law" in the small city of Bomont in the movie "Footloose" of 1984.

But I don't object to Tizzard's right to speak and would protect it with the same zeal as I would mine, not because of freedom of speech but because K-culture ― from songs and TV dramas to movies ― is in dire need of elaborate criticisms that remain few and far between during its exponential growth.

My beef lies primarily with the professor's argument that BTS is not as good as The Beatles and won't be, disputing a BBC assessment that the K-pop band is the latest generation's answer to the British rock legends.

I belong to the generation that listened to and sympathized with the dopey "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds," the reminiscent "Yesterday," the fatalistic "Hey Jude," the tantalizing "Please, Please Me" and their other songs. So I understand the professor's devotion to The Beatles, one of the greatest exports to the world from his home country.

But I disagree with his sense of absolutism that one should be better than the other in music. There are many kinds of music, each genre having its followers, each singer having their fans and each song its lovers.

One may say that he or she doesn't like certain genres or singers but that can't allow for a generalization that their favorites are better than the others'. That is tantamount to cultural dictatorship that stands in the way of the true liberating spirit of music.

The Fab Four (not the tribute one) are not better than BTS and the New Kids on the Block. They are different.

BTS is a work in progress, contrary to The Beatles, who are longtime legends.
The two are separated by 50 years. BTS thrives in the digital era in which the world is virtually interconnected and music is streamed, while The Beatles represent analogue times when music was played from vinyl records.

Not just BTS fans ― the ARMY ― but people around the world rejoice in and cry over the group's songs, just as previous generations did with The Beatles. With that in mind, their purpose as singers ― BTS and The Beatles ― is and was well served.

Perhaps what The Beatles have that BTS doesn't is a place in our collective memory ― shock at their breakup, distress in the killing of John Lennon, admiration for Paul McCartney's ability to sing for hours in public. BTS is making its own history ― like the emotional speech at the United Nations where band members called on fans to be themselves, a point that apparently sailed over the professor's head.

Would The Beatles be as popular if they were performing now? Maybe, and only if they managed to stay out of trouble.

What if BTS were in the 1960s and '70s? Would it be as much worshipped as now? All told, the secret of BTS and The Beatles' success is that they were living up to the zeitgeist of their time.

Now, the professor's biggest bone of contention is what he sees as a link between K-pop's "farm system," their group dance, Korea's modern autocracy and neo-Confucianism.

For instance, he compared the dominance of three major agencies in the industry with a series of dictatorships in the '60s, '70s and '80s and went further to surmise that some of their practices are based on the strong-prey-on-the-weak "gabjil."

Then he tried to put all under the neo-Confucianism label.

The leaders of the big three ― SM, JYP and YG ― are former top pop artists in their own right and have grown on their merits, while the dictatorships of our modern times usurped what was not theirs and used it to maintain their hold on power.

Although I have no particular affection for any of the three, their current status appears more attributable to them being pioneers. But their stranglehold is being weakened. BTS, K-pop's global sensation, belongs to Big Hit Entertainment.

Its farm system, for its flaws and faults, has mass-produced K-pop bands and groups, contributing to the fast growth of the K-pop industry.

One comparable example is Motown Records in the U.S.

All those scandalous events in K-pop, like the dating ban and physical assaults on vulnerable trainees, are reproachable and shouldn't be tolerated but they are not unheard of in other parts of society.

The late Michael Jackson thrived under his abusive father.

Lastly, neo-Confucianism has been so abused that it is being thrust at us as an inescapable fate rather than a phenomenon.

To me, music is freedom, distraction and Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall." Prof. Tizzard's critique in parts feels as constraining as if one is forced to wear shoes two sizes too small.

Site Map E-paper Subscribe Register LogIn
Site Map E-paper Subscribe Register LogIn