1. K-pop is often synonymously used, in & outside Korea, as "a genre/style," 99.9% denoting "idol music." Think BTS, Black Pink, TWICE, GOT7, and 100s more. This is an understandable perception, since the English word "K-pop" came about w/ advent of idol system in late 90s.
2. But this also limits K-music, which has a hugely diverse/interesting soundscape, to music that's most profitable w/ highest capital investment/gains (=music from idol industry, in case that wasn't clear)
3. If we expand "K-pop" to music beyond idols, what would even be the musical boundaries? Would Leenalchi (AWESOME band ft. in article) be K-pop in the way Hyukoh or Se So Neon are? Would IU's first album be K-pop in the way Kkot Galpi is?
4. For me that's the larger issue w/ "K-pop" - as a word, it doesn't say much about the music, just that it's "made in Korea." It erases the specific music of each act and otherizes/regionalizes music from non-dominant, non-white cultures. (Btw Koreans do this too!)
5. I think the word "K-pop" reflects self-imposed otherization as much as outsiders otherizing Korean music. Just think about this: why is BTS always lumped w/ K-pop, whereas Beyonce, Taylor Swift, Justin Bieber, etc, are never called A-pop?
6. I'm not so naive as to suggest we should get rid of using "K-pop", which is already too mainstream. It may also be useful in observing some common patterns in the idol industry. (But then, maybe just call it "Korea's idol music/industry"?)
You can follow @Haekoko.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: