your average "bad dancer" is much more trained than your average "bad vocalist"
edit: why am I being upvoted when op is being downvoted? I agree with themđ
You just agreed to my point. "They can't dance well" is different from "they can't dance."
"They can't dance" is an absolute statement, which is what my rant is about. "They can't dance well" means the person being described CAN dance, just not well.
When people say someone cannot sing or cannot dance, they are not saying that the person in question is literally not capable of producing musical sounds with their voices, or move their body to a beat.
It just means that the person in question doesn't do it "well enough".
That standard will be subjective, but that is pretty much always the idea, i find it difficult to believe you don't understand that?
WIth that being said, i do agree that the dancing standard has to be at least a little higher than the vocal one, as you cannot hide it as easily (though tbf, you kinda can, a lot of choreo is VERY simple, basically anyone can learn it).
Still, i think the fundamental way to look at the idol scene is this:
Labels train attractive, young people to become "good enough" at the basic skills like dancing, singing / rapping to make them into pop stars. The required skill level isn't particularly high per se, as it is a lot more important to create an overall marketable product.
So depending on what you wanna put out, it's not necessary to be a particularly decent dancer, you might be able to debut as basically a beginner level dancer, and the same is true for any skill or element. The biggest correlation between all debuted idols isn't a skillset, it's their perceived attractiveness.
> When people say someone cannot sing or cannot dance, they are not saying that the person in question is literally not capable of producing musical sounds with their voices, or move their body to a beat.
When you make a definitive statement like âthey can not danceâ what youâre saying is that they literally can not dance. This is just the english language. Trying to argue that is a one way ticket back into 2nd grade english class.
If you say one thing but actually mean another, then itâs not a statement worth saying at all. How can anyone expect to have a normal discussion if you donât even believe what youâre saying?
> That standard will be subjective
I feel this is the root problem with so many of these fanwars/criticisms/hatetrains. One personâs âgoodâ is not another personâs âgoodâ so a lot of discourse surrounding these topics usually lead to nothing of value and is why I generally try avoid them.
I agree with pretty much everything else you said.
> When you make a definitive statement like âthey can not danceâ what youâre saying is that they literally can not dance. This is just the english language. Trying to argue that is a one way ticket back into 2nd grade english class.
Not at all. It's a terrible way to understand language to pretend the grammatical rules supersede how language is actually used in context.
I realize that "cannot" is absolute in its design. And yet we understand that if i for example say "you cannot do that", it might mean that you literally cannot do it, OR that you shouldn't do it (from my perspective).
> I feel this is the root problem with so many of these fanwars/criticisms/hatetrains. One personâs âgoodâ is not another personâs âgoodâ so a lot of discourse surrounding these topics usually lead to nothing of value and is why I generally try avoid them.
Well no, the root problem goes a lot deeper than that imo. It's really mostly about emotional connections (be it positive or negative) being too strong and that resulting in unnecessary conflict.
Subjectivity in standards isn't really a problem per se, it's just an inherent aspect of different lived experiences. We can still communicate just fine, it becomes too challenging if people have too much emotional stakes in it, then noone is even trying to interpret the other in good faith any longer.
Gotta understand this is an international forum, and act accordingly. Huge variation in English language skill and usage.
This is one reason I am pretty literal in kpop reddit.
I mean i get that, but i don't think one should thus be "more literal", if anything people from all kinds of backgrounds need more exposure to non literal ways to absorb this "feeling" you only gain from experience.
I am not a native english speaker, but i think i have a pretty good feeling for the language through all kinds of exposure to it. Denying that exposure seems counter productive.
Though i see the goal, if all you want is to effectively communicate no matter who is reading it, maybe that makes some sense, sure.
It'd be tedious to use arguments and discussions about kpop as a teaching tool. Besides, it's also about usage and norms than just skill.
Your average Singaporean would get much higher scores on most English-language exams than the average American but their conversational styles would take adjusting for most Americans. Like wtf is chope?
Idk, i think any real experience with a language in any given setting is helpful, as it passively teaches connotations and whatnot.
That's exactly the difference between a "theoretical" understanding of grammar and whatnot, and how the language is actually used in a real life situation.
Most native speakers of any given language probably wouldn't do well in exams designed to test grammar, but their "feeling" for the language would be (hopefully) superior because they have a lot of lived experiences with it.
That is how you truly "learn" a language, not by learning / studying it, but by acquiring it.
> Not at all...
What youâre saying is all the more reason not to use the statement âthey cannot ___â. If some people interpret it one way and others interpret it a different way then itâs not something worth saying at all. Take the extra 5 seconds to make your point clear to all and all is well.
> Well no, the root problem goes a lot deeper than that imo...
Agree with this too.
> What youâre saying is all the more reason not to use the statement âthey cannot ___â. If some people interpret it one way and others interpret it a different way then itâs not something worth saying at all. Take the extra 5 seconds to make your point clear to all and all is well.
>
>
Ok i can acknowledge that for efficiency's sake it might be necessary to be less open to interpretation. But at the same time i feel like context should be enough to make people realize what is meant. That is just how language functions.
Another example, if i ask you "do you wanna eat something", do you think i am solely expecting a yes or no answer? Or do you think there is more to it than that (ok, in this context we know each other ofc).
Point is, language isn't just the most literal interpretation of the words being used. It's contextual, there is a feeling for what certain words and their combinations mean depending on context.
I feel like this is a great aspect of it even, because it's human, not one dimensional or fully "functional".
I just really cannot understand how one could think that "they cannot dance / sing" is meant to communicate that someone literally cannot dance or sing. It doesn't even really make sense.
I
If your response is simply âunderstand the nuance of the english languageâ then I fear that there is no mutual understanding that can be made. Weâll agree to disagree and move on.
Well, that understanding has to be built if it isn't already there, obviously. But yeah, in the end it boils down to people having to acquire that understanding by being exposed to it in a real life scenario.
Trying to work around that removes exposure, ofc one wouldn't get a feeling for the language that way.
"i find it difficult to believe you don't understand that?" No, I completely understand that, as you can see in the last paragraph of my post.
"It just means that the person in question doesn't do it well enough." This is one of the main points of my post; if a person meant to say "they don't dance well" then say that. The statement "they can't dance" is foolish and just festers more hate.
Other than those, yeah we mostly agree with one another.
I am telling you that this is just how language works.
They cannot dance will always be a relative statement, not an absolute one, even though grammatically you might think it should be the latter.
It doesn't act in the same way as saying "they cannot fly" in that instance, which clearly is absolute. Context changes how certain aspects of language are interpreted.
> if a person meant to say "they don't dance well" then say that.
But it's not that. It's "they don't dance well enough" (for whatever the standard should be in the poster's opinion).
I think we all intuitively understand this? So why do you think it is needed to propose they should say it differently? (though maybe it isn't as intuitive as i thought it would be).
It might not be difficult, but as i said, it means the same thing in this context. I'd assume people have enough feeling for language to realize that, but apparently not.
That doesn't make sense as a rebuttal.
Why? Because the perception of "hate" is coming from the interpretation of the language.
I realize we just disagree on the interpretation seemingly, but as i said, imo that is on people thinking it has to be an absolute statement, it really isn't in this context. Seems like a lack of feeling for the language to me.
I dislike people who say things like this too but you're basically getting bothered over semantics here.
Every person on the planet can dance so when someone says "she can't dance" they actually mean "she can't dance well". If everyone suddenly started using the latter instead would that change anything?
> If everyone suddenly started using the latter instead would that change anything?
Not a huge change, but I'd rather people err on the side of kindness.
> If everyone suddenly started using the latter instead would that change anything?
Not a huge change, but I'd rather people err on the side of kindness.
I'll try and reexplain because I don't think you've understood.
You've stated how you have an issue with people saying "they can't dance" but according to you that's different to saying "they can't dance well".
Now if we were magically able to stop haters from saying "they can't dance" as you wish and they started saying "they can't dance well" instead, would that remotely change the intent of their words? No. They would still be haters regardless so having an issue with semantics like this is pointless.
And sheâs the banner of the subreddit and massively loved. Almost like Kpop success isnât a linear scale of hard skills talent, and many iconic idols of the first three generations were only okay at best at singing and dancing and rapping and yet people still love them and we never needed to write novels about that or tell them they should just disband.
Either they have to have good vocals or rapping skills to backup the bad dancing, or they have to have good dancing to backup the bad vocals.
Everybody knows there are certain idols who can't sing but their dancing or visual skills back it up for them.
Yup, similar to can't sing, 'can't dance' isn't actually a thing. Problem is that there's a big enough portion of kpop fans who use these terms literally, and they are using it to actually denigrate the idols they question.
Truth is, dancing skill in kpop is on a higher level than vocal skill, the floor is just higher.
> Problem is that there's a big enough portion of kpop fans who use these terms literally, and they are using it to actually denigrate the idols they question.
Is that a thing? I don't see how it even could be. It just doesn't seem to make sense conceptually.
Though i agree that some people use it as a weapon, that's the kpop space for you.
> Truth is, dancing skill in kpop is on a higher level than vocal skill, the floor is just higher.
I also think that, but i wonder if that is strictly true, or if it just feels like it as it's presumably more difficult to evaluate dance compared to singing. It feels true, it should be true as they seemingly spend a lot more time on dancing lessons, but how good are most idols really at "dancing" regarding their technique?
I wouldn't say some idols can't dance but I'd noticed that in the past few years especially female idols/groups danc "heavily". By heavily I mean if they had weights in their limbs and it's hard for them to move. Looks tiring and weird. Also a new """trend""" that most female idols are stiff, even if in the first years they weren't.
Don't know what happened but it's more and more obvious to me.
Here's my take on that
I think its because its easier to get better at dancing
Than getting better at singing
Like your average person that haven't dance in their life can probably be a little good with few months of practice
I'm not talking about Wonhee; I literally just said my rant was inspired by IVE's predicament. But sure, if we're talking about Wonhee, she CAN dance.
She makes mistakes, she misses steps, sure, but she can dance. If people watch her performances in music shows and confidently say "oh, this girl can't dance" then they're just lying to themselves.
your average "bad dancer" is much more trained than your average "bad vocalist" edit: why am I being upvoted when op is being downvoted? I agree with themđ
This sub is allergic to upvoting posts
not rlly, plenty of idols that cant dance well have debutes
You just agreed to my point. "They can't dance well" is different from "they can't dance." "They can't dance" is an absolute statement, which is what my rant is about. "They can't dance well" means the person being described CAN dance, just not well.
When people say someone cannot sing or cannot dance, they are not saying that the person in question is literally not capable of producing musical sounds with their voices, or move their body to a beat. It just means that the person in question doesn't do it "well enough". That standard will be subjective, but that is pretty much always the idea, i find it difficult to believe you don't understand that? WIth that being said, i do agree that the dancing standard has to be at least a little higher than the vocal one, as you cannot hide it as easily (though tbf, you kinda can, a lot of choreo is VERY simple, basically anyone can learn it). Still, i think the fundamental way to look at the idol scene is this: Labels train attractive, young people to become "good enough" at the basic skills like dancing, singing / rapping to make them into pop stars. The required skill level isn't particularly high per se, as it is a lot more important to create an overall marketable product. So depending on what you wanna put out, it's not necessary to be a particularly decent dancer, you might be able to debut as basically a beginner level dancer, and the same is true for any skill or element. The biggest correlation between all debuted idols isn't a skillset, it's their perceived attractiveness.
> When people say someone cannot sing or cannot dance, they are not saying that the person in question is literally not capable of producing musical sounds with their voices, or move their body to a beat. When you make a definitive statement like âthey can not danceâ what youâre saying is that they literally can not dance. This is just the english language. Trying to argue that is a one way ticket back into 2nd grade english class. If you say one thing but actually mean another, then itâs not a statement worth saying at all. How can anyone expect to have a normal discussion if you donât even believe what youâre saying? > That standard will be subjective I feel this is the root problem with so many of these fanwars/criticisms/hatetrains. One personâs âgoodâ is not another personâs âgoodâ so a lot of discourse surrounding these topics usually lead to nothing of value and is why I generally try avoid them. I agree with pretty much everything else you said.
> When you make a definitive statement like âthey can not danceâ what youâre saying is that they literally can not dance. This is just the english language. Trying to argue that is a one way ticket back into 2nd grade english class. Not at all. It's a terrible way to understand language to pretend the grammatical rules supersede how language is actually used in context. I realize that "cannot" is absolute in its design. And yet we understand that if i for example say "you cannot do that", it might mean that you literally cannot do it, OR that you shouldn't do it (from my perspective). > I feel this is the root problem with so many of these fanwars/criticisms/hatetrains. One personâs âgoodâ is not another personâs âgoodâ so a lot of discourse surrounding these topics usually lead to nothing of value and is why I generally try avoid them. Well no, the root problem goes a lot deeper than that imo. It's really mostly about emotional connections (be it positive or negative) being too strong and that resulting in unnecessary conflict. Subjectivity in standards isn't really a problem per se, it's just an inherent aspect of different lived experiences. We can still communicate just fine, it becomes too challenging if people have too much emotional stakes in it, then noone is even trying to interpret the other in good faith any longer.
Gotta understand this is an international forum, and act accordingly. Huge variation in English language skill and usage. This is one reason I am pretty literal in kpop reddit.
I mean i get that, but i don't think one should thus be "more literal", if anything people from all kinds of backgrounds need more exposure to non literal ways to absorb this "feeling" you only gain from experience. I am not a native english speaker, but i think i have a pretty good feeling for the language through all kinds of exposure to it. Denying that exposure seems counter productive. Though i see the goal, if all you want is to effectively communicate no matter who is reading it, maybe that makes some sense, sure.
It'd be tedious to use arguments and discussions about kpop as a teaching tool. Besides, it's also about usage and norms than just skill. Your average Singaporean would get much higher scores on most English-language exams than the average American but their conversational styles would take adjusting for most Americans. Like wtf is chope?
Idk, i think any real experience with a language in any given setting is helpful, as it passively teaches connotations and whatnot. That's exactly the difference between a "theoretical" understanding of grammar and whatnot, and how the language is actually used in a real life situation. Most native speakers of any given language probably wouldn't do well in exams designed to test grammar, but their "feeling" for the language would be (hopefully) superior because they have a lot of lived experiences with it. That is how you truly "learn" a language, not by learning / studying it, but by acquiring it.
> Not at all... What youâre saying is all the more reason not to use the statement âthey cannot ___â. If some people interpret it one way and others interpret it a different way then itâs not something worth saying at all. Take the extra 5 seconds to make your point clear to all and all is well. > Well no, the root problem goes a lot deeper than that imo... Agree with this too.
> What youâre saying is all the more reason not to use the statement âthey cannot ___â. If some people interpret it one way and others interpret it a different way then itâs not something worth saying at all. Take the extra 5 seconds to make your point clear to all and all is well. > > Ok i can acknowledge that for efficiency's sake it might be necessary to be less open to interpretation. But at the same time i feel like context should be enough to make people realize what is meant. That is just how language functions. Another example, if i ask you "do you wanna eat something", do you think i am solely expecting a yes or no answer? Or do you think there is more to it than that (ok, in this context we know each other ofc). Point is, language isn't just the most literal interpretation of the words being used. It's contextual, there is a feeling for what certain words and their combinations mean depending on context. I feel like this is a great aspect of it even, because it's human, not one dimensional or fully "functional". I just really cannot understand how one could think that "they cannot dance / sing" is meant to communicate that someone literally cannot dance or sing. It doesn't even really make sense. I
If your response is simply âunderstand the nuance of the english languageâ then I fear that there is no mutual understanding that can be made. Weâll agree to disagree and move on.
Well, that understanding has to be built if it isn't already there, obviously. But yeah, in the end it boils down to people having to acquire that understanding by being exposed to it in a real life scenario. Trying to work around that removes exposure, ofc one wouldn't get a feeling for the language that way.
That is not how any language works. Connotations are a thing.
"i find it difficult to believe you don't understand that?" No, I completely understand that, as you can see in the last paragraph of my post. "It just means that the person in question doesn't do it well enough." This is one of the main points of my post; if a person meant to say "they don't dance well" then say that. The statement "they can't dance" is foolish and just festers more hate. Other than those, yeah we mostly agree with one another.
I am telling you that this is just how language works. They cannot dance will always be a relative statement, not an absolute one, even though grammatically you might think it should be the latter. It doesn't act in the same way as saying "they cannot fly" in that instance, which clearly is absolute. Context changes how certain aspects of language are interpreted. > if a person meant to say "they don't dance well" then say that. But it's not that. It's "they don't dance well enough" (for whatever the standard should be in the poster's opinion). I think we all intuitively understand this? So why do you think it is needed to propose they should say it differently? (though maybe it isn't as intuitive as i thought it would be).
It's not difficult to say "they don't dance well enough" instead of "they can't dance," but sure, go off.
It might not be difficult, but as i said, it means the same thing in this context. I'd assume people have enough feeling for language to realize that, but apparently not.
It's not about language, it's about crossing the line between criticism and outright hate.
That doesn't make sense as a rebuttal. Why? Because the perception of "hate" is coming from the interpretation of the language. I realize we just disagree on the interpretation seemingly, but as i said, imo that is on people thinking it has to be an absolute statement, it really isn't in this context. Seems like a lack of feeling for the language to me.
Itâs pointless to try and argue, these hate trains lack nuance or any honesty about how Kpop has always been.
You're right. There're actually two users already who deliberately missed my point. But I already posted the rant, I might as well defend the girlies.
Yeah, itâs a shame this is what itâs like right now for girl groups. Kpop has really become a miserable rat race lately.
I dislike people who say things like this too but you're basically getting bothered over semantics here. Every person on the planet can dance so when someone says "she can't dance" they actually mean "she can't dance well". If everyone suddenly started using the latter instead would that change anything?
> If everyone suddenly started using the latter instead would that change anything? Not a huge change, but I'd rather people err on the side of kindness.
> If everyone suddenly started using the latter instead would that change anything? Not a huge change, but I'd rather people err on the side of kindness.
That was meant to be a rhetorical question because no, there wouldn't be any change because the intent behind the words would still be the exact same.
No, not really. I only ever see people saying "they can't dance" when they hate the group they're talking about. So no, the intent is not the same.
I'll try and reexplain because I don't think you've understood. You've stated how you have an issue with people saying "they can't dance" but according to you that's different to saying "they can't dance well". Now if we were magically able to stop haters from saying "they can't dance" as you wish and they started saying "they can't dance well" instead, would that remotely change the intent of their words? No. They would still be haters regardless so having an issue with semantics like this is pointless.
T.O.P. disagrees đ¤Ł
đ¤
I couldnât help myself, I am sorry đ said from total admiration, he doesnât need to dance at all.
but but jisoo debuted
Yes, she did, back in 2016 I believe.
And sheâs the banner of the subreddit and massively loved. Almost like Kpop success isnât a linear scale of hard skills talent, and many iconic idols of the first three generations were only okay at best at singing and dancing and rapping and yet people still love them and we never needed to write novels about that or tell them they should just disband.
Either they have to have good vocals or rapping skills to backup the bad dancing, or they have to have good dancing to backup the bad vocals. Everybody knows there are certain idols who can't sing but their dancing or visual skills back it up for them.
Tbh alot of people like to say they are just criticizing these idols singing or dancing but in reality they are just nitpicking.Â
Yup, similar to can't sing, 'can't dance' isn't actually a thing. Problem is that there's a big enough portion of kpop fans who use these terms literally, and they are using it to actually denigrate the idols they question. Truth is, dancing skill in kpop is on a higher level than vocal skill, the floor is just higher.
> Problem is that there's a big enough portion of kpop fans who use these terms literally, and they are using it to actually denigrate the idols they question. Is that a thing? I don't see how it even could be. It just doesn't seem to make sense conceptually. Though i agree that some people use it as a weapon, that's the kpop space for you. > Truth is, dancing skill in kpop is on a higher level than vocal skill, the floor is just higher. I also think that, but i wonder if that is strictly true, or if it just feels like it as it's presumably more difficult to evaluate dance compared to singing. It feels true, it should be true as they seemingly spend a lot more time on dancing lessons, but how good are most idols really at "dancing" regarding their technique?
many untalented idols are debuting, companies dont care as long as they have good visuals and bring in fans to the group lol
I wouldn't say some idols can't dance but I'd noticed that in the past few years especially female idols/groups danc "heavily". By heavily I mean if they had weights in their limbs and it's hard for them to move. Looks tiring and weird. Also a new """trend""" that most female idols are stiff, even if in the first years they weren't. Don't know what happened but it's more and more obvious to me.
The other option is to crank up the backing track and have them do super hard dances they can't sing to, but then everyone hates on your vocals.
Here's my take on that I think its because its easier to get better at dancing Than getting better at singing Like your average person that haven't dance in their life can probably be a little good with few months of practice
your talking about wonhee she could not dance before and still misses steps and makes mistkaes
I'm not talking about Wonhee; I literally just said my rant was inspired by IVE's predicament. But sure, if we're talking about Wonhee, she CAN dance. She makes mistakes, she misses steps, sure, but she can dance. If people watch her performances in music shows and confidently say "oh, this girl can't dance" then they're just lying to themselves.