Has any kpop girl group matched SNSD’s peak in korea?
-
-
Newjeans being the most recent is interesting.
-
-
-
-
TWICE
-
-
as usual the question is always what does "peak" mean
are we using some subjective criteria or going by objective standards of peakness
is it K-charting? K-album sales? Korean "impact" etc etc
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
no because they can't
Korean entertainment landscape is different now, we used to see idol in 392473290 variety shows back in the days with good viewership but starting from 3rd gen people goes into online platform so how's the rest of the people who didn't goes online knew them?
different generation different situation
-
-
So when you say peak SNSD, i assume we're speaking about 2009 to 2011 SNSD from "Gee" to "Run Devil Run" to "Oh" to "The Boys".
From what i've witnessed, the only group that came close to that was 2016 to 2018 Twice from "Cheer up" to "TT" to "Knock Knock" to "Likey" to "What is Love" .
Incredible run tbh but nothing really compares to peak SNSD. They're literally the blueprint for Twice when you think about it.
-
Hard to say as there’s no objective metric to compare. For example song performances can’t be directly compared.
If you take twice, they faded away and don’t seem to have had the same cultural impact as SNSD so was their peak really the same? Hard to say with just song success as that criteria went through a lot of change.
Blackpink I feel is different in success than SNSD. But yeah I think they are indeed comparable.
For others we need to really see if any other group has any lasting impact to be considered as big a cultural phenomenon as SNSD.
-
def. yes. I think many groups have experienced their own golden era like SNSD did groups like GFRIEND, TWICE, BLACKPINK, NewJeans, aespa, Red Velvet, MAMAMOO… Most of them dominated Korea with their music at one point, were all over variety shows, became faces of major brands, and were the most talked-about names of their time. But honestly, what sets SNSD apart is how their influence lasted over the long term, not just during a single peak moment.
-
def. yes. I think many groups have experienced their own golden era like SNSD did groups like GFRIEND, TWICE, BLACKPINK, NewJeans, aespa, Red Velvet, MAMAMOO… Most of them dominated Korea with their music at one point, were all over variety shows, became faces of major brands, and were the most talked-about names of their time. But honestly, what sets SNSD apart is how their influence lasted over the long term, not just during a single peak moment.
....this thread is literally about peak popularity not career longevity.
If I ask on a sports forum which player had the highest individual peak, anyone who gives career statistics would be laughed and shamed out of the conversation.
The dialogue is about what group reached an apex of popularity comparable to peak SNSD, at the height of their powers in Korea specifically, and the ONLY valid answers are Twice, BP and NewJeans.
Having experienced all of those eras, including being IN Korea during peak Twice/BP, I can say that I would rank them as follows
1. NewJeans
2. Twice
3. BLACKPINK
This is strictly just for peak popularity in Korea.
The gap between 1 and 2 is pretty sizable.
-
-
Display More
....this thread is literally about peak popularity not career longevity.
If I ask on a sports forum which player had the highest individual peak, anyone who gives career statistics would be laughed and shamed out of the conversation.
The dialogue is about what group reached an apex of popularity comparable to peak SNSD, at the height of their powers in Korea specifically, and the ONLY valid answers are Twice, BP and NewJeans.
Having experienced all of those eras, including being IN Korea during peak Twice/BP, I can say that I would rank them as follows
1. NewJeans
2. Twice
This is strictly just for peak popularity in Korea.
The gap between 1 and 2 is pretty sizable.
I understand what I meant was exactly that all of these groups did reach a level of popularity comparable to SNSD’s peak power in their prime, but most of them couldn’t sustain it over a long period of time. Personally, I believe every group I mentioned has experienced that kind of peak. so yeah, I can’t really agree with you on that.
-
I understand what I meant was exactly that all of these groups did reach a level of popularity comparable to SNSD’s peak power in their prime, but most of them couldn’t sustain it over a long period of time
Please read what I'm typing and then confirm the difference between PEAK and LONGEVITY.
Those are two entirely different conversations.
Shaq has one of the most dominant PEAKS in NBA History, rivaled only by Michael Jordan.
But his PEAK was just about 3-4 years.
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, until LeBron James, had the greatest LONGEVITY as a top player, giving valuable minutes for 20 years.
Leaving sports aside and returning to K-Pop, it's the same logic. If this was a conversation about the totality of the groups' careers, then of course nobody has matched SNSD
But this is about the groups at their peak popularity in Korea, so how long it's SUSTAINED doesn't matter
The framing here isn't to wonder who was at the top for the longest, but who reached the highest in comparison to SNSD.
I hope this makes more sense to you and anyone else who may be confused now. I was going to leave it alone, but people misconstruing peak with longevity infuriates and triggers me as a sports fan.
-
-
Display More
Please read what I'm typing and then confirm the difference between PEAK and LONGEVITY.
Those are two entirely different conversations.
Shaq has one of the most dominant PEAKS in NBA History, rivaled only by Michael Jordan.
But his PEAK was just about 3-4 years.
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, until LeBron James, had the greatest LONGEVITY as a top player, giving valuable minutes for 20 years.
Leaving sports aside and returning to K-Pop, it's the same logic. If this was a conversation about the totality of the groups' careers, then of course nobody has matched SNSD
But this is about the groups at their peak popularity in Korea, so how long it's SUSTAINED doesn't matter
The framing here isn't to wonder who was at the top for the longest, but who reached the highest in comparison to SNSD.
I hope this makes more sense to you and anyone else who may be confused now. I was going to leave it alone, but people misconstruing peak with longevity infuriates and triggers me as a sports fan.
Weird of you to go on this rant responding to the one user who clearly did understand what peak meant. Perhaps you need to read what people are actually typing.
-
Display More
Please read what I'm typing and then confirm the difference between PEAK and LONGEVITY.
Those are two entirely different conversations.
Shaq has one of the most dominant PEAKS in NBA History, rivaled only by Michael Jordan.
But his PEAK was just about 3-4 years.
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, until LeBron James, had the greatest LONGEVITY as a top player, giving valuable minutes for 20 years.
Leaving sports aside and returning to K-Pop, it's the same logic. If this was a conversation about the totality of the groups' careers, then of course nobody has matched SNSD
But this is about the groups at their peak popularity in Korea, so how long it's SUSTAINED doesn't matter
The framing here isn't to wonder who was at the top for the longest, but who reached the highest in comparison to SNSD.
I hope this makes more sense to you and anyone else who may be confused now. I was going to leave it alone, but people misconstruing peak with longevity infuriates and triggers me as a sports fan.
For me they are not that different.
Longevity is the only objective way to compare the peak. And I’m not talking about being mediocre throughout your long career so don’t give that example. It’s about staying relevant for a long time. And in people’s minds. For me SNSD is still on people’s minds in Korea while it feels twice is forgotten.
How success is measured changes with every gen. We can’t use TV rating to judge NEW JEANS and we can’t use digital streaming to judge SNSD
If you truly had a great peak you WILL have longevity and relevance for a long time.
Longevity is an indication of your peak.
-
-
-
It's not weird; it's corrective. Anyone who has a problem with what I said doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about, and I'll say it again louder in case people can't grasp the simple premise of peak versus longevity.
What's weird is your acting aggrieved on behalf of someone who neither needed nor asked for your protection.
This is the last time I give this forum grace for trying to demonize me for having common sense. It's been a peaceful, if not boring week here. Don't ruin it while I'm being nice.
Display MoreFor me they are not that different.
Longevity is the only objective way to compare the peak. And I’m not talking about being mediocre throughout your long career so don’t give that example. It’s about staying relevant for a long time. And in people’s minds. For me SNSD is still on people’s minds in Korea while it feels twice is forgotten.
How success is measured changes with every gen. We can’t use TV rating to judge NEW JEANS and we can’t use digital streaming to judge SNSD
If you truly had a great peak you WILL have longevity and relevance for a long time.
Longevity is an indication of your peak.
It seems you're confused, so let me assist you.
Arguing longevity = peak is mind-numbingly stupid.
Want to test your theory? Go to the RealGM basketball forum right now. Make an account and then make a thread called "I think longevity is an indication of your peak"
Let me know how many upvotes you get relative to how many people mock you and roast you alive for such an awful take
-
Display More
For me they are not that different.
Longevity is the only objective way to compare the peak. And I’m not talking about being mediocre throughout your long career so don’t give that example. It’s about staying relevant for a long time. And in people’s minds. For me SNSD is still on people’s minds in Korea while it feels twice is forgotten.
How success is measured changes with every gen. We can’t use TV rating to judge NEW JEANS and we can’t use digital streaming to judge SNSD
If you truly had a great peak you WILL have longevity and relevance for a long time.
Longevity is an indication of your peak.
I'm sorry but your definition of peak is literally the definition of longevity, long run impact or how you prefer to call it, but it doesn't make any sense to call it the peak. A peak is a peak, it's the highest you've reached, that's all.
-
You people are so trapped within the prism of your vapid tribalism and agendas that it completely rebuffs and repudiates all attempts by rationale and common sense to penetrate your thick skulls.
I said exactly why the fuck I responded the way I did, so spare me the mindless projection and computer chair psychoanalysis on the AKP Forums.
I'm not trying to separate longevity and peak; those are IN FACT two separate things.
The Michael Jordan/LeBron James argument is quite literally one of the most ubiquitous arguments in the entirety of pop culture, and the fundamental fabric of that argument is do you value Michael Jordan's peak more than LeBron's longevity
Michael Jordan reached higher heights. LeBron has been greater for longer.
Michael Jordan was more dominant at his apex. LeBron has been dominant for a longer period of time.
Hence why I scoff at people who conflate the two. This isn't about which girl group I want inserted or represented in the conversation; it's about common sense, something this forum sorely lacks in when I don't weigh in on conversations like these.
I've made my point though. Carry on.
-
-
It's not weird; it's corrective. Anyone who has a problem with what I said doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about, and I'll say it again louder in case people can't grasp the simple premise of peak versus longevity.
What's weird is your acting aggrieved on behalf of someone who neither needed nor asked for your protection.
This is the last time I give this forum grace for trying to demonize me for having common sense. It's been a peaceful, if not boring week here. Don't ruin it while I'm being nice.Lol I just quoted you cus you looked silly. It's clear you're pressed by the other comments in here that did actually lump longevity and peak together, but you responded to someone who didn't.
Like I understand what you are saying and even agree to an extent but clearly people do tend to consider longevity when discussing peaks so just live with it chief.
-
People are so triggered by my existence that they are now unironically trying to act like I'm the second coming of Hitler for saying career longevity is absolutely NOT the same as a career peak.
They are two ENTIRELY different things.
If someone asked me to make a list of girl groups with the best career longevity, NewJeans wouldn't make my top 10 and probably not even my top 20.
If it's just PEAK, then they're top 2 for me.
-
Lol I just quoted you cus you looked silly. It's clear you're pressed by the other comments in here that did actually lump longevity and peak together, but you responded to someone who didn't.
Like I understand what you are saying and even agree to an extent but clearly people do tend to consider longevity when discussing peaks so just live with it chief.
No, I don't look silly. People who disagree with my statements just look dumb. And it's equally dumb to take issue with my elucidation of the fact longevity and peak are not the same thing and have never been the same thing.
This isn't my opinion and it's not a subjective stance. This is a logical FACT.
And anyone who has any familiarity with sports, as you do, should be ashamed of taking a position that could even be potentially assumed as a defense of the intellectually bankrupt belief that longevity and peak are the same.
Those aren't synonyms, friend. They are two different words with two entirely different meanings.
If the conversation is ever about peak, it's a logical fallacy to start bringing in a bunch of longevity metrics, and to claim otherwise is pure sophistry.
You made a mistake in quoting me, just like that user made a poor interpretation and conflated two entirely different concepts.
Live with it, champ.
-
-
Not exactly.
So I don’t consider a group that say been mediocre all their life but has a long career to be more impactful than Twice.
But between legendary acts your ability to stay relevant over a longer period is what decides if your peak was truly impactful.
There’s no objective way for me to just see melon performance and say twice had a bigger peak or SNSD had a bigger peak.
But the way I see it is people don’t really seem to remember twice is Korea like they do SNSD.
And what I mean by that is people need to remember your peak many years from your actual peak. this is because absolute metrics like charts and the landscape there of keep changing a lot. And there will be a lot of recency bias.
It’s more like in hindsight realizing some peaks were actually not all that great.
-
No.
Do you also believe peak = longevity?
I don't even care what group you rank where.
I need to know how throughly cooked this forum is in terms of intellectualism.
My opinion on you was solidified ages ago, but perhaps I'll chisel in an amendment pending your response, should you elect to satisfy my piqued curiosity.
-
Display More
Not exactly.
So I don’t consider a group that say been mediocre all their life but has a long career to be more impactful than Twice.
But between legendary acts your ability to stay relevant over a longer period is what decides if your peak was truly impactful.
There’s no objective way for me to just see melon performance and say twice had a bigger peak or SNSD had a bigger peak.
But the way I see it is people don’t really seem to remember twice is Korea like they do SNSD.
And what I mean by that is people need to remember your peak many years from your actual peak. this is because absolute metrics like charts and the landscape there of keep changing a lot. And there will be a lot of recency bias.
Career Longevity =/= Career Peak
Stop trying to over complicate and obfuscate something so painfully simple.
Peak popularity just means the point at which your popularity was at its apex. And then when compared to another, you ask if that point is higher than their point.
Full stop. Done. There is no further rationalization or explanation needed. This isn't a "WELL ACHUALLY" scenario; that is how peaks work.
If you think otherwise, I will give you akorns to go to RealGM and make the case a player's peak and player's longevity are essentially the same. I'll give you 1,000 akorns to do it right now. Basketball forum. General discussion.
-
Display More
Not exactly.
So I don’t consider a group that say been mediocre all their life but has a long career to be more impactful than Twice.
But between legendary acts your ability to stay relevant over a longer period is what decides if your peak was truly impactful.
There’s no objective way for me to just see melon performance and say twice had a bigger peak or SNSD had a bigger peak.
But the way I see it is people don’t really seem to remember twice is Korea like they do SNSD.
And what I mean by that is people need to remember your peak many years from your actual peak. this is because absolute metrics like charts and the landscape there of keep changing a lot. And there will be a lot of recency bias.
It’s more like in hindsight realizing some peaks were actually not all that great.
Well I understand your point, but I don't agree.
Let's use T-ara for example. T-ara's peak was insane, bigger than most ggs, but they were forgotten later for issues we all know. The fact that they were forgotten later or didn't have better longevity than others doesn't change the success they had back then, people might talk more about other ggs nowadays because of many reasons like staying relevant more time or simply being more active, but it doesn't mean their peak was greater.
The GF-RV comparison could be a good reference too.
Or instead of using groups we can use music itself as example. Gangnam style was the song with the biggest peak of the century, probably in history? But people don't talk about it anymore, it was a massive trend for a year and that was it. There were other huge songs that might be considered more relevant in the long run and we talk more about them now, but if we talk about peak Gangnam style is unmatched because of what happened that year and that year only.
Not expecting an answer to this though, just my opinion, feel free to disagree.
-
Display More
No, I don't look silly. People who disagree with my statements just look dumb. And it's equally dumb to take issue with my elucidation of the fact longevity and peak are not the same thing and have never been the same thing.
This isn't my opinion and it's not a subjective stance. This is a logical FACT.
And anyone who has any familiarity with sports, as you do, should be ashamed of taking a position that could even be potentially assumed as a defense of the intellectually bankrupt belief that longevity and peak are the same.
Those aren't synonyms, friend. They are two different words with two entirely different meanings.
If the conversation is ever about peak, it's a logical fallacy to start bringing in a bunch of longevity metrics, and to claim otherwise is pure sophistry.
You made a mistake in quoting me, just like that user made a poor interpretation and conflated two entirely different concepts.
Live with it, champ.
It's so funny that someone who can write so well always proves to lack basic reading comprehension. I quoted you initially because you unleashed your clearly biased rant upon someone undeserving. The user literally never conflated the two, if you think it's clear that they did then you should be able to easily quote their comment and show me. Go ahead. You could've quoted plenty of other users but you chose wrong.
I said people clearly tend to consider longevity when discussing peak, which is true. Believe it or not it's possible for me to acknowledge that while also understanding that peak and longevity are two different things.
-
Display More
Well I understand your point, but I don't agree.
Let's use T-ara for example. T-ara's peak was insane, bigger than most ggs, but they were forgotten later for issues we all know. The fact that they were forgotten later or didn't have better longevity than others doesn't change the success they had back then, people might talk more about other ggs nowadays because of many reasons like staying relevant more time or simply being more active, but it doesn't mean their peak was greater.
The GF-RV comparison could be a good reference too.
Or instead of using groups we can use music itself as example. Gangnam style was the song with the biggest peak of the century, probably in history? But people don't talk about it anymore, it was a massive trend for a year and that was it. There were other huge songs that might be considered more relevant in the long run and we talk more about them now, but if we talk about peak Gangnam style is unmatched because of what happened that year and that year only.
Not expecting an answer to this though, just my opinion, feel free to disagree.
My point is more about comparing GG’s across generations and we have to make the sacrifices somewhere to make well educated guess.
How do you decide if TARA is more impactful than say New Jeans or Twice? Imo there is quite literally no way to do this objectively. Because they existed in vastly different eras.
I can just say new jeans is more impactful than Aespa.
I can say twice and g friend at their “PEAK” had similar impact
Etc etc
But there’s no common ground other than remembrance over time to judge acts across generations. So that’s what I’ll use.
I feel Twice as a group as well as their songs seem easier forgotten in Korea than SNSD. This is a hindsight view which I use to say that SNSD’s peak was far more memorable than Twice’s.
-
They’re the only girl group I imagine would still be discussed 
Participate now!
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
