Do you agree - A popular group doesn’t have to be a top group but a top group must be a popular group? [Vote!]
-
Honestly, I get what they’re trying to say. Just because a group is popular doesn’t mean they’re at the very top of the industry. There are tons of well-loved groups that might not be breaking records or sweeping awards. But if a group is considered top tier, then yeah, they probably have a huge following and a strong presence overall. Popularity alone isn’t everything, but it’s definitely part of what makes a group reach that “top” status.
-
-
agree and it makes sense
-
Well the first example that came to my mind is groups like Twice, Red velvet, Mamamoo, Shinee....
nobody can deny that they are popular with still a huge following, and korea still interested when they do comeback
but they aren't really the definition of top groups considering that nobody would put them in the discussion of the top group currently, and they doesn't release songs that do well in chart to be consider a top group
i would say usually groups that fit this description are groups that already have their prime
and were their current popularity rely on their past success and peak, but aren't trendy enough anymore to be part of the top groups discussion
-
-
Honestly, I get what they’re trying to say. Just because a group is popular doesn’t mean they’re at the very top of the industry. There are tons of well-loved groups that might not be breaking records or sweeping awards. But if a group is considered top tier, then yeah, they probably have a huge following and a strong presence overall. Popularity alone isn’t everything, but it’s definitely part of what makes a group reach that “top” status.
Yes Exsctly! A top group must have a level of popularity in order to stay at the top. I think popularity is a metric to consider but a group that’s only popular doesn’t just translate to being a top group imo
Open to discuss though I know there are probably different perspectives and examples that I haven’t considered
-
My example is Brave Girls ( Sorry BG fans
) they become a top group and by default popular but weren’t able to maintain their popularity and are no longer considered a top group (imo) -
Yes Exsctly! A top group must have a level of popularity in order to stay at the top. I think popularity is a metric to consider but a group that’s only popular doesn’t just translate to being a top group imo
Open to discuss though I know there are probably different perspectives and examples that I haven’t considered
I think everyone has their own idea of what "popularity" or being a "top group" means—some go by touring numbers, others by charts like the Billboard 100, or fandom size. Personally, I’d love to see the groups I love win at MAMA and other shows, but it's not the biggest thing for me. Watching a group like ATEEZ grow from having barely any streams to building a huge fanbase feels like a real achievement. They're a top group internationally, just like Stray Kids, especially when you look at their touring. But in Korea, they’re not really considered top.
I was just talking with a guild member about how 4th gen boy groups feel skipped over a lot. And even groups like INFINITE, who’ve been around 15 years, still don’t get the recognition they deserve. Yet to some, they’re iconic. Same goes for BEAST, TVXQ, etc., so many 3rd gen groups like SF9, btob, etc are legendary in their own way, even if you don’t see them promoted or winning these days. BG's have it rough. It's really hard to argue stats/numbers, when they get so ignored locally lol.
-
-
-
Display More
Well the first example that came to my mind is groups like Twice, Red velvet, Mamamoo, Shinee....
nobody can deny that they are popular with still a huge following, and korea still interested when they do comeback
but they aren't really the definition of top groups considering that nobody would put them in the discussion of the top group currently, and they doesn't release songs that do well in chart to be consider a top group
i would say usually groups that fit this description are groups that already have their prime
and were their current popularity rely on their past success and peak, but aren't trendy enough anymore to be part of the top groups discussion
But if SSND, for example, makes a comeback and doesn't chart high, will they stop being a top group? I don't think it works that way. Top groups are those that mark an era and leave a legacy. Whether it's by having popular songs, having a large fandom or having started trends, etc.
NewJeans, for example, marked an era by influencing several fourth and fifth generation groups with their music and y2k fashion. For me, they will be remembered as a top group of their time even if they don't release any more music.
-
-
I think fans obsess about being a top group or the top group. IMO I consider a group a top group if they're able to tour and sell out arenas. Then to be the a top 3 group you have to have the ability to have a successful stadium tour. I think the ability to have a stadium tour is what separates the S tier groups from the A tier groups.
In order to do the above you have to have a fine balance between global popularity and success.
-
But if SSND, for example, makes a comeback and doesn't chart high, will they stop being a top group? I don't think it works that way. Top groups are those that mark an era and leave a legacy. Whether it's by having popular songs, having a large fandom or having started trends, etc.
NewJeans, for example, marked an era by influencing several fourth and fifth generation groups with their music and y2k fashion. For me, they will be remembered as a top group of their time even if they don't release any more music.
SNSD aren't a top groups since 2016 probably
Top groups are basically groups that lead currently, the best performing Groups in chart, touring, sales etc...
SNSD is more in the case of a popular group, a group who left such a big impact that even if they are no longer at the top of the game, they are and will always be popular
-
Top groups are basically groups that lead currently, the best performing Groups in chart, touring, sales etc...
I disagree.
It should be the other way.
Popular groups are the ones that lead currently because popularity can change over time.
What cements a group as "top" (for me) is legacy and that cannot change.
-
-
I know this is a kpop forum and the answer should be obvious, but are we ONLY talking kpop here?
Because, from a Western pop perspective, no.
Look at acts like Katy Perry who the media tries to portray as a "top act" still to this day, but for whom the popularity is not there.
But also...
What defines "top"?
-
Display More
I know this is a kpop forum and the answer should be obvious, but are we ONLY talking kpop here?
Because, from a Western pop perspective, no.
Look at acts like Katy Perry who the media tries to portray as a "top act" still to this day, but for whom the popularity is not there.
But also...
What defines "top"?
Wanted to ask the same. Can we have examples of popular groups that are not top? and what about top groups that are not popular? It's fine to use western artist as examples. What does top mean? What popular means? We might have different definitions.
-
-
-
Participate now!
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
