Just because some artists are more popular than others, should their success be valued at a different benchmark than others? Should it be based on a relative criteria or an objective, standard one common for all.
There is also this tendency in Kpop where every new song is compared to the most successful song of the artist and then called an underperformer or flop in comparison, I mean...
Its not completely right but I dont know what would be a better representation
For example if someone sold 1M of their old album and now suddenly they sold 500k for their new album. Ofc 500k is still alot more than alot of other idols but still feels less successful.
Hum idk i feel like its similar to expecting a certain type of success from pop artists vs different type of success for let's say, rock/metal artists. You don't expect metal artists to top bbhot100 because they simply don't cater to gp, but you can't say they are unpopular and unsuccessful just because of that either.
everything is relative...as in you can only know the value of something if it has a comparative value elsewhere
ie. if I said I scored 90% in a test that might seen to be good until I then tell you the class average was 95...or that a kpop group sold 30K but then say each of their previous sales were less than 20K...
thus one has to be able to compare and contrast a group's performance with both itself and it's peers
MassiveKpopFan you do realise that the read reaction is passive aggressive and not an acknowledgement of someone reading a post 
Hum idk i feel like its similar to expecting a certain type of success from pop artists vs different type of success for let's say, rock/metal artists. You don't expect metal artists to top bbhot100 because they simply don't cater to gp, but you can't say they are unpopular and unsuccessful just because of that either.
But within a genre we can have some objective metric for success.
MassiveKpopFan you do realise that the read reaction is passive aggressive and not an acknowledgement of someone reading a post
I know that and genuinely don't care about what it's popularly used for. It's my way of acknowledgement since why would I post a thumbs up to a question?
Lol, Dummi beat me to it but read.
MassiveKpopFan you do realise that the read reaction is passive aggressive and not an acknowledgement of someone reading a post
LOL, I was gonna say when I saw that...
Maybe we need a neutral one - or a thoughtful reaction. Cause I agree with his take and the thread he linked.
Maybe we need a neutral one - or a thoughtful reaction.
aka an interesting reaction?
aka an interesting reaction?
@paradis MassiveKpopFan I've added a reaction called "insightful" It's a lightbulb... What do you all think?
@paradis MassiveKpopFan I've added a reaction called "insightful" It's a lightbulb... What do you all think?
interesting lol
interesting lol
I know you're going to keep campaigning for your signature reaction, but HONESTLY - you're already a rank! The greed! 
I know you're going to keep campaigning for your signature reaction, but HONESTLY - you're already a rank! The greed!
The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good.
Greed is right.
Greed works.
Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.
Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind.
As someone said, I think it makes sense to look at the trend.
Like, for example. If BTS 'only' sells 1 million album ( which will not happen, I'm just saying ) for their next come back, then it will be seen as a very poor success, FOR THEM. However if Aespa suddenly sells 1 million, then it's incredible and super impressive.
I makes sense to me, something is always 'successful' in comparision to others. If a Olympic champion is constantly number 1 and then drops to number 2, this will be seen as a failure. But if someone who was never on the podium is suddenly number 2, they would be extatic.
yes it makes sense
if a student usually gets 90 in a class then suddenly gets a score in the 70s range this is a poor performance for that student. however, if someone always fails a class then gets a score like 75 that is a big improvement and the student will probably be happy.
There will always be different standards for different people based on their ability and the result of their previous performances.
I'm going to say the problem lies in the wording here. Call a super high achiever a flop cause they got a B+ sounds stupid right?
Sure achievement is relative and I can understand how talk about expectations would be relative as well, but predicting the decline of a group after one single does not hit Melon #1 (or top 10, or top 30, or whatever the expectation was) is as stupid as it is unrealistic.
LOL, I was gonna say when I saw that...
Maybe we need a neutral one - or a thoughtful reaction. Cause I agree with his take and the thread he linked.
Please actually, I try to let people know that I read their posts but a pensive emoji would be nice to have honestly.
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
