Clearly a sore spot with the SM kool-aid drinkers.
Quote
What does it matter if they perform it or not?
Mozart wrote music but he didn't play three dozen instruments simultaneously to realise it. That is the nature of composing: It's an externalisation.
Perhaps it's my fault for not elaborating clearly enough, but you've missed the point.
Performing the song doesn't matter, per se, but being the owner of the creative expression does.
So, in our collaborative band example - they collaborate together to make the music for that band or project - but then they also own it. They have to play it on tour, perform it live - big hits they will never escape from. So the group conform the song to their vision of what they want to be as a band, what they are willing to put their name to. They aren't sitting down and just dashing off mediocre songs and then washing their hands of the entire venture, as writers for hire.
Mozart's symphony's just illustrate my point before - he's not performing, but they are his singular vision. He's the one creating the music, and creates it for what he wants the symphony to play. If you pardon the comparison that's much closer to the Soyeon, G Dragon examples - yes they perform but they're writing their songs to the symphony which is their group.
Quote
For groups that have a single producer, does it make their music more authentic to just have that single voice? Why? That producer isn't performing the music either. They're writing it and moving on.
So why does the number influence that at all?
It doesn't with a band.
It actually matters greatly. You are correct in it doesn't absolve them of the factory like crap that SM and Hybe pull (Ryan Jhun is a good example of this), but it means the music and it's understanding does not die a death by a thousand cuts. I think if we talk about Kpop in particular, the most recent example I can think of is Soyeon in her latest album. She creates songs to a specific person and group, and quite honestly isn't afraid of missteps to perform that goal (which comes with it's own share of criticism). But the songs are so quintessential "Idle" in that the b-sides of their first album just never were. Their songs are almost non-adaptable to any other group simply because their written in that way, with Idle and their progress as the backline of the albums and the songs.
You don't get this in the composed by committee. You try to make a comparison about Kendrick (which is way off base again, but i'll go into that further below). The songs are interchangable. The songs can and are shopped around through different groups and artists. The artist performing them doesn't matter - that's not factored into any of these equations until maybe the songs's almost completed. What they are is simply sold off songs by a producer, often foreign, and then the SM producer works his stuff for the sensibility required by the label. The performer is never in the room or even has control over this stuff. It's worked, and reworked again, not to any specific vision, but to the notes the record label provide for what they think will have maximum impact. It's a corporate entity in it's entirety by the end. Their entire songwriter process is bereft of any artistic merit that would be carried by the writer or the performer. They'll dash off their song, do their promos, shifted some albums - great, time for the next song by committee.
I mean if you want a clear example, you can watch the release lives etc, where the artist is struggling to explain what the song means, apart from some vague affirmations.
Quote
Do you have any idea how much people need to work in a single movie? Do you think this undervalue cinema as a form of art? Do you think games aren't a form of art as well? Or at least an inferior artwork, because the vision of the piece is not enough authorial?
This and the Kendrick post fall into the same trap, where you feel my dismissal about the number of songwriters is analogous to collaboration being a bad thing.
I'll respond to both very simply - there's employees and indeed collaborators in movies, and there's definitely a few collaborators in to Pimp a Butterfly. But to also poke holes in your "auteur sucks" theory at the same time - there' still a singular creative vision. In movies, this is the Director. He works with the DoP, Set Design, actors etc, but they are the one who put it together to make the movie what it is, and then work (or sometimes it's themselves) editing it to completion. It's a widespread reason Best Director is one of the most acclaimed awards each year.
For Pimp a Butterfly - Kendrick (credited as Duckworth) is the single vision, he's the one with lead in all songwriting credits, he's the one who's openly discussed how he came to put together the album, how we worked *himself* with these different people for *his* album.
It's so far removed from the world of SM/Hybe (i mean there's more then that, but I just want to use those more prevalent examples) that it's not funny.
Lastly, the purile and juvenile argument of "hur hur all kpop is commercial" is the sign of an moron. Yes, Kpop is commercial, Gold Star. There's plenty of commercial endeavours in the world, but there's still levels of quality and merit in what they produce. SM is the apotheosis of the empty kpop churn that does take up much of the industry, but it doesn't mean it should be accepted or copied (or is indeed the only way to be a Kpop Artist).
Feel free to knock yourselves out over SM all you want, but I think I've responded to the initial case of the SM question, and the attempted glib responses and cavalcade of admonishment is hilarious. There's a level of insecurity here clearly, which is concerning because your identity shouldn't be tied up in this stuff.
