Shin and Kim’s article, “Birth, Death, and Resurrection of Group Sound Rock” vastly helps comprehend the ties that connect Korean pop culture to the U.S. military system and the influence the latter established on the former. There is this continuous cycle of back-and-forth, giving and taking between American and Korean systems, which makes me raise questions about contribution and hybridity between the two nations. The geographical roots of Korean rock music is complex. The U.S. military authorities held constant control over Korean musicians, with them even being the final deciders of talent to be deemed worthy (277). This made me think of what Dr. Anderson talked about during our in-class video chat: that when Korean artists go abroad to perform, they need to hone various new skills to be accepted into the American culture sphere, whereas Beyonce, for instance, would never have to put in even a partial of that effort when performing in Asian spaces. This makes me think, even though there is this cycle of America needing Korean-ness to expand their culture to make it more multifaceted and Korea needing Americanness to globalize theirs, why is it that America demands much higher requirements for Korean-ness to enter? As Shin and Kim state, “musical versatility was crucial to the survival of a band playing U.S. military clubs (277).” There’s this need to reform and almost alter for the benefit of the U.S. How is it not the other way around as well, given America too needs the Korean-ness — or has that neediness only sprouted in the current day? Additionally, there was increased cramming to learn hits of the American pop charts: “The  level of competition among the musicians to enter and stay on the camp show circuit was very high (277).” This to me is somewhat hypocritical on the part of Americans because they tend to often create stereotypes deeming Asians as being robotic, whereas it’s these very American spaces (such as the camp shows) that require memorization and extreme competitiveness in order for Koreans to be deemed worthy.

The controlling of the youth was also something I found interesting in this piece. Once the authoritarian Park Chung-Hee regime took control and deemed the “youth culture” as “vulgar,” the regime seemed to have mimicked military regulations: “Men got a free haircut on the spot if their hair was deemed too long. Women’s skirts had to be long enough to cover their knees” (282). This discipline of the body is very much a militarized form of regulation so the influences are almost too obvious. With the survival of decadence, “the go-go revolt was a warning sign that the heavy-handed cultural oppression would eventually backfire” (284). That is similar to Korean pop today and more recently. The bans on censored content and pop were all lifted after Psy’s “Gangnam Style”. The only difference, however, was that that may have come about from a transnational demand rather than a Korean revolt. Hence, going back to my previous question, why is it that American need overpowers Korean need even today (when Kpop does hold such high demand in the western sphere today) and why are regulations for Korean entering more rigorous than American?

Youtube as a channel almost mirrors most, if not all, of what K-pop stands for — the visuality of music. It’s a medium that has contributed to the enhanced popularity of the transnational media culture that was produced in a non-Western nation. With this growing popularity, I understand there are certain aspects to this recognition and desirability that may be a cause of concern.

When the K-pop artists are brought to a western audience and attempted to be made famous in the global market, a variety of actions are taken (Ono & Kwon, 206). Foreign members are introduced to the group, foreign language is taught, and much more. As for the songs, there is the inclusion of more American lyrics, i.e. doing more of what the American audience likes to see, and this may not always be great because in the process, the origin of musical style “loses significance within reciprocal processes of cultural exchange” (203). In contrast, as Dr. Crystal Anderson stressed during class, when Beyonce goes to Korea, she doesn’t put in as much effort; she just performs, hops on a plane and is on her way back to America when finished. Easy access is key here. Given the Korean government had so many restrictions in the past but now has altered those policies and given artists more agency and lesser limitations, K-pop groups are moving more rapidly towards the western sphere and trying to find and fit into the colonial space to reach a global audience. What does it then mean for authenticity and loyalty of K-pop artists to their origin brand? Can it put at risk and increase the possibility of these artists who are now exposed to international fame, money, and recognition, to partially betray their own and strive to appeal more specifically to the American audience over the Korean?

Youtube does indeed have a big part to play in the virality of K-Pop worldwide and the globalization of the culture. As Hyun mentions, “concatenation of cultures, is part of the Korean Wave, a result of globalization processes” (202). The colonial processes then become quite complex and tangled. I find it then fair to agree with Ono & Kwon in that, “..the border between worlding and un-worlding diminishes, or at least, the meanings become more blurred, as possibilities for shifting power relations and social positions emerge” (211).

According to Ono and Kwon, “Unlike traditional media Youtube does not work without “you”, people to upload videos, view them, offer comments, and read those comments” (208). In that way, could we say that Ono and Kwon are somewhat aligned with the ideology Fiske grounds about the cultural industry — of the consumer, i.e. the “you” having more control than the producer? Could Youtube be an example Fiske could use to support his argument? Or, would Adorno still be right in his stance given at the end of the day it still is the producer who’s putting out the content the consumer is allowed to consume? As Spivak stated, this “might be an imperial process of imperially reinscribing imperial culture into the “Third World” contexts in order to legitimize imperial dominance”, however, it has helped. In that case, the current popularity of K-pop culture might really be an example of a hybrid colonial form that both worlds and un-worlds culture.