WHY KOREAN POP IS NOT A GOOD EXAMPLE OF ‘GOOD MUSIC’

NOTE THAT THIS BLOGPOST IS NOT OUT TO CRITICISE THE HALLYU WAVE OR ANY OF YOUR GROUPS OR BIASES, BUT RATHER TO DISTINGUISH SOME NUANCES OF LANGUAGE WHEN DISCUSSING TOPICS OF THE ARTS AND MUSIC.

It noticeable that many Singaporeans are raging about K-Pop, including JC students. This has inspired them to use K-Pop as their General Paper in their exams. With the decline in J-Pop upon the invention of YouTube and music streaming, K-Pop which embraces these aspects of the modern milieu has since skyrocketed in Singapore and the rest of the world. It is undisputed that K-Pop is POPULAR, but it is not necessarily GOOD MUSIC. I saw a question from RI’s Prelims 2017 ‘To what extent do you agree that there is no such thing as bad art?’ and many students used K-Pop as an example. They were heavily penalised in their essay. Let me explain why in the following:

The Hallyu wave began upon the invention of YouTube in the late 2000s. This was when the early generations of K-Pop such as BoA, TVXQ and G-Dragon started leveraging on this online platform to promote their music and CD album sales. Accompanied by their dynamic and fresh takes of music, K-Pop quickly became a hit INTERNATIONALLY. They overtook the popularity of J-Pop as the trendy Asian country for music due to the Japanese ‘majime’ (serious) perception towards physical sales. Yes, K-Pop is popular. We see groups like NCT127 following the footsteps of Japan in creating sub-groups in others countries, even OUTSIDE of Asia. However, this popularity does not necessarily mean that it is of merit. Just like technology is trendy and popular now, it is not necessarily all good. Why?

Firstly, K-Pop could potentially destroyed the concept of idol and fan. We all know popularity of groups in Korea do not last Long. I’m sorry, it’s a fact that groups like TWICE, RED VELVET and EXO will fade into the shadows, just like Girl’s Generation and SHINee. It’s just the industry. K-Pop emphasises the fact that the music industry could have one with a built-in obsolescence. This is unhealthy, in the very least. Our idols are now tantamount to clothes that could be disposed of when we get bored of them and find ‘better’ ones. It’s difficult to find in K-Pop acts like AKB48, Namie Amuro, Utada Hikaru, Arashi, aiko, ONE OK ROCK, etc. in Japan or Janet Jackson, Mariah Carey, , Michael Learns to Rock, Lady Gaga, Madonna, Elvis Presley in Western countries. Slowly countries are adapting themselves to this trend that K-pop could have caused. Is this considered good?

Secondly, is music profitable now? YES, ChannelNewsAsia just reported BTS as being worth US$3.6 billion a year to South Korea. But is that representative of the Long term? A group’s popularity only is that Long in K-Pop, sadly. That is why Korea will probably not overtake US/UK/Japan in global music shares. All of your biases inevitably face the problem of deciding their post-group career. This is not good to your idols, which are so stressed out by their music careers and have to stress about what they are going to go after their time in the group. Good for the fan, I Guess. At least it is less serious in Japan, I guess which uses the graduation system. There, groups are usually intended more for extra-curricular leisure rather than profits (At least for the 48 groups). More historically, the especially ‘majime’ emphasis of respect for their senpais has enabled J-Pop artists to survive beyond their group years and soar to greater heights. Namie Amuro, for example, has gained all the popularity she otherwise wouldn’t have gotten for her time in the Super Monkeys after going solo in the late 1990s (Still sad she retired this year).

Thirdly, is the CD or photo book more important now? Music is about music right, not about taking the ‘perfect’ group/solo shot and printing it in the photo book? How many K-Pops fans actually understand what is A-Sides/B-Sides, Audio Mastering, Digipak/Jewelcasing...All the terms in the music industry? All these things which influence the quality of music you listen to is now neglected in K-Pop. Even though the US market now emphasises music streaming, people still buy CD albums (not the rectangular K-Pop album where the photo book is larger than the CD sleeve) as they want to collect the works of their idols and favourite artists. Is the music industry turning into one that emphasises beauty than one’s vocal range and authenticity of one’s voice? This direction that K-Pop is encouraging us to move in music is what makes so many people despise K-Pop.

Lastly and most importantly, it is encouraging us to embrace the harms of technology. I think we all remember the drama of Dee Kosh denouncing BTS’s music on Twitter, then declaring it was all part of a social experiment he planned from the start. Though slightly outraged by his methodology (Maybe he could have consulted BIG HIT/JYP first before doing this since he was also sort of a celebrity), it brought out the worst of Singaporeans. People were using their anonymity as netizens to flame Dee Kosh and dancing on his ‘grave’ when he announced that he will shut down his YouTube page due to his emotional trauma. The people that the new generation are transforming into is alarming and ironically I’m part of Generation Z too...

What was supposed to be the next big and great thing of music was accurate for the former, but fell short for the latter. Yes, K-Pop is trendy and catchy and attractive. But it is not all that almighty that you want to write in your GP exams. Remember that most of your markers are not born in that era with K-Pop. They do not identify K-Pop the same as you, but rather another thing that would fade away once the next big thing comes in.

Review of 2018 A Level General Paper

Hi guys! After all this time, I finally am posting after a year! I'm bringing to you my personal opinion of this year's GP paper.

I retook GP this year. Having experienced GP in both 2017 and 2018, I bring some insights into the paper this year.

Paper 1
This year's presented 12 questions that covered a wide range of topics. However, those students that focussed on Science and Environment were stunned over the mixing of these well-loved topics with other unconventional topics like one career and our work-life balance.

This year's MOST popular question was Question 2, which discussed economic growth and its impact on the lives of us. As a student that loved Econs, I would have died to do this topic if it came out for H2 Economics. BUT, I avoided this question at all cost for this paper. I will discuss why...

This question was an obvious TRAP for students. I would not be surprised if students who attempted this question scored mediocrely for GP this year. Why?

1. Cambridge is cognisant of the fact that many students would fall back to what they know most of to attempt their paper. Of course, Econs students (which are the many of us) would love to do this as we have A LOT of examples of this. But remember, General Paper tests your argumentative skills, not your skills to show off your knowledge. You use your knowledge to create your arguments. The knowledge should not be the main attraction of your GP essay. Those students who fell into this trap have forgotten the true purpose of GP.

2. Even if you avoid falling into the trap, you will fall into the trap eventually. That's because your mind has always been programmed to think economically when you see the keywords of Econs. General Paper heavily emphasises you to write in laymen terms. Jargons are frowned upon by the GP markers. It is inevitable that you fall back to using 'demand', 'supply', 'standard of living' when constructing your essay here if you learn Econs.

3. The more preferred way of answering this question is to link it to the concept of 'consumerism' and 'politics and governance', not really economics to avoid you from falling into their trap. Surprise surprise, these topics are not really studied intensively by the majority of students in GP. That's another trap.

Personally, I attempted Question 1 'How far is failure an essential part of success?' This is so cliche, but it would one of those questions that create the most impact if you develop the more mature responses. It should be important that a 'setback' is very different from a 'failure'. Do not fall into this trap. For example, Nick Vujicic's lack of limb can be considered a setback as it is a disadvantage given to him. However, it cannot be considered as nothing has been specified of him not being to do. However, Lego's decline in the sale the past can be considered as a setback as they have been disadvantaged in the process (such as their reputation). Its decline in sale can also be considered a failure as they have been unsuccessful in achieving their goal of profits. Failures are a subset of setback. Failure can be caused by setbacks. A person that has been through a setback may not necessarily fail if he/she has bounced back from it.

Another important note is the term 'part of' in the question. This implies that success is a journey that has many things intermediate to its attainment.

Other questions that I felt that many candidates would find popular:
Question 12: Work-life balance (Our personal well-being in the modern milieu)
Question 11: Foreign Intervention (Should foreign nations help other nations?)
Question 7: Young People (Are we really the 'Strawberry Generation'?)
Question 6: Culture (The worth of tradition and its product today)

All in all, GP Paper 1 requires arguments. Show that you fighting for your stand and answer your question fully. If you achieve that, you are on the right track!

Paper 2
This one was on political apathy. Perhaps candidates don't really follow the political scene in Singapore. That's why so many in Reddit and other social media platforms all lament on the difficulty of the paper. I, for one, think that this paper discriminated students very effectively based on their broadness of understanding world issues.
What discriminated students the most this Paper 2 was the Application Question (AQ). Cambridge quoted a portion of Paragraph 3 and asked candidates whether they agreed with it with reference to Singapore and themselves. Many candidates were confused over they should quote from the passage, as that was the requirement of AQ from past years.
My stand is: YES.
The quote was the actual stand of the author! The first two paragraphs were just giving examples of how young people are actually more interested than they are credited for. The credit was based on their 'voting' habit. So it's basically asking you whether you agree with the author stand. The way you will answer this question was examined in many years of GP, such as 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2015. So many students overthought the question and did not quote. There is always the same standard way to answer the AQ. Just stick to it and answer it based on the topic that the AQ gives you and you can score.
The SAQs were generally do-able and similar to the standards of the past few years. The summary was generally do-able too. It's just that some of the points were hidden in the examples in all three of the paragraphs.

All in all, don't fret too much over GP! This subject is not as important as the other content subjects in determining your placing in a university in Singapore! Even if you fail GP, you can enter university if all your other content subjects can help to pull up your rank points. Come on, last national exam! Finish with a bang!

Cut off Points for JC for JAE 2018

JC	Science	Arts
ASJC	12	12
MTJC	14	13
YIJC	20	20
PJJC	14	17
RI	5	5
HCI	5	5
NJC	8	9
NYJC	7	8
VJC	6	8
CJC	15	14
SAJC	11	12
ACJC	9	10
EJC	10	11
TJC	10	11

Review of H2 Biology (9744) 2017

2017 was the first examination year of the new H2 Science curriculum. The science, which had the most drastic change, was evidently Biology. Having a fall in the percentage of marks for regurgitation from 44% to 32% and a rise in the percentage of marks for application from 36% to 48%, many Biology students (and even teachers) expected the hardest of all Biology papers to be in 2017. However, this was quite the contrary for the 2017 examination.

Look at this calculation:

Firstly, Paper 2 has the removal of the 20m FRQ (Essay Question) and was replaced by investigation questions in Infectious Diseases, Climate Change and every other question. This already contributed to 6% of the fall in marks for regurgitation.

Secondly, Paper 1 was made harder by Cambridge through classifying ALL questions as that of application. That already contributed to the other 6% fall in marks for regurgitation.

ALL IN ALL

Observations from the 2017 Papers

Paper 1 has now become a pure Application Paper. Challenging, but manageable.

Paper 2 and 3 remain the same as that from the previous syllabus (9648), excluding the removal of the FRQ in Paper 2.

Review of Papers

Paper 1
Most striking of all papers. By convention, 6-7 questions will be recycled from the past 10 years of examination papers. However, no questions were recycled for the 2017 examinations. ALL questions required a form of application or comprehension of data, which explains the fall in the percentage of marks for regurgitation to 32% to 44%.

Paper 2
Many excepted Paper 2 to be challenged and to incorporate many Application Questions. However, the standards and style of questioning were similar to that of the previous syllabus. This paper should be easily aced by the students who can give the model explanations as per given by the Lecture Notes in their schools. You should be scoring more than 85 marks out of 100 for this paper if you want to secure an A for Biology. Questions such as the role of islands in enhancing natural selection, the interrelationship between structure and functions of the various biomolecules and the role of the variable region in the IgG molecule should be awarded full credit as this is foundational biological knowledge for the A Level Biology student.

Paper 3
The standard and difficulty of the questions in Paper 3 were similar to that of the previous syllabus. However, one was definitely striking was the pilot use of the stereotypically 'Core' topics (Cell Organelles, Genetics and Inheritance, Physiology and Evolution) into Paper 3 Application Questions. Paper 3 also had Application for Climate Change. The self-definition of terms, such as genetic disease in the first question was striking, but doable, given the diverse explanation that CIE would accept. The FRQ were broad and compromising, with many candidates exceeding the set number of printed foolscap on the Question Paper and answering in additional Answer Paper during the Actual Examinations.
This was a stereotypical Paper 3, which was striking to the extent that it incorporated the stereotypical 'Core' topics.
You should be scoring more than 60 marks out of 75 for this paper to secure an A for Biology.

Paper 4
There is nothing to compare this year's Practical with, as there is no past year Practical to compare upon. It is to note, however, that majority of candidates managed to finish the paper.

Notes to 2018 Candidates
Based on Past Syllabi Changes in both O and A Level, the first year of examination would be the norm and the second year would be the harder standard of the revised syllabus. Expect the unexpected for this year of Biology, but the standards and strictness of marking would still remain the same.
You MUST be able to regurgitate all your facts well for Paper 2, 3 and 4, and score full credit for all questions of pure regurgitation. The key to scoring A for Biology is inevitably your ability to show biological knowledge.