December 6, 2011
Woohoo! Our first time reviewing IU! She’s really different from most of the Kpop idols we’ve reviewed. This week, “You and I” got voted in the most, and so, here’s our review of it. But first, you should probably see the video:
Now, just in case you’re confused as to how IU’s name can be pronounced as “Eww,” pronounce the letter I as in “igloo.” Now pronounce the letter U as in “tutu.” Put them together and you get “Ewwww!” That easy! Sure, it’s probably not what she meant when she got that name, but since when was I a stickler for pronunciation? EWWW IT IS AND EWWW IT WILL ALWAYS BE!
I don’t know: this feels like a whole different genre for us. It’s not bombastic and electronic and sexy and powerful. It sounds, really, like Disney music. Yes. Disney music. That’s the dominant feel that we get. And when you look at the video, it has a Peter Pan kind of vibe to it as well. Not sexy Peter Pan like U-Kiss’ “Neverland”. Just traditional, magical-fragical Peter Pan. And IU, also, doesn’t look like a typical Kpop idol. She’s not marketed for her sexuality (well, not overtly, at least). She has a Disney princess-like face. Yeah. Disney. It’s an aesthetic and approach we’re not really used to in Kpop. It sounds like family friendly music. IU’s marketed as a sweetheart and is doing a great job at filling that role.
Unfortunately, it’s just not our style. We can appreciate it all, though. The video was really pretty and well done, and IU’s got a great voice. Family-friendly…just really isn’t our thing. Not saying that we need to have everyone Bubble Popping all over the place. We’re opposed to over-sexualized Kpop as well. We just need something nestled between Family Channel and Soft Porn.
On another note, we went on a bit of a rant on confusing videos and their explanations by the companies afterwards. Many of the comments we’ve read from people, whenever we interpret a video, read like this: “well, [person involved in making the video] said that the video means this, so you’re wrong. Do your research!” To this way of thinking, we must fully object.
One of the best things we learned from our English degrees is the idea that “the author is dead.” Without getting too nerdy, it basically means that it doesn’t matter what an author says about his work. Once it’s published, your interpretation of the work is just as valid as his, so long as you have the evidence to back up your claims. Intentions are irrelevant. Authors can lie, after all. Also, there’s never really a definitive answer to a work of art’s meaning. Some can be more convincing of others, so long as the author’s intention doesn’t factor into your being convinced.
Nerdy talk over: the point of it all was that this video was really vague, and Loen Entertainment’s explanation of it, though it might make sense, isn’t justified when you look at the video. There’s no evidence in the video of a grandfather having created that boy for IU to be with when she comes of age. The old picture of an old dude is as relevant as old the picture of the baby. Why not assume that the baby made the boy? See what we mean?
Anyhow, we might have seemed like we’re badmouthing the song and video, but we’re really not. These are just tiny issues. IU’s style isn’t really our thing, though we can appreciate it. Kind of like Opera music. If it is your thing, though, make sure you pick it up via iTunes or through the YesAsia button below:
And, lastly, here are this week’s Bloopers. The Princess Penis Face scene went on for a bit too long, but we just couldn’t stop ourselves. Also, I couldn’t get over saying IU’s name:
THERE ARE 40 COMMENTS.
CLICK HERE TO SEE THEM OR ADD YOURS!