Talk:Kōhaku Uta Gassen

Unappreciative "appreciation"

I'm confused as to how the "Appreciation" section provides sufficient information on Kouhaku. It sounds rather biased against the show, as does some other wording throughout the article. Kamezuki 09:15, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't provide enough info on how to appreciate Kōhaku; anyone's welcome to add more. The wording? Well yes, I think the program is dreck, and I speak as one who's repeatedly had to watch it. It strikes me as a kitschfest in the form of a tarento love-in. Now, this may not be a fair summary (though the majority of people watching the boob tube at this time of year choose some other channel); you are (and anyone else is) very welcome to add an alternative and more positive spin. Incidentally, I do have the experience of half-watching it while knocking back some beers and half-listening to unrelated music and talking (I'm not just imagining it) -- and very amusing it was. (Particularly Sawada Kenji aka Juri, of course.) -- Hoary 09:31, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

More info that could be added

Also, another thing I'd like to add--the PDF file with all the Kouhaku info for anyone who wants to help fill out the table is here: http://www3.nhk.or.jp/kouhaku/rekidai.pdf Kamezuki 09:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Romanization

Romanization of Japanese is of course a real mess. (The typical Japanese person is rather clueless about it.) It seems that Wikipedia uses Hepburn, which subjects Japanese to the idiosyncrasies of English spelling. Hepburn would romanize the first half as kōhaku, which I think is not allowable as an article title. On the other hand there are traditions of following both kana orthography ("kouhaku") and duplication for chōon ("koohaku"). Which would be better here? -- Hoary 09:36, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

I believe that since the official website address spells it as "kouhaku" that that is probably the best way to go. That also seems to be the most common romanization of the word. Kamezuki 09:43, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. I've therefore standardized it accordingly, while leaving in the one "authentic" form at the very start -- which seems to be standard practice in Wikipedia. -- Hoary 10:13, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

"a strictly Japanese affair"

We read that Although Kouhaku is a strictly Japanese affair, foreign artists, particularly from neighboring countries, who have hits popular in Japan can also take part. What then does "a strictly Japanese affair" mean? -- Hoary 03:44, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, now it is Kouhaku is supposed to be a strictly Japanese affair, but I originally wrote that because we all know BoA is not Japanese, Lee-Jung-hyn is not Japanese, even Alfredo Casero is not Japanese. Just as long as a foreign act has a hit in Japan and has the capacity to go, that act is in.-Nanami Kamimura 10:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Yuna Ito

Why was Yuna Ito moved to the JPOP section? She IS in fact a foreign-born and raised artist, from Hawaii USA (I personally know her and her family.) Therefore, she should be listed as such, just like BoA. Groink 03:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yuna Ito may be a foreign-born artist; but she's still has Japanese blood. Those under foreign acts are actual acts from outside Japan and does not include those with Japanese heritage. - 上村七美 03:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

More indepth?

For some reason, the Japanese Wikipedia has alot more Kohaku related stuff (including a breakdown of results and stuff for EVERY YEAR!!). Think maybe we could take the English pages in relation to this event to that level? ViperSnake151 00:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

One nice thing about kana: A lot of information can be jam packed into a single article without becoming really huge. English writing doesn't have that same luxury. I think the article is fine as-is. What I would do instead is translate the individual articles for each of the 57 editions and link to them, rather than trying to jam all the editions into one page. Earlier, I added links to the Japanese Wikipedia articles hoping someone would do this. Organizing it like this is more web-friendly. Groink 07:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

DJ Ozma

So, is anyone up to writing about the DJ Ozma incident while it's still in the news? Lostinube 03:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't write anything. This is supposed to be a general article which encompasses all 57 editions, with no specific stories for each edition. If there was a separate article for the 57th edition, like they do on the Japanese Wikipedia, then I'd write about it. Rather, what I would do is write about it in DJ OZMA's article. Groink 07:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed NHK coyrighted photos. This being the talk page does not allow an editor to bypass the Wikipedia rules. The rules apply to ALL pages on Wikipedia - both articles and talk pages. Groink 02:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be good to have individual pages for each year as you said above but it may take a while for people to translate etc etc. Perhaps if someone were to develop a template or something? And yeah, the incident should go on the DJ Ozma page but there isn't an entry for him right now so that's why I asked. Lostinube 11:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Other shows affecting Kōhaku ratings?

Kōhaku viewership ratings: 30.39 (1st half), 37.39 (2nd half)

There are several contributors out there who believe Kōhaku is losing viewership to other shows. One recent contributor mentioned K-1 stole viewership. While this is statistically true, there are several other statistical factors you must address:

With every passing year, the number of networks grow. When Kōhaku was at its peek in the 1960s, there were less than five TV networks. Today, there are dozens of TV networks competing within the same time slots. Kōhaku's viewership ratings dropping to less than 40-points is a drop in the bucket statistically. I've put together a list of shows on the other TV networks that competed with the 57th edition. (All times are Japan Standard Time, and within the time period Kouhaku was on the air):

NTV

• 18:00 - 21:00 Omisoka Gentei! Izumi Pinko Weekender <rating not published>
• 21:00 - 24:15 Downtown no Gaki no Tsukai Yaarahende - 10.2

TBS

• 18:00 - 23:34 K-1 PREMIUM Dynamite! - 16.3 (1) / 19.9 (2) / 10.1 (3)

Fuji TV

• 19:00 - 21:00 Hosoki Kazuko no Nippon no Omisoka - 10.3
• 21:00 - 23:00 ALL JAPAN Medalist on Ice 2006 - 9.9
• 23:00 - 23:45 Saikyoun Geinojin Ketteisen 2006 - 9.9

TV Asahi

• 18:00 - 19:54 Doraemon SP - <rating not published>
• 20:00 - 23:00 Beat Takeshi's TV Tackle - 5.3
• 23:00 - 25:30 <no rating>

TV Tokyo

• 17:00 - 21:30 39th Annual Toshiwasure Nippon no Uta - 9.3
• 21:30 - 23:30 Gaia New Year's Eve SP <rating not published>
• 23:30 - 24:45 Tokyu JIRUBESUTA Concert <rating not published>

All viewership ratings are from Video Research, Ltd., and they represent only the Kanto region. Although some of the numbers aren't currently published, the pattern does show that most viewers will leave their TV selected to a certain channel for the whole duration. Also, notice that there are no other live musical events occuring during these time periods (Toshiwasure is tape-delayed.) So if a viewer likes Japanese pop music, Kōhaku was really their only choice. Spin the numbers however way you want. But still, Kōhaku creamed K-1. Groink 22:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.videor.co.jp/data/ratedata/program/01kouhaku.htm The strange thing is that the Kohaku had less "must see" TV for the 57th than before as both PRIDE and the Record Taisho were not broadcast at the same time (PRIDE was pay-per-view and the Taisho was broadcast before the 31st) whereas in the past few years they were direct competitors. Yet the Kohaku still had a ratings drop. Also, there may be dozens of networks if you include cable/satellite and BS but standard TV (including chi-digi) still only relies on the same basic group of TBS/Fuji/TV Tokyo/Asahi/NTV. Lostinube 02:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the number will continue to drop for the following reason. With today's approach to publicity, you no longer need to wait until New Year's Eve to see your favorite artists. Every single act on Kōhaku has been seen time and time again through 2006. Back in the early days, you didn't have that "in your face" publicity like today where you see Koda Kumi and Matsuura Aya every hour of the day. Imagine if you saw Yamaguchi Momoe every day in CMs, in PVs, on MUSIC STATION, on HEY!HEY!HEY, etc. By the time you see her on Kōhaku, you'd be sick of her already. and I think many fans are starting to feel this way. So basically, in a strange and ironic way, all the music shows throughout all of 2006 competed with Kōhaku Even the enka music is suffering; I'm a huge fan of NHK Kayo Concert, and I watch it every week. So by the time Kōhaku came around, I've seen everything already, and none - I mean NONE of the acts were kicked up a notch. Well, take that back... The annual dual betwen Kenichi and Sachiko is something to look forward to. But other than that, Kōhaku is just simply a revue of the past year. Groink 04:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, for someone watching the show in Japan, that's a big deal. But for someone who watches it from outside Japan through NHK World Premium, who cares? Its only competition here in South East Asia is the music channels. The NHK Kouhaku is the only other Japanese program I can't watch to watch every year except for anime. Just voicing out my opinion. - 上村七美 | talk 10:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion on "Notables" listings

The problem with a "notables" list is that people define notable differently. IMO, the title of "notable" should be given only if the artist or group that has been recognized by the geinokai for his/her/its contribution to the geinokai for an X amount of time. Other people may define notable as just someone who's famous. But the problem with being famous alone is timely. For example, Yuna Ito made only one appearance on Kōhaku so far. She may be famous right now, but what about ten years from now? What if in ten years she made only one appearance on Kōhaku? Would she be notable then? Of course not! The notable lists should be timeless, where the person or artist can be defined as notable years from now, and not just notable today. That goes against the structure of an encyclopedia. I'd like to make a suggestion: so that these lists don't end up listing one-hit wonders, there should be a criterion placed on it where for an artist or group to be considered "notable" in the eyes of this article, they should have made an appearance on Kōhaku at least two or three times before consideration. I think that length of time is fair. If I don't hear any objections soon, I'll start cleaning the lists up. Groink 01:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead. I suggest the notables who appeared in the last four to six editions will be fine, but it is still up to you. After all, what I'm worried about more is the foreign acts lists, because I know it is the complete list, according to my source. - 上村七美 | talk 15:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nanami, around five or so appearances should be considered notable. Two or three feels a bit short. Two would mean WaT makes the list and right now I wouldn't say that they are the fast track to long-lasting success. A longer amount of time (say ten years) would probably preclude a lot of notable pop acts. And I don't think we should only go by the last decade or so but to anyone who has had a notable run over the time the kohaku has been on the air. Lostinube 19:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've went ahead and started the re-write of the lists. I've so far researched from the 50th to the 57th events, and then spot-checked some of the earlier shows. The list is obviously incomplete, but I think it is a start in the right direction. Groink 07:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Change in foreign acts listing

I've also changed the criteria for the foreign act list. I've written the criteria in the article; I felt that the term foreign was very unclear in the article, and the resulting list wasn't at all useful. Instead of focusing on the person's race (Japanese or non-Japanese), foreign acts should be defined by their country of origin. By re-structuring it this way, a person of Japanese race can still be considered as a foreign act if he/she is not a Japanese national (ex: Yuna Ito). Groink 07:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Creation of 57th event article

For the past week or so, I've been translating the Japanese Wikipedia article. Please look over it and let me know via this talk page what you think. Please don't make edits to the page just yet seeing it resides on my User page. Thanks! Groink 07:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've went ahead and released the article to the English Wikipedia. Edit away! Most of the content was translated from the Japanese Wikipedia's article, so citing may be missing in several places (the Japanese Wikipedia is not so strict on citing.) Groink 08:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

TOKIO or Tokio

Having TOKIO all in caps is the official naming convention of the Johnny's Jimusho entity. For proof, check out the Japanese Wikipedia article. Now, someone brought up the idea that English Wikipedia does not obey the marketing wording of company names, products, and other names, citing WP:NC and WP:MOSTM. Just to cover my rear regarding this matter, WP:NC and WP:MOSTM pertains only to the naming of the the namespace, and not the nomenclature used in the wikilink itself within an article. [[Tokio (band)]] is actually correct when those two policies are applied. However, I can place any nomenclature into the wikilink I want, using the pipe character (|). So I can basically do [[Tokio (band)|TOKIO]], [[Tokio (band)|This band is really cool]], etc. If you need examples, check out iPod. The wikilink itself must be [[IPod]] by policy, but there are literally thousands of references within English Wikipedia itself that contains [[IPod|iPod]]. Although Wikipedia says that inclusion is not a valid method of argument over matters like these, it is very clear that by inclusion in this case - especially the inclusion of a product that is so mainstream in Western popular culture - my interpretation of these guidelines are correct. Groink 06:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

58th Line-up Released

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/kouhaku/syutuen/index.html

There is a placeholder page for the 58th but I'll leave it for the people who did the 57th one to handle that one as well. Just wanted to give people a heads up. Lostinube 10:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

verification of Mina Aoe appearance needed

Please refer to the external link given in User:C S/Mina Aoe. That seems to say she appeared on this show 18 times. Please confirm and add her name to the list in the article if correct. I would guess from looking at this article that 18 appearances is pretty significant, especially given her era. --C S (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, she made 18 appearances (17th, 19th-34th, 41st). Is she pop or enka? Groink (talk) 10:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! She's enka, but I see you figured it out. --C S (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ayumi Hamasaki

I've just now verified that she indeed appear in only 10 events - which she has done in consecutive years since the 50th event (50th - 59th.) Groink (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Angela Aki

Hello! Thanks go to the maintainers of this article for what evidently has been a lot of hard work, keeping up with the yearly music competition. My edit removing Angela from the list of "non-Asian" music acts has been reverted, stating that while her "country of origin" is Japan, she may not have been born there, and that I should compare with Yuna Ito. I am doing the edit again, and I'd like to explain why. As much as this may seem obvious to me :), I don't want to provoke an edit war or misunderstanding, so I hope that this is enough to justify.

• She was indeed born in Japan. The Japan Times. (second paragraph)
• We should stick to what the list criteria says. Even if she hadn't been born in Japan, the article stating she is "from Japan" should be enough, since the list of non-Asians says: "Below is a list of artists or groups who have done so, categorized based on the country of origin (Asian or non-Asian)." If her country of origin is acknowledged to be Japan, she doesn't belong on that list. If the list were dependent on being 100% Japanese blood, then fine, she can go on, but then we'd have to change that criteria. (Groink, I guess you wrote that criteria...thoughts?)
  • For what it's worth, I'm sure most of you know this already but in case not, Japanese nationality law, unlike American law, depends more on the nationality of the parents and less on the location of the birth.
• Yuna Ito did not grow up in Japan; Angela Aki did. Proving Aki is not Japanese would be similar to proving Yuna is not American (with the caveat that place of birth is less important, making it even more difficult to prove Aki non-Japanese)
  • Groink - That's really cool you know Ito personally!

I'd like to add too (not a rationale, just a comment, and I'm sure you're fully aware of this as well) that biracial people have enough trouble as it is being acknowledged as belonging to one or another country. That's part of what motivates her whole career is that struggle of identity. Japan may be a country where people look at you and assume you're not Japanese based on your physical appearance but the law says differently. Anyway, if you have further concerns please talk here and we'll sort them out (hopefully :) ) Thanks again -- Joren (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as Aki was born in Japan, she should not be considered a gaijin. The reason I brought up Ito Yuna's article is that she was "born" in CA, but "origin" was in Hawaii. When Aki's origin was listed as Japan, I thought maybe she was born elsewhere. If it hasn't been changed already, someone should edit Aki's article and make it clearer that she was born in Japan, and not to even bother with the origin if the two are one in the same. Groink (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, ok, I see what you were getting at with Ito Yuna. Re: editing the article - that's a great idea. I'm gonna go do that now. Thanks! Joren (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind; looks like you beat me to it :) Joren (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of "Notable foreign competitors" section

This section has nothing to do with "race". The section is in regards to "nationality." Don't get the two mixed up. Yuna Ito is not Japanese by nationality, as she is a U.S citizen, and still needs a green card to work in Japan. Hikaru Utada is different - she's Japanese by nationality, since she earned her Japan citizenship. Groink (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

62nd Kohaku article

It would be excellent if someone with interest and a good knowledge of Japanese could already commence the article for the 62nd Kohaku, especially what is available about the acts. That information is available here http://www9.nhk.or.jp/kouhaku/artists/index.html with NHK's main page about the event here http://www9.nhk.or.jp/kouhaku/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.143.21 (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Reminder regarding sources, and foreign acts listing

I guess I need to remind all editors about Wikipedia's policy regarding sources. Except for a few like User:Nanami Kamimura, the last few edits regarding the 62nd edition are based on his/her personal experience watching the event. This is a total no-no! You watching the program and then reporting on it - you're considered a primary source. Primary sources are forbidden on Wikipedia. The only information that is allowed in this article are those that come from secondary sources, such as the NHK web site, and trusted geinokai news sites. For example, we're noticing issues with people trying to increase the count of appearances for certain artists. This article reflects the official NHK listing. Many times, we've found that, for example, two solo artists coming together do not count for their personal appearance count, and only NHK decides on this. Another issue is listing artists/groups in the foreign competitor section. To be listed, the artist/group must represent 100-percent of the performance. For example, although JKT48 is a foreign act, the fact that they collaborated with AKB48 disqualifies this group from being listed. And, the artist/group must be part of the competition itself, which basically eliminates Lady Gaga from being listed. Hope this helps (re)define things. Groink (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This seems like an over-literal reading of Wikipedia rules on sources. Also, there isn't any particular reason to exclude non-competing appearances from the article, this is not really justified except that it's a preference of one editor or another. JoshuSasori (talk) 11:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Notable Acts

I think there is to many notable acts to really be considered notable. Maybe we should up the minimum to above 7? Personally I think above 9 is when it is really considered notable but above 7 would at least make the list much smaller. It seems pretty common to be invited 5 or 6 times but I think once you get above 9 it's something special. DSQ (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

When looking at the number 5, you have to consider the amount from several angles. Kouhaku is 50 years old. So, for any one person/group to appear five times out of fifty is quite notable, considering that the life span of an average person/group in the geinokai is much shorter than in the west. Also, we're not worried about the length of the list. Again, this list spans 50 years, so naturally the list should be long. Looking at the list, every person/group listed is quite notable. And, you can't just look at the 50 years as one big pie; each slice is an entire generation, and comparing a person/group who made only five appearances to others in other generations is just so wrong. For example, if you were to leave out Kome Kome Club, that would be a total injustice because although they haven't appeared since the 1980s, they did in fact make a huge impact in the geinokai during its reign. Same thing with X Japan, and may others who fall between the five and your suggested nine minimum. Leaving out Linda Yamamoto - wow, that would be huge! In short, keep it at five. Groink (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I did consider the fact that this is a long running show however my concern is there is a difference between 'numerous' and 'notable'. Many groups that have influenced the music industry in ways that have lasted for ever can't be included because they were not invited so to include an artist just because they were influential is erroneous, this isn't an article about the Japanese Music Industry but just about Kohaku. The artist included should be notable to Kohaku alone. Five years is a long time but ten years is truly a generation of viewers. DSQ (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's play along with your premiss. Exactly how can someone become "notable" in a four-hour show? You cannot. "Notable" is defined as "the state or quality of being eminent or worthy of notice." You're basically saying that an awards show makes someone notable, and not the other way around. Being in Kouhaku is a reflection of the the person/group's contribution to the geinokai, and Kouhaku is a reward for that contribution. Maybe you don't understand the premiss of Kouhaku in the first place: it is one night that is given as a gift of appreciation by NHK to a very select group of people in the geinokai for that year to present their talent to the largest viewing audience in Japan. Kouhaku does NOT make them "notable." They're notable in the geinokai, therefore they're in Kouhaku. And, the list therefore reflects their notability in the geinokai, and not in Kouhaku. The number five was carefully selected a few years ago, as the number allowed for just about everyone who is notable in the geinokai to be in the list. And, that number has worked out ever since. Again, treat Kouhaku for what it is, and not make it out into something it isn't. Groink (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say being invited to Kohaku makes someone intrinsically notable but that an artists number of performances should be, for lack of a better term, notable and with over 40 artists now on 'over 5 performances' the list it makes the achievement less worthy of notice. To put it plainly if everyone is special, no-one is. Plus if we go by your logic ("the list therefore reflects their notability in the geinokai, and not in Kouhaku.") every artist invited to Kohaku should be listed as a notable artist on the page or the list should be moved to the Geinokai page. I'm not trying to make Kohaku something it's not, but I am trying to make an already long article more concise. When readers who are unacquainted with Kohaku come to this Wikipedia page they will see the section called "Notable Artist" and assume that that means notable to Kohaku not to the Japanese Entertainment Industry at large and I think it makes more sense to cater to that expectation.

As you said just by being invited to Kohaku they have already proved they have made a mark on the industry but that should be noted on their personal page or on a "Full List of Kōhaku Uta Gassen Performers" page. On the main page of a article called Kōhaku Uta Gassen the notable performers should be being noted for their above average contribution to the show's broadcast history. DSQ (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Simple fix - I basically re-worded the paragraph and section on the article to reflect that the list reflects the acts' contributions to the geinokai, and not Kouhaku. Groink (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You're kind of missing the point but I guess I give up. DSQ (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Why are Aimer, Aimyon, Gen Hoshino, Milet, Misia, Saucy Dog, and Vaundy listed under Enka? Aren't they all pop/rock/contemporary artists? And is Uta the character in the One Piece film whose music was sung by Ado? Davidimai (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

1st. - 56th events articles

Can someone do the articles from the first to the 56th events articles, i don't have time and patience to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lgcsmasamiya (talk • contribs) 02:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Infobox error

The infobox says it's been airing in 8k since 2005, this is clearly wrong. 80.0.45.128 (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, it turns out they have been recording it in 4340p since 2005 80.0.45.128 (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Michiya Mihashi

Why was his name not included among the performers? 32.132.12.210 (talk) 09:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Yukio Hashi

Why was his name not included among the performers? 32.132.12.210 (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Also KAZUO FUNAKI was not included. 32.132.12.210 (talk) 06:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Misamo

Shouldn't Misamo be listed under Japanese artists, seeing that all three members are Japanese? Sure they are a part of Twice, which is no doubt KPop. Is it because they became famous through KPop first? Funnyabc1 (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)