A Muslim musician living in Britain said on Wednesday that two directors at his record label had threatened to resign if he released a new album describing suicide bombers and the West's immorality. The threat means Aki Nawaz, who was born in Pakistan but moved to Britain aged three, would have to distribute "All is War (The Benefits of G-Had)" independently, causing delays of around two weeks.
Nawaz blames the climate of fear in Britain, but I’d be inclined to blame his juvenile naiveté. On his band's Web site All is War is described as "13 tracks of provocation and law breaking". That is hardly what the world need right now.
The voice of protest is one thing, inciting hate and violence to an impressionable audience is totally irresponsible.
He knows he is on thin ice. Here you have a guy who was bought up in the West, which he despises so much, but chooses to stay anyway rather than live where he might feel more at home. But on the issue of naiveté, I think Nawaz expresses it well:
“I have no loyalty to any country and remain defiant that if wrongs are committed then we should speak irrespective of who is the target.
The album is work of very focused and intelligent but emotional attack on how I stand about society in general.
“… I accept any challenge through discussion or debate and hopefully those that question with it will think about their questions before asking rather than exposing their own ignorance.”
He sounds like a troubled young bloke to me, not to mention a wooly thinker. I can understand why his co-directors of the record label he started are not really over the moon about the project.
8 comments:
This is really interesting question. It reminds me a little of pharmcists in the US who refuse to sell contraceptives or morning-after pills.
If the songs do glorify suicide bombers, then I admire the people who resigned for taking a stand at a personal cost. Young, impressionable kids could be misled by such songs. But Nawaz says he doesn't condone suicide attacks, so at this point I don't know what his songs attempt to do.
On the other hand, I grew up in the US in the 50s spending Saturday afternoons at the movies cheering on perfectly-coiffed US soldiers obliterating Japs, Krauts, redskins, and other non-persons. War movies in that era certainly glorified war and, intentionally or not, had an affect on young, impressionable minds.
Well, we have determined that we are of a similar age :)
Yes, when I was a kid in the 50s WWII was still very much alive, with astrocities being glorified.
Oddly enough it was only the uncles et al, who actually fought, who actively taught me to despise aggression as an answer.
I guess my point is that I reject that approach by my own culture, why should I accept it from other cultures.
We constantly speak out against our governments and activists who promote hate. I have a clear consience on this one too.
Another interesting question.
Again you are forcing me to think, Cartledge. Shame on you!
I can see why people are upset about it, but doesn't music usually get an artistic license pass? They are artists, not analysts. Normal people know that.
I mean, haven't we been fighting this battle since the days of Homer (not Simpson)? The concept of a musician or a writer poisoning the minds of the youth?
What about when N.W.A. came out with "F*ck the Police" duing a surge in gange violence and glorified killing cops? There was outcry then. What about when Elvis shook his hips? End of the world.
I guess what I'm saying is that art reflects society. The young are impressed by the message that they inherit from their father's generation. If we do well, we leave a better legacy of tools for our children than the ones that were left for us.
I'm a bit younger, but we used to blow up "the japs" with our army men when we were little until someone explained that we should change the bad guys to the Russians, which of course we did.
The glorification of violence is everywhere, and picking on those who push the envelope does little to stem the tide, but as you say, I can see why they are not "over the moon" about the project.
Another interesting question.
Again you are forcing me to think, Cartledge. Shame on you!
I can see why people are upset about it, but doesn't music usually get an artistic license pass? They are artists, not analysts. Normal people know that.
I mean, haven't we been fighting this battle since the days of Homer (not Simpson)? The concept of a musician or a writer poisoning the minds of the youth?
What about when N.W.A. came out with "F*ck the Police" duing a surge in gange violence and glorified killing cops? There was outcry then. What about when Elvis shook his hips? End of the world.
I guess what I'm saying is that art reflects society. The young are impressed by the message that they inherit from their father's generation. If we do well, we leave a better legacy of tools for our children than the ones that were left for us.
I'm a bit younger, but we used to blow up "the japs" with our army men when we were little until someone explained that we should change the bad guys to the Russians, which of course we did.
The glorification of violence is everywhere, and picking on those who push the envelope does little to stem the tide, but as you say, I can see why they are not "over the moon" about the project.
PT, sorry, I had a storm of activity here and accidently posted you twice.
Okay, lets deal with artistic licence. Like any other activity, should there be a responsibility consequent wit the freedom such licence implies?
Homer of the Iliad and many since, were primarily retellers of tales, not creators of particular positions.
Sure the minstrel might agree with the thrust of suggested violence, but they are not primarily suggesting violence.
Personally I don’t care if it’s historical, biblical or new art, I do not accept any artists right to promote violence, especially indiscriminate violence.
My druthers are that self expression should be allowed free reign, but not when it has the potential to impinge on the rights of everyone else.
I hear you. I'd like to have a listen to the "art" in question. Is with most things, it is difficult to know where to draw the line. As soon as you do, someone puts one toe over it.
I am interested to hear what you think about N.W.A. Should they have been banned?
PT lol, I have to admit total ignorance on NWA. I was sitting here listening to Karl Orff which might show how out of touch I am musically.
But the fact is, I abhor censorship. I don’t advocate banning anything. What I was doing was questioning the motives of the artist.
He says he hates the western ethic, yet chooses to profit from it. Either that, or his work is not art, but propaganda designed to destabilize.
I think discussion and understanding the underlying issues is far more valuable than banning. A pipe dream of course, but we should keep pushing it.
The motivation of the "artist" in this case could be simply misguided folly. Very little planning on his part, although that would be nearly impossible in these pre-packaged-music days. Usually, and as it was inn N.W.A's case, it is a mix of both. The anger was there, but they decided to capitalize on their rage. Also, they were just screwing around, pushing the limits, which a lot of people were doing in the mid-eighties, and are wont to do in any generation.
Anyway, the key line in Niggas With Attitude's "F*** the Police" was....
There is gonna' be a bloodbath, of cops, dying in L.A. yo Red I got somen' to say.
Chorus
It didn't go over too well with Al and Tipper, let me tell you. But the panic from the traditionalists just propelled them into stardom. Besides, as a rap album, it still holds up to this day, so there probably was no stopping it.
I think entertainment is just fantasy. People just need to understand that you can have your fantasy, but there is still right and wrong in real life, and that life is not on television. This notion used to be called common sense but there has been precious little of that around for quite some time. At least in some parts.
Post a Comment