Excuse me while I vomit. That was totally purile attention seeking behavior on their part.

That was totally purile attention seeking behavior on their part.

But they are angry rockers AND they called bullshit on CNN. Isn't that what it takes to break into the industry? ;)

Oh. Wow. This is messed up.

The thing is, it's not messed up in a way that I think I'd label artistic. It shocks me, but it doesn't shock me into contemplation or thoughtful reflection about its message -- because there doesn't seem to be a message. And I generally believe that art makes a statement, insofar as it causes you to question your assumptions about some particular aspect of the world.

I suppose I could argue that this video makes me question my assumptions about how acts of terror are perceived by Falak's fans (ie, that such a popular band could release this video with confidence that it would make an impact positive for their careers suggests something kind of awful to me), but I don't think that line of questioning leads me in any productive direction, because I can't believe that this video can be extrapolated as accurate evidence of most people's sensibilities. I think it's pretty clear that this video is glamorizing the main character -- as a tragic figure, who looks quite pretty as he strides about and agonizes to the exciting soundtrack -- and I guess I don't want to believe that this is something most people would be comfortable, or ethically okay, with seeing glamorized. I find it especially unsettling when I speculate about the band's target audience, which I conjure based on the style of the music, mostly -- I assume they're cosmopolitan, and relatively affluent insofar as this style of music isn't easy to listen to unless you've listened to a lot of contemporary rock, which I expect is neither cheap nor widely bootlegged in Pakistan (save via the internet).

But maybe Falak's main audience is in the diaspora. And there, again, I wonder: who's watching this and thinking it's okay?

And then, back to the art question: art doesn't have to be "okay" or easy or comfortable (even in the ethical sense), but for art to push such boundaries, doesn't it also have to offer something of value? Obviously, value being subjective, I have to ask: am I the only person who doesn't see any value in this other than shock-value?

Well I dont find anything wrong with the video as such, may be it is me. There is one guy who is involved in the attacks and the camera kind of follows what he did that day. Now what more is to be understood from it ? I have no clue.

Does this video give justice to their music ? this is again something which is very subjective.

Yes people do use a lot of different things to get attention. Here I see a group getting attention. I dont exactly find it distasteful since not much was shown in it any ways.

The Banality of Evil

That's disgusting, it's almost like glorifying the atrocious act. I know I sound like I'm getting overly excited for nothing but a lot of people out there are very vulnerable. Take Kimveer Gill. They see some awful things like the Columbine massacre being glorified via games/music and then go out and repeat it. Heck the only reason terrorism exists is because of these vulnerable beings that are manipulated by some charismatic leader.

Freedom of speech is balanced by respect, otherwise racist people would be allowed to make comments and get away with it. I wouldn't want to see a videoclip about the Amritsar massacre from General Dyer's perspective. I'm sure those affected by the recent events feel the same way about this clip.

Yes people do use a lot of different things to get attention. Here I see a group getting attention. I dont exactly find it distasteful since not much was shown in it any ways.

But that's the tricky thing about film/video as a medium: by virtue of its framing, by virtue of the soundtrack, by virtue of the fact that

the camera cares to linger on him in service to a glam rock band's music,

Yeah, I give it two thumbs way down.

Well I dont find anything wrong with the video as such, may be it is me. There is one guy who is involved in the attacks and the camera kind of follows what he did that day. Now what more is to be understood from it ? I have no clue.

This is a ripoff of the video of Prodigys 'smack my bitch up'...sad...it could be a cool video, only if it was made maybe 10 yrs ago...

There is NO art in murdering innocent people.
You cannot glorify a painful event like 9/11 by putting out an emotionally charged video.

It’s a bit scandalous for North American television though….so don’t really know when you can expect to see it here….maybe when these fascist pigs try exercising real freedom of speech

When I think of people "exercising real freedom of speech" Pakistan is the first country that comes to mind.

The music sounds like the rip off of the late 80's metal band Dokken. And that is not a good thing.

I'm glad to see this video was banned in Pakistan.

haha...a stupid montage of angled shots that make no sense visually as well as with the lyrics of the song. Even the artistic {stupid here} point they are trying to make is completely senseless. a dude missing his girlfriend, is depressed and out of his anger towards his life he smashes into WTC. WTF!! seriously. art is not found in this one. in no way.

Lame. Excuse me while I go vomit.

Like Simran said, it's art with no message. The video could have been done, using the same topic in a far more revolutionary artful way. Instead, the video comes off shallow, and the music kind of sucked too.

I'm with Simran on this. Completely puerile, and also, incredibly disappointing. As folks say (re: free speech), with great privilege comes great responsibility. This video is dehumanizing, irresponsible, and edges on the depraved... and not in a "oh that's just metal" way.

the music sucks.
the video sucks even more.

I was put off by the 80s Van-Halen-loving-desi-boy "I'm a rock star" music and obvious BS imagery in the first 15 seconds, and after that it was just like "oh, come ON" - I mean, of all the childish, obvious, stupid ways to "rebel." They look like a bunch of self-indulgent brats who can't be bothered with originality. I'd call CNN "art" first. Stupid asses.

Yet I don't believe in censorship, and I don't think even this sort of nonsense should be banned. In fact it's so obviously childish and stupid that it would be better to have it out there so people can laugh at it.

WTF!

not pleasant. felt queasy.

also, are they brown garden or wut?

hmmm.... perhaps the 'message' is that the extremism/militantism/whateverism that leads to terrorism is sometimes (often?) unrelated to religion. The guys parties, drinks, has a girl, but is somehow persuaded to become a suicide bomber. It suggests that Islam (which prohibits those things) had little to it. Which, I think, is a valid and worthwhile point.

PS: Some may write me off as a lefthanded apologist for all things Muslim (it's usually a fair critique), but I am Bangaldeshi first, so my semi-treasonous defense of Pakis in this instance should compensate for my admitted biases. =)

If they were ever to remake Spinal Tap with a bunch of clueless upper class posturing Pakistani rich kids, living off their mummy and daddy's money, this band would be the bunch of witless clowns around whom we could base our laughter. Have you read the pompous speeches on their myspace? Hilarious!

In the meanwhile, doesnt Karachi have a major problem with suicide bombing and terrorism? Let's see if they have the guts to make a video out of a terrorist attack occuring in Pakistan, I mean if it's all about random acts of murderous violence, why the fear of explaining / contextualising / romanticising bodies blown to scraps of meat on the streets of Karachi? Hmmmm...gosh I wonder why they won't have the balls to do that.

I was put off by the 80s Van-Halen-loving-desi-boy "I'm a rock star" music

Yeah -- it's like that's more offensive than the video.

The guys parties, drinks, has a girl, but is somehow persuaded to become a suicide bomber. It suggests that Islam (which prohibits those things) had little to it.

Espressa - yeah, and the words go on about how the moron can't live without his girl, etc. But that's just so cliche - the young man disappointed in love, angry with his father, alienated, blah blah, goes and does something violent. Honestly it's just plain lousy art, and that's why MTV shouldn't be airing it, even if it's too stupid (as opposed to "dangerous") to ban, really.

You can't claim X is stupid because its not Y. Maybe they're still looking for someone to do the shadow dancing for Y. Similarly, suggesting non-Z is not equivalent to citing randomness.

All that aside, yeah their site is.....amusing.

You can't claim X is stupid because its not Y. Maybe they're still looking for someone to do the shadow dancing for Y. Similarly, suggesting non-Z is not equivalent to citing randomness.

Mayday, mayday. We need a transitive property to ascertain the quality of the commlink. Repeat, we need a transitive property.

SP -- I'm not saying it deserves adulation, just that I think they did have a message --- that maybe Islam isn't the root cause of all terrorism. This is a message I feel justified to sympathize with, so I highlight it here. Duuuhhh, I'd prefer it done with a modicum of tact. Let's fault them (heavily) for execution rather than (complete) lack of vision.

OK, I'd be willing to believe that was their message. There's an awful lot of glamorisation of our majnoo here, though.

SP -- I totally agree. It is far too sensitive a topic to treat in such a brusque manner. Incidentally, what are your thoughts on Paradise Now ? and the Pakis in Syriana ? I thought both were masterfully done...

...was my 25 not clear? It was in response to 22. To translate: X is the actual video, Y is "a video out of a terrorist attack occuring in Pakistan" (from 22), Z is islam, non-Z is my contention that the cause isn't Islam. 22 seemed to suggest that excusing Islam suggests "it's all about random acts of murderous violence." or did I miss a joke? That happens a lot.....

Never did see Syriana, but thought Paradise Now was brilliant, and fairly consistent with the testimonies and studies of militants of that kind (of which there are remarkably few, most people being content with grand psychoanalytical or alienation theories).

and the Pakis in Syriana

You remind of AO Scott's review of the film where finishes with a lovely zinger,

...There are too many fine supporting performances to list...A movie this crowded and wide-ranging - the number of speaking parts seems to be exceeded only by the variety of locations - inevitably resorts to various kinds of shorthand. The secondary characters tend to be stock figures. When a character is shown working in his garden and then, later, swirling brandy in a snifter, you know he is a bad guy. A man who shoots billiards in the middle of the day can be counted on to be feckless and self-indulgent, and anyone who makes a high-minded speech on the virtues of free-market capitalism might as well have "fall guy" tattooed on his forehead.

Hilarious.

...was my 25 not clear?

It's all clear now- I was confused by non-z. Franks.

Read the comedy screed on their myspace and you get the sense that their point is very simple -- America, which represents the capitalist satan in its purest form, is a fascist state, and 9/11 was an understandable and justified response to fascist oppressors. In common English parlance I call this comedy Van Halen heavy metal clowns a bunch of first class wankers.

22 seemed to suggest that excusing Islam suggests "it's all about random acts of murderous violence." or did I miss a joke? That happens a lot.....

Actually that would be more to do with their fear of alienating their core audience ---- make a video justifying the slaughter of innocents in a terrorist attack in Karachi instead of New York (hey! buff dude with model looks got pissed off and blew up the WTC --- and CNN are fascist pigs! We're so dangerous.....) and they would most likely lose their audience amongst the half-wits who are excited by their pompous rhetoric -- so they're gutless as much as they are clueless.

In the meantime, prepare for a Spinal Tap moment, this is from a review of the band taken from their myspace:

"'[The Falak song] Pukaar' is a moody metal epic delivering the punch of a ten ton hammer, before tapering off with a guitar and vocal melody surely written with audiences of lighter swaying arenas in mind. If this show is any indication, then its time for Falak to change the watered down rock of our times.The world is waiting and so is a fanatic audience, clearly bludgeoned into submission tonight."

Hilarious! 'moody metal epic'! 'change the watered down rock of our times'! This stuff is real! He's being serious! He actually means it!

Its the cheapest form of art. The video isnt that creative either.

Erm, how do I say something I want to, without appearing to thread-jack? Oh, oh, Idea!
I think the guy in the video looks like Ravi Bopara. Like Red Snapper had predicted, he has been picked for the England World Cup Squad. So, two Desis in the team then, nice! And who will be SM's Cricket Correspondent for the World Cup?

Sorry it's just the Emperor's New Clothes aspect of it all, you know, the intellectual decrepitude, the posturing, the hilarious pomposity of their 'manifesto' and music (I mean, it's like smooth jazz Kenny G heavy metal and they honestly think they're dangerous or something) --- it's actually very funny to see such cluelessness and such a lack of self-awareness. It would be harmless as all such things are but for their pomposity and especially for the idiocy of the video, they deserve to be laughed at.

So, two Desis in the team then, nice! And who will be SM's Cricket Correspondent for the World Cup?

Three desis! Sajid Mahmood, cousin of Olympic silver medal winning boxer Amir Khan is also repping brown England.

So, two Desis in the team then, nice! And who will be SM's Cricket Correspondent for the World Cup?

Please god, please sink Australia into the Indian Ocean.

So, two Desis in the team then, nice! And who will be SM's Cricket Correspondent for the World Cup?

I think we decided that ANNA is going to be the main correspondent. Personally I think a live thread for each major match will be fun.

"Please god, please sink Australia into the Indian Ocean."

:) i think south africa and sri lanka (and maybe West Indies with the home advantage) have the biggest chance of that. plus those pesky australians have now come out with a cooler uniform than their previous bright yellow one. here's hoping they'll be more style than substance but not holding my breath.

"Personally I think a live thread for each major match will be fun."

second that.

The official World Cup site is up has schedules and everything

Art requires at least some effort at creativity. There is nothing creative about the song or the video. The video is a pure publicity stunt and the music is totally devoid of originality. That said, censorship is not something that should be taken lightly. I would be against the government banning this video, but I would have no problem with any video channel's refusal to air it because it lacks any taste whatsoever. Yet another example of angry suburban boys who are in desperate need of something productive to do with their time.

There will be those people offended at the supposed glorification of a suicide bomber. And there will be those people offended at the decadent behaviour of a brown dude (Dancing! Drinking! Vomiting!). And then there will be people offended by the Chad Kroeger-ish rock. I don't really know my American sport, but does that make it a triple threat of offence?

"not creative" and "desi" are synonymous!

Yes there are exception's, but when there are over a billion desis's in the world and you can find 2 that are creative that basically means "not creative. "

ok, I'm not gonna go buy their album but, gosh, you guys are almost fascist with your definition of art. Since when is "art" required to be "good"? And since when are "art" and "incitement" mutually exclusive? And when haven't kids done silly things?

How is it "fascist" to call lousy pretentious cliches "bad art" and "not creative"? Are we required to take anything that pretends to be "art" seriously?

you guys are almost fascist with your definition of art.

They probably watch CNN and are American!

Since when is "art" required to be "good"?

Who said it did?

And since when are "art" and "incitement" mutually exclusive?

Who said it couldnt be?

And when haven't kids done silly things?

And when havent silly people been called for their silly things?

umm ... wtf are these guys advocating?

Espressa is right.

It's one thing to adjudge between what's creative and what's not, it's quite another thing to say, "I don't agree with the message therefore it's not art." The F-word gets thrown around a lot, but disqualifying art from being so considered solely for ideological reasons is exactly what the fascists were good at.

The problem in this post starts with Abhi's title--"art or incitement" is a false binary--and a worrying number of the comments thus far have followed suit.

The official World Cup site is up has schedules and everything

It's one thing to adjudge between what's creative and what's not, it's quite another thing to say, "I don't agree with the message therefore it's not art." The problem in this post starts with Abhi's title--"art or incitement" is a false binary--and a worrying number of the comments thus far have followed suit.

Wow - the strawmen are out in force today!

I think Abhi is probably guilty of clumsy wording rather than any propensity to 'fascist' ideological denigration of any 'art' that does not concur with his worldview, and that's just me being generous to the accusation made here.

espressa presents a strawman fallacy (criticism of these musician's ideology) with a generalised 'fascist' assault on the very definition of art itself. Which is really innacurate and hysterical.

You should be excited. Your boys slayed the Oz monster. Finally. Who knew.

I want England and Australia in the final. Bopara gets a century, Monty gets 5 for 39, and Mahmood takes a couple too.

Red Snapper,

I hope it's clear that I'm not taking issue with the (quite obviously justified) criticism of this video as a work of art.

However I do object to those who say (as several have said here) "it's not art, it's incitement." No strawman there: that way of talking has something in common with fascist cultural policies.

If you say "it's not art" I want to know what you mean by that, and if what you mean is that it's incitement, it's puerile, it's lame, or whatever, and therefore it's not art, then that's a belief that needs interrogating.

However I do object to those who say (as several have said here) "it's not art, it's incitement." No strawman there: that way of talking has something in common with fascist cultural policies.

Who has said that? I mean, seriously, who has said it in those terms? Name names.

Simran's posts at the top of the thread seem to me to be a consideration of these issues, she asks these questions, and she asks them out loud which is a good thing --- but to suggest that it is a fascist impulse seems hysterical and out of perspective. Debating the moral dimension of your reaction to a piece of asinine crap is not the same as rounding up the brownshirts to give artists you don't like or disagree with a jackboot in the face.

DUDE. No one presented ANY issue with criticism ---- only with a self-proclaimed right to 'define' art (and, really, anything subjective). Sure, I'll accept that Abhi's not a fascist, just a klutz... or maybe an incredibly clever fellow who asked a terriffic trick question! :)

And take note: Mr Kobayashi has never *ever* agreed with me before. I like this new thing we've got, MK.... happy valentine's day

you guys are almost fascist with your definition of art.

Apart from Abhi's post I don't see anyone here who tried to define in a self-proclaiming manner what is and what isnt art on the basis of this particular Spinal Tap video.

'Fascist' gets thrown around a lot these days.

Who has said that? I mean, seriously, who has said it in those terms? Name names.

Abhi's title was: "Art or incitement"

Abhi said: Is this art/expression, or does it lend a rock-and-roll mystique to something else

Simran said: This is messed up. The thing is, it's not messed up in a way that I think I'd label artistic.

Suede said: There is NO art in murdering innocent people.

"It's bad therefore it's not art." This is an important thing, for me, to point out, if for no other reason that I make lame, puerile, inciting art myself. Red Snapper, I see you've used the word "hysterical" twice already. You're welcome to your opinion. Mine is that the distinction is vital; and that there has definitely been hysteria in this thread, but not from me.

And, yes, this is the first time I've ever agreed with Espressa on anything, as far as I know. Happy Valentine's day, babe. :)

Since when is "art" required to be "good"?

Since Plato. He tied art to "the good" and "divine inspiration." I don't necessarily agree with him, and one can see his ideal republic--where certain artists are expelled--as a form of totalitarianism. but art devoid of morality has its dangers too.

you guys are almost fascist with your definition of art.

or maybe they're calling the art fascist, ie inherently intolerant and devoid of truth, or "the good", as plato would say. and therefore not worthy of being considered art; or at the very least, it's bad art.

i understand when u attack fascists u must be careful not to become a fascist too; but when you attack those who attack fascism, you must also be careful of the same thing.

Since Plato. He tied art to "the good" and "divine inspiration."

Karl Popper rightly saw Plato as a proto-fascist. See the first volume of "The Open Society and Its Enemies."

I don't necessarily agree with him, and one can see his ideal republic--where certain artists are expelled--as a form of totalitarianism. but art devoid of morality has its dangers too.

What's with all the nuance? Who are you and what have you done with Manju?

And, yes, this is the first time I've ever agreed with Espressa on anything, as far as I know. Happy Valentine's day, babe. :)

I agree and support with Mr. Kobayashi and Expressa on this one. Typically, I disagree with Kobayashi on lot of issues and his style.

I also think video is not at all good art (very simplistic, and pandering to audiences in certain parts of the world), and people should be free to criticize it, even in very strong words, as some also did for MIA and her continual use of Tamil Tiger symbols.

I also agree with Manju in attacking facism one should not become facists.

But we are seeing here on this thread is group think, fashionable denouncing, and what not.

"It's bad therefore it's not art"

This is self evident and is not in dispute by me my friend. Regarding hysteria I repeat:

Debating the moral dimension of your reaction to a piece of asinine crap is not the same as rounding up the brownshirts to give artists you don't like or disagree with a jackboot in the face.

Simran actually writes two posts debating this very issue out loud and seems to be wrestling with the it quite openly:

And then, back to the art question: art doesn't have to be "okay" or easy or comfortable (even in the ethical sense), but for art to push such boundaries, doesn't it also have to offer something of value? Obviously, value being subjective, I have to ask: am I the only person who doesn't see any value in this other than shock-value?

Even if you don't come to agree or accept the basis of her assessment (and I don't) it is hysterical to describe the articulation of this reckoning about the nature of art as containing a nascent fascist impulse.

Fascist gets thrown around so easily these days.

Typically, I disagree with Kobayashi on lot of issues and his style.

Oh Kush.

Form and content? Really, you're too kind.

I'm incorrigible on issues, but I'll see what I can do about the style...

It's a pretty unremarkable video, style-wise. "Banality of evil" I think is how one poster described it earlier, and I think that's an accurate interpretation of the storyline. As for the rest, rock n/roll has always glorified the queasy. I also don't believe that 9/11 and issues around it are verboten as far as images for artists to tap into, even if there are folks out there who think it's "too soon". Other than that, hand-wringing and pontificating probably give more weight to this video than is warranted.
Browngarden, heh.

The '80s called. It wants its music back.

ok ok ... so I re-read the full thread and re-traced my thinking.

My 45 was a general response to the sentiments on this thread and a specific response to 42. I was frustrated with 42's seemingly objective language on matters that, when it comes down to it, are entirely subjective. You cannot deduce lack of 'effort at creativity' from your subjective reaction to the finished product, the whole is not always the sum of its parts.

Maybe the f-bomb was less than necessary, maybe I reached for shock-n-awe when I need not, BUTT, I *did* qualify with an almost... regardless, I apologize for the confusion and the upset

but I stand by the ACLU-esque position that imposing a standard of acceptibility on art, defining what falls in/out of the box borders on fasc-...umm, is problematic.

Karl Popper rightly saw Plato as a proto-fascist.

yes, it seems pretty obvious where plato's political philosophy would lead. but isn't it interesting how the nazis were more influenced by the radical relativism of nietzsche, and how heidegger was seduced by them, not to mention paul de man.

sartre's flirtations with the "fascism with a human face" is almost predictable, and of course the "human fascists" used the relativism of marx and marcuse to restrict artistic expression.

My point being that those who detach morality from art, or from rationality and the pursuit of truth, have no foundation left to defend freedom of expression, which is itself a moral (or at least meta-moral) principle. Worse still, when value relativism becomes a moral postulate (as in don’t you dare judge others) as opposed to mere theoretical insight, the list of what is considered acceptable speech further withers.

I'm certainly not suggesting that Franco and Mussolini sat down with the Republic to help them figure out how to be totalitarians (no sooner than we would seek guidance in love from that odious tract, the Symposium). The lesson of the twentieth century is that any ideology, taken to an extreme, can be perverted. And leave millions dead in its wake. Religion or atheism. Extreme left or extreme right.

You would think that would leave us with a healthy fear of extremes. All it seems to have done is make certain selected ideologies distasteful to us.

By the way, I tried reading Marcuse once. Couldn't make it happen. The moment for his specific kind of discourse seems to be past.

I don't know much 'bout Art, but I know what I like. (I also know what sucks.)

Also, 99% of everything is crap. Art is a subset of everything. Depending how you do the math, 99% of art could be crap - or even more, if the 1% of everything that isn't crap, also isn't art. On the other hand, if you (wrongly) assume art alone is that non-crap 1% of everything, then 100% of art should be non-crap; in that case crap would, by definition, not be art. But I postulate art, like everything else, is 99% crap.

I'm certainly not suggesting that Franco and Mussolini sat down with the Republic to help them figure out how to be totalitarians

yeah, this form of totalitarianism is just about power (which is why hitler liked nietzsche) but lennin did actually sit down with marx, with all the best intentions, give or take a few.

The lesson of the twentieth century is that any ideology, taken to an extreme, can be perverted.

i suppose no ideology is beyond perversion, but some ideologies are inherently perverted.

All it seems to have done is make certain selected ideologies distasteful to us.

i guess that's were i am. i find certain ideologies distateful, but not ideology in and off itself...which i think is necessary.

Aww the poor chap, his troubles, the beautiful girlfriend, My heart aches for them....... I think i'm gonna hurl.

That is not Art, Its a bunch of wannabe idiots with aspirations to be the new breed of cultured rebels, Kind of like a South Asian version of Ali Hassan Salameh.

Imbeciles.

These guys are totally bankrupt artistically.

Wow, the art gurus and intellectual fashion police weigh in, eh. Don’t know if there is much of a defense left when bloggers here declare with impunity that “not creative” and “desi” are synonymous (can anyone spell post-colonial complex?). But anyway, many thanks for listening to the song and checking out the video (and all it is is a music video, a reminder just to keep things in perspective). It was our first kick at the can, and clearly it has been a hit for some and a miss for many others. A few of the comments here offered genuinely thoughtful and insightful criticism. We thank you for that and will certainly take it on board.

A few words about the video are in order. Yadein is a song about loss, and that's primarily what we wanted to reflect in our video. Only we also attempted to politicize the traditional notions of loss in Pakistani music videos.

9/11 was obviously an inherently political act. And the powers that be have co-opted the tragedy and loss of these events, portrayed the acts as the pinnacle of evil, and used them as justifications for their own political agendas. The mass media in North American has attempted, in their own way, to tell the human story of the obvious victims of this tragedy. But the popular media treatments of 9/11 also demonstrate the lamentable loss of something else: the stories and basic banal humanity of those involved in these events as the perpetrators. We feel that there are three obvious dangers in failing to take account of the humanity of the perpetrators. First, the diminishment or loss of our collective humanity, for in not recognizing the human element of such actions we dehumanize not just the perpetrators but also ourselves. Second, the prejudiced attribution of such acts not to humanized individuals but to an undefined collective 'other', thereby imputing guilt to entire social groups on the basis of nothing more than religion, garb or skin-colour etc. Third, if we don't try to recover the ‘hidden’ humanity of the individuals involved in these events and fail to understand the stories, emotions and histories behind them, we will never be able to prevent such tragedies from reoccurring.

The video is not, nor is it meant to be, a factual portrayal, but symbolic of the near absence of such factual investigation. Nor is it meant to depict a spurned lover; but rather someone leaving behind the kind of existing essential relationships that define our interaction with the world and with each other. But you take from it what you will.

We won’t get into a debate over whether Plato was a proto-facist, or on Adorno’s thoughts on the critical potential and corrosive unacceptability of art as incitement, or Andy Warhol’s 100% artist’s shit. In our opinion, any act of culture production comes with, for better or for worse, a measure of power to influence its ‘consumers’. As such, we chose to tell a story that we felt was important, rather than hack out the boy-meets-girl videos prominent in Pakistan. The video was primarily meant for consumption in the local pop-culture scene of cosmopolitan Pakistan, and operate as a challenge for a scene that is very self-consciously apolitical. What impact, if any, it will actually have remains to be seen. Perhaps the execution was lacking and not as eloquent as we had hoped; still we felt it was worth it taking the chance.

Of course, Kesh and Red Snapper and others here understand exactly where we’re from. One compares us to Hassan Salameh (!) and the other performs impeccable class and cultural analysis to perfectly understand our ‘ideology’ which to him allegedly justifies terrorism, and proceeds to piss on everything Falak, including an independent gig review! Clearly, anyone with tastes that differ from his is only worthy of scorn. Dude, props for your superior wit and intelligence; your iconoclastic zeal for everything brown is much trendier than we can ever hope to be. It’s ok for you to hate the music and the video (not that you need our validation). But please do it honestly rather than using your own vulgar and ‘hysterical’ chest-beating narrative as a starting point.

Our apologies for the long post,

Falak

#74 Falak: Thanks! That was totally needed...

But please do it honestly rather than using your own vulgar and ‘hysterical’ chest-beating narrative as a starting point.

After this pompous screed you say I'm beating my chest?

Thanks for the comedy guys!

Red Snapper: You’re welcome. We're not going to even point out the obvious irony in being called pompous here. But we’ll check back when you get past the “I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I” bit. Better pompous than infantile, eh. Kisses,

Falak

Falak - your highminded goals about emphasising the humanity of perpetrators etc etc are debatable, but the music and the video are unequivocally college-kid crap. More power to you if you get anywhere with it politically, but somehow I doubt you will. Messages and their execution are closely tied in art, people aren't going to "read up" on what you "really" wanted to say, they are going to see the expression of a rather cliche, easy and simplistic bunch of ideas. I fully support your right to express those ideas and don't think you should be banned, but I don't see any reason why anyone should choose to air your video when there's much better stuff out there.

And when you defensively cry "postcolonial complex" and "intellectual fashion police," btw, you come across sounding childish. I probably share your general politics but still think the video is lousy and the causality it suggests is silly and it glamorises violence in a way that makes me uncomfortable.

I think Falak is bang-on. We need stories from both sides. Somehow in the US despite its claims to media freedom, stories from the other side necessarily mean an endorsement. How can one even understand the Other then, forget about come to terms with it?

SP – Thanks for your comments. At least that’s honest. We don’t expect everyone to like the song, just as we don’t expect everyone to blow the video out of proportion. We’re sorry you didn’t like it, that’s your prerogative. Though it generally did get a positive reception and overwhelming radio play in Pakistan, showing there is a like-minded audience for “college-kid crap” (of which we’re far from the only ones, and which is fair enough in a world where Celine Dion sells).

The postcolonial complex comment was made with a specific (and we still feel, justifiable) context in mind (post 44). If only you reserved an equal amount of ire for some of other the posts (e.g. posts 33, 44, 72, 76). Without that balance, your comments only feel like “fashionable denouncing”, as Kush Tandon puts it in post 61 (though admittedly, yours have been more thoughtful than most of the others).

We don’t feel that the video glamorizes violence, nor that other videos that actually do strike the same chord. A more honest way of putting it would be that the alleged glamorization of this particular kind of violence makes you uncomfortable, though that is not what we intended to do. And in our opinion (and that of many others in Pakistan), that is not what we, in fact, did. But if it makes you uncomfortable all the same, then that’s legitimate; we’re not going tell you how to feel about it. Perhaps we’ll have better execution with our videos in the future. Take care,

Falak

Falak,

Please make Yadein Part III about a White suicide-bomber. That should take deconstructing stereotypes to a new level.

Hmm ... Falak, I think you were trying to pull off a "I'm goin down ... in a blaze of glory" sort of thing ... kid gets heart broken by pretty lady, decides to go down in style, gets some nifty looking shades, hangs around in some really cool clubs, smokes ciggies with some equally hip blokes, salutes Lady Liberty one last time, and then pulls off something mind numbingly heinous.

Trust me - there is no ambiguity in your message. When you put your angst ridden vocals and your video together - you effect this: "it's cool to go down in style".

Leave aside all the eclectic thinking in some of the posts above. Tell me this - do you want to suggest to even one lone kid in a town like Columbine, that going down in style is an option?

I agree with post 79. I also think that in order to get the message across a video needs to stand out. If the purpose of the video was to send out an understated message that would cater to everyone’s sensibilities, it would never have received this much attention and their message would have been lost amongst those of the myriad of rock bands trying to do exactly the same.

Yes it’s controversial, but their message is also unique and important deserving all the attention it’s getting and more. This kind of controversy inspires open debate which is intellectual fodder for evolution of any society. Kudos to Falak for even conceptualizing taking a stand on this issue from this perspective while all most of us can think of is how to distance ourselves from the ugliness of it all.

80's style montage ... hilarity ensues. Though the music was decent ... for fighting other highlanders. Can't really see a message? Drinking and partying was invented by western culture so we must sacrifice ourselves to its destruction ... maybe? Probably not my cup of tea, but did I find it offensive? Not really, just a little humorous. I can imagine this video causing widespread panic to average fox news sheepies. But banning a video ... I'm not really all that surprised. Personally I think censorship of any kind is complete and utter bullshit, but its not shocking seeing the current trend of Orwellian globalization. Am I the only gringo to venture upon this, probably.

Falak, you're self satirising and self spoofing, terrorist sympathisers making wanky videos to a soundtrack of Kenny G 1980's heavy metal. Yeah, the pomposity comes from the laughable obliviousness of it all, the convoluted moral vulgarity of your reasoning, your identification with suicide-bombers, the cack handed artlessness of it all (but hey, you used buff models to make your point, how dangerous!), the laughable theorising for this crap, your victimhood whining, and, I repeat, all of this to the soundtrack of hilariously curdled and wince-inducing 1980's sub Van Halen Kenny G style heavy metal, the rock equivalent of smooth jazz. Rock and Roll man!

Falak, know thyself...

This video had rave reviews in Pakistan, right??

How did the "Cartoon depiction of Prophet" go in Pakistan?? I dont remember. Freedom of expression .. my brown hairy a$$ !!!

Guys, as much as you're hating Falaks approach, and delivery, i really feel major hostility here against Pakistani community in general; which is what disappoints me the most. kudos to them for having the balls to speak out.

red snapper i think you personally need to pull out that "dunda" from your behind. terrorist sympathisers? you must be kidding me. im actually going to go ahead and call u an ignorant dipsh*t. I'm having a tough time differentiating between you and a lonely Texan farmer who strongly believes ALL brown dudes walk around with bombs strapped to their chests.

Arun, personal attacks against other commenters (such as "dips*it") get you banned on this site. Thanks. Please argue the issues.

Whodat – thanks for your comments. You’re obviously entitled to whatever you took away from the video. But that’s really the last thing we were trying to suggest, and in our opinion that’s not what we actually portrayed. On the contrary, we wanted to portray the banal every-dayness of the whole run-up to what happened, devoid of any ‘style’ or anything out of the ordinary. We feel that for you to suggest that there is “no ambiguity” in our ‘message’ is a blatantly unfair observation; just scanning the other comments on this message board demonstrates that. Many viewers did see the video for what we were trying to portray, and to say there is no ambiguity is to privilege what you took from the video over what anyone else takes away.

Jake - whatever message you took away from the video, thanks for being good-humoured about it. You're not the only 'gringo' to have seen or commented on it, but your comments are much appreciated all the same.

Niharika, blah and Arun - Many thanks for your kind comments; we really needed that.

RC - So what’s your point?

Red Snapper - You've made it embarrassingly clear that you didn't like the song or the video. You're not the only one, and you're entitled to your opinion. The only thing we take issue with is the fantastical starting point for your critique of the video that's taken a life of its own. In our minds, making us out to be terrorist sympathizers that identify with suicide bombers is really more a reflection on where you're coming from. Must be pleasant living in your simplistic world of 'us' v. 'them' black and white morality.

Test. Please ignore this comment. ☞©▲♧♡☢$@?´₧➢➣ŊÍ❡❤

Wow, this is incredibly bad music. Are folks sure they didn't get banned for that? I'm willing to use the principle of charity for Pakistani television, and suggest that they banned it for that reason - I doubt they made it till the end of the video.