At a time when the Jordanian narrative project is launched and documented as well as the cultural identity, a more urgent question emerges than just representing these narratives: it's not who has the right to express them, but how they should be presented, and by what standards they reach the audience.
In his latest work, Omar Al-Abdallat tried to approach the Karaki dialect, or the southern dialect, which is a dialect that carries a deep social and cultural extension that cannot be reduced to mere vocabulary or tone of voice. The principle idea is not problematic in itself, it can be considered an attempt at artistic diversity, but the real problem appeared in the linguistic construction of the song.
The words in the text seemed to rely on highlighting the dialect more than employing it. Instead of being part of a natural context, they turned into an independent element that attracts attention itself. Phrases like "وعلامِكِي" and "وشلونِكِي" were not presented as part of a vibrant linguistic fabric, but as direct indications of "dialectical difference," which robbed them of some of their spontaneity and made the text closer to imitation than to expression.
The problem here is not with the vocabulary itself but with how it works within the song's structure. When the dialect is used consciously, it doesn’t make the listener feel it is "present"; rather, it lets him interact with the meaning without focusing on the tool of expression. However, when the dialect becomes an end in itself, it loses its natural function as a medium and becomes a performance element.
This leads to a broader question: Why are songs still presented without clear standards that regulate their form and content, especially when dealing with identity elements? Just as an article has editorial standards and digital content is governed by publication rules, the lyrical text also needs a framework that balances artistic freedom and cultural responsibility.
The absence of these standards does not imply absolute creative freedom but opens the door to a significant variation in the quality of presentation, especially when it involves dialects or cultural symbols. In this case, the problem is not in experimentation, but in the lack of minimum sensitivity towards what is presented and how it is presented.
In comparison, we find that some musical works have succeeded in employing local dialects without falling into the trap of showcasing. In these works, the dialect does not appear as a separate element but melts into the emotional context of the text, making the listener feel it is a natural part of the experience, not an intentional addition to prove identity.
The essential difference between the two cases is that artistic success is not achieved by the abundance of local linguistic marks but by the text’s ability to conceal its tools. The more the dialect hides within the structure, the greater its expressive power. The more it appears as an independent element, the weaker its ability to convince.
Here, the need to rethink the "standards of the song" itself becomes clear. It is not about restricting art, but about organizing its impact. The sung word is not a transient text but a material that is preserved, circulated, and impacts collective consciousness, thus its responsibility is no less than any published text subjected to public reading.
The criticism here does not target a person but opens a necessary discussion about the gap between the idea and the execution, between identity as understood and identity as presented. And if there is controversy around this work, it ultimately is not just about the dialect but about how identity is transformed into artistic material without losing its meaning.
Ultimately, the essence of the discussion remains open:
Is it enough to carry identity into the song, or is it more important how we carry it without losing its meaning along the way?
The issue is not with a specific artistic experiment, nor with a dialect used here or there, but with the deeper question we continually avoid asking: Is what is presented to us today built according to artistic awareness and clear standards, or according to individual efforts that may hit or miss the meaning?
