Online ReporterG
REETINGS, Mono.
Mai Juju did indeed receive your message.
It was a production master class, from the packaging to the delivery.
You began with the passing on of your sister, Cleo.
May her dear soul rest in peace. Truly.
But opening a copyright debate with bereavement seemed to have been designed to guilt-trip.
Classic producer move.
But Mai Juju is not a backing vocalist you can auto-tune into silence through your condescending behaviour and attitude.
You also conveniently omitted that your son is part of the controversial InTotal Band. That is not a small detail, Mono.
It makes you a conflicted party, not a neutral commentator.
When you defend the band, you are not just defending a licence.
You are defending a family business. Nothing wrong with that — until you pretend it is objective musicology.
Then you took potshots at The Sunday Mail.
Ha!
The same paper that has stood with the truth since 1935.
Close to a century, Mono.
It has chronicled this nation through war, independence, droughts, currency changes and football heartbreaks.
It has chronicled the highs and lows, as well as documented the genius and flaws, of our local gods such as Oliver Mtukudzi and Alick Macheso.
It certainly does not need your approval to publish a column.
If it gives Mai Juju a platform, it is because a free press allows two cents to circulate. And those snazzy graphics? Beautiful.
But graphics are not evidence.
You cannot Photoshop away a copyright claim.
Now, because Mai Juju is a lover, not a fighter, and because peace is her default setting, she will gladly accede to your request for an apology.
Here it is, heartfelt and unplugged: Mai Juju is sorry for siding with artistes who feel their work is being stolen by people profiting from it.
She is sorry for fighting in the corner of aggrieved creatives who cannot catch a break from artificial intelligence (AI)-generated works competing for space with them.
Mai Juju is sorry for believing that a musician’s sweat, style and stage identity deserve protection.
Forgive me, Mono, for being so unreasonable.
But let us be clear.
The issue is not cover bands.
Cover bands have their place.
The issue is performers who fulsomely imitate the dressing and mannerisms of the aggrieved artistes.
Fungisai raised it. Thomas Mapfumo raised it.
Mukanya was particularly irked not only because Kurai’s set would include almost entirely his songs, but because he mimicked the dance moves, too. Ke ke ke ke.
He even claims that at one point the young man wanted to change his surname to Mapfumo. That is not a tribute. That is identity theft with choreography.
In one of the interviews, Mapfumo himself instructively said: “In my case, I used to perform copyrighted music, imitating the Rolling Stones and Beatles back in the day and I later discovered my own path, which is what I am trying to teach the young man.”
There it is.
Even Mukanya admits he started as an imitator, but he found his own path.
The problem is not learning from the masters.
The problem is refusing to leave the master’s house, wearing his clothes and charging admission.
So, when you say cover bands are legal, maybe. But legality and dignity are not the same chord.
A licence does not give anyone the right to wear another man’s face, voice and dance steps like a costume.
So, dear Mono, be cerebral, not emotional.
There is no need for subtle threats and emotional blackmail.
Copyright issues are not trivial.
They are matters of lives and livelihoods.
You cannot produce a hit by sampling someone else’s grief and calling it a chorus.
Let us just have a healthy debate on the law, licences, royalties and the records.
By the way, Fungisai was not actually pleased by your decision to publish the private WhatsApp chats between you and her in
your rebuttal of the issues that were raised by Mai Juju.
She thought it was immature and in bad taste.
Ndikoko!
