Talk:Music of Uganda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Africa / Uganda (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Uganda (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Regional and national music (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Music of Uganda is within the scope of the WikiProject Regional and national music, an attempt at building a resource on the music of all the peoples and places of the world. Please visit the project's listing to see the article's assessment and to help us improve the article as we push to 1.0.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Folk vs. Traditional Music[edit]

I have replaced the heading "Folk music" with "Traditional music". The term folk music is absolutely inappropriate for some of the forms of traditional music like for example amadinda, enanga, and akadinda music. This is composed music with an intricate structure, some of which is going back to the 1800 centurry or is even older. It is performed by professional musicians. It is courtly music performed at the court of the kabaka or at the courts of chiefs. If any European term is appropiate here, it would be "(African) classical music". I suppose that a large part of African music is not folk music at all (I also doubt that the term "folk music" is very usefull generally). The terms folk and folklore contain a valuation, a distinction between high and low. The distinction between "high" and "low" music that exists in the European distinction between classical music and folk music developed in Italy during the renaissance time and served a function in the hierarchical society of that time. It should not be extended to the music of other cultures without a very close look.

I suggest not to use the term folk musik in Africa unless it is really appropriate. (There seems to be a tendency among westerners (and Africans with western education) to look down at African culture. African peoples are often called "tribes". Their languages are referred to as "dialects" or "vernaculars". I prefer to call them "peoples" or "ethnic groups" and "languages" respectively. Calling classical African music "folk" goes into the same direction.)

The term "traditional music" is not without problems, because things develop and some "traditional" forms of music are quite recent (e.g. the kadongo lamellophone of busoga is a new development from the early 20th century) but at least this term is more neutral. Nannus 20:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Article revamp (Tuesday 9th August 2011)[edit]

The article was revamped in most areas. The old article was very outdated, incomplete and not representative of what is currently on the ground in Ugandan music. The information about traditional music was expanded on. More information was provided about different percussion styles, instruments and dance styles for the different tribes.

More information was provided about popular music in Uganda, more artists provided and more stylistic analysis. More information was provided about the current Ugandan music industry. A "See also" section was added. More external links were provided while others that didn't really add anything to the article and did not conform to Wikipedia external links procedure were removed.

If anyone disagrees with any changes made should please first attempt to discuss it here on this talk page to seek more clarification or to drive their point across. Consensus is always the best option. I also propose that from now on any major edits to this article are first discussed on this talk page so that different views can be gathered.

Thanks.

Chris.Gido (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Great revamp Chris. It was certainly overdue for a birthday! Nice one DBaK (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Savanah Soul genre issues[edit]

This genre is unfounded with no specific examples of artists or music in the mainstream to back up its inclusion in this article. It seems to overlap with Pop/Afropop music and its inclusion would require demonstration of a genuine stylistic difference/uniqueness. It also looks to be limited to a single music company promoting it which looks like bias/marketing. It is also poorly written and does not conform to editing guidelines of Wikipedia. I thus suggest the editor fronting this genre first discuss this genre on the talk page here in order to prevent future edit issues.

Chris.Gido (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


Re: Reaction - prior to reinstating deleted article.

Dear User Chris.Gido

I am the author/editor  of the above-mentioned item, submitted earlier yesterday 01/11/12 by myself but via IP address (not logged in by name). I believe also -from the page edit log- that you are the person who deleted (or actioned deletion) of the said article, citing as reason "multiple issues.. including bias or unfounded...".

I am given to assume all this was done in good faith, but I cannot help feeling dissapointed that on your part 1)- you do not appear to have made attempt to verify information given, at the least by use of links given 2)- acertain that the information you personally have on the issue is actually sufficient to warrant your reaction 3)- you do imply inter alia the editor of the article had ulterior motives viz a viz company or personal promotion.4)- you repeat the exact generalisations about Ugandan pop music -to quote, "..overlap with Pop/Afropop music..." -that the article intended to expose, perhaps not aware of the real harm that does, but certainly symptomatic of less than deep analysis and appreciation of the real issues at hand.

That said and in the greater interest of users, I will limit myself to clarifications here, and try to be as brief as possible.

To start off with, I need to assure you of the following which you appear to dispute:

1- Savannahsoul indeed was developed as a Ugandan genre, albeit non-mainstream and about 20 years ago now, and records of this in documentation and actual physical production exist. The reasons, scope and significances were defined and actually consciously impemented in the music produced. Your apparent ignorance/dispute of its existence does not change the fact or justify the action taken.

2- Further on 1 above, the fact that 'Savannahsoul' did not ,or has not (yet) become ,so to speak, mainstream or widely adopted as a distinct genre, this largely due to publicity shortfalls, and the eventual adoption of less rigorous and more populist genres by younger contemporary musicians, should not diminish the significance or greater good its adoption has already demonstrated (see below) or would entail for the music and musicians.

3- While it's much a common weakness, directly modelling local music on other non-indigenous styles was never a modus operandi for serious Uganda musicians - be it traditonalists Kadongo Kamu or leading Bands like Afrigo, and to suggest so borders on an insult to the artists. In any case, it would be advisable for all concerned to discourage the practice, or in the least refrain from promoting the distortion through stereotypical generalisations.

I will attempt to explain the basis of the arguments above - inter alia addressing your specific concerns on the deleted article - as here below:

1. Factual Backgorund (adresses contention of 'unfoundedness' in 1,2 above)
By 1994, I was personally active as a keyboardist member with leading groups in Kampala (Badindaz of late Tony Sengo, Light Rays, Kads and Choirs Good News, St. Augustine MUK) and was hoping to release own music via my own Uganda-registered music business ("Traxbox Studios" in brief).This was as a result of lack of good or affordable studio facilities in the country at the time, and which additionally would tolerate new non-mainsteam music as we had at the time. In the same period, there were upcoming younger musicians who sought the kind of 'value' studio and music production facility as offered at Traxbox, and it so happened among the very first people we worked with and the products were:
1)- Da Hommies (Ragga Dee, Iryn Namubiru, Jeff Miiro, Molar Messe) - and other DJ/Dancehall biased music groups: "Bamusakata", "Mukwano", "Mukyala Tokaba" hit singles, and subsequent full Albums : the instrumental tracks were composed/played by myself on the original (1994-96) recordings.
2)- Emperor Orlando, Pat Birungi, Moses Jenkins and other 'non-ragga/dancehall' contemporaries : various singles and one-off demos. Some of the artists were working with Steve Jean/Peter Sematimba at then newly-formed Dungeon Studio, who eventually went on to capture a much larger clientele base for this style of music.
3)- Subsequently, mainstream artists and own compositions : Titie ,Winnie Munyenga, Sarah Ndagire - lead vocals for a number of in-house savannahsoul prototype compositions, circa 1996 onwards.

You are unconditonally free to confirm the details above with any of the persons mentioned. Samples of this music are also archived here: http://www.joseph-mawejje.magix.net/all-albums/!/oa/2430277-18219791

Significances
Chris, and other fellow Ugandans, you may recall the above were immensely successful local hits and acts (largely remain so to this day), but of greater significance is the fact that the music was developed basically as 'neo-African pop' custom works i.e., at least on the instrumentation side, no immediate reference to 'western' styles or even Jamaican Ragga/Raggae. In fact the only part that was not pure African was the DJ-rap sections in jamaican, and lyrics in english. As a producer/keyboardist, I had not even heard of 'Ragga' or 'Dancehall' at the time, rather relied on experience from the local Afro-baised music played.

Contentiously too, a substantial majority of the populance were not then as keen on the new styles from Jamaica - the older generation(s) in particular prefering local flavours of Kadongo Kamu, Roots Raeggae, Soukous, etc. The seamless integration of both sides of music as appeared with the initial 'traxbox' productions, especially the Luganda Ragga songs Bamusakata and Mukwano, arguably contributed to the general ready acceptance of the new artists' music.

Regrettably there were lapses in the Traxbox Studio output on occount of my absence (studies abroad in late 1998, then 1999-2001) within which time the above artists had progressed to find alternative producers. However by september 1998 the basic elements of 'savannahsoul' were in place and the studio did release demos ('My life is my life, Nandikutidde Zouk Love, Ngamba ob'onkyaaye') which recieved some air play and live performances (see archive link above).

2. Consolidation of initial works into savannahsoul to present: significances

By 2002, I personally had developed prototype music (Kake Album) to demonstrate the genre. The Album was at advanced stage of production, and recieved a promotional airing on Monitor FM (Mr Ibanda hosted) some time that year. Sample demos can be previewed here: http://soundcloud.com/traxbox-amspug/jsmawejje_kake-album_demos.
It was the intention to proceed further with this, and indeed other local artists at the studio - including former colleagues Da Hommies - but regrettably perhaps, I eventually had to prepare to travel again to UK , which I did early 2004. I have since then taken on other committments and sadly cannot commit as much to the music.

However, thankfully, there were already by 2004 new proponents of "Savannahsoul" - albeit in a different overall execution - in the likes of Joseph Chameleone, Boby Wine, Ragga Dee, Iryn, to name a few leading examples, whose music is undisputably free of direct western styles, but cuts even more across all audiences while retaining professional quality and authenticity. This is in a way the exact same idea which the original traxbox project had sought to develop.
To me it is especially unfair to simply brand this new music as cloned of western styles (R&B, Ragga or HIp-hop) not only because it simply isn't, but such labelling diminishes the value of artists personnal creativity input and generally of the material. A generic term like "Afropop" or "Afrobeat" is as equally ineffective, if not harmful, and so the more reason for a distict name like 'savannahsoul' to better anchor local music and prospects. As already discribed in the article, this is a key objective in the original savannahsoul project, see http://www.traxbox-amspug.com/savannahsoul_genre.html

Conclusion
I will grant that very possibly Chris you did not have the above information, and so can in part excuse the action taken assuming grounds of mistaken perceptions. However in light of the explanations now given, I believe you can agree why the said action might have been too presumptuous.
I may also at this juncture assure you I am in no way after self- or business promotion as I am no longer that active musically or desperate; the appearance of any details relating to any business is purely on chronological factual grounds. It is also useful that such records be known, in my opinion, especially where critical aspects of issues may have never been so addressed.

Chris in your personal statement you describe your strong patriotism and nationalistic outlook, viz supporting everything Ugandan. I too subscribe to the same sentiments, moreover believing the onus is on Ugandans themselves to - as it were- fight their own corner in everything. It is in this light that, when I chanced to read the 'Music of Uganda' page, noticing the ommission of the above music background, I felt it important to contribute the information I had. I thus find your action at variance with your stated principles, though no offence is taken on my part and I stand to be corrected on this.

I also felt the over-simplification (in the main article) of facts - to wit all modern music in Uganda is simply cloned or modelled on other western styles - is a serious distortion that needs to be addressed. As a longterm serious musician -involved in direct music creation- I can acertain that this is never the case - unpalatable music like the famous "Kadongo-Kamu over Raggae beat" are the classic results more often than not of such direct cloning. Indeed to a large extent indigenous creativity is still necessary - just as our forefathers developed Nankasa, Amagunju, and other traditonal dances exclusive of western influences and from scratch, the dynamics and techniques for a modern Luganda song must derive and dictate from our own true selves and environment for enduring authenticity. Such distortions can only be realistically addressed by first-hand local experience, of which I happen to have on this matter. I would therefore hope you understand the bigger import of the article and will be gracious to accept and have it reinstated.

I apologise really for the length of this response and any inadvertent editing errors that may very possibly still exist. I am a new contributor and will promise to improve in time, thanking you for all favourable considerations hereto. Joseph S. Mawejje (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


Accuracy is key

Hi. First of all thank you for taking time to properly register on Wikipedia and join the effort to present Ugandan culture to the world. Regarding this genre, I can understand where you are coming from and I can empathize because I am just like you. We should strive to create specialization in our music industry and breaking it down properly into the various genres is key to that. But its important that we be pragmatic and accurate and hence present what is actually on the ground rather than the idea of what what we would like to see. Although change is necessary, its always better to let it come from the bottom upwards by itself instead of the elite trying to force it down. And this process takes time unfortunately and so simply creating a new name does not achieve this in my view.

I think since you are not currently in Uganda you may not know the real situation on the ground. I work with a number of artists, music producers and media companies in Uganda. The reason why I think this genre name is unfounded is because no one here knows about this genre, let alone talks about it. Yesterday actually was the first time I saw that genre name and yet I am heavily involved in Ugandan music. I have never seen/heard either an artist or a producer speak in the media about this genre, its stylistic elements or its practice. So if indeed you say you have the evidence of this genre term being used in Ugandan mainstream media (not just traxbox website), I would be very interested to see the links. I say this because its important that for something to be included in an encyclopedia about a country, it has to be known and accepted in the mainstream of that country. Otherwise it becomes debatable and debatable things should not be in an encyclopedia. I will give an example of the word "kidandali" which is a currently very commonly used word in Ugandan music today although different commentators use it to mean different types of popular music and that's why I make a point in the article to state that currently that term is indeed debatable. But as a musical term it is heavily used. In your case however, the term you are proposing is not used by anyone to mean anything well defined in stylistic elements. Again, correct me if am wrong with credible resources. Thus its only you/traxbox which I see using it. And that's the problem. To include it as a genre on an encyclopedia there has to be mainstream use in the country and not just from one person/entity because then it becomes biased and falls under "original research/thought" or even "copyright infringement" in the Wikipedia standard.

I also understand your frustration with the adoption of western musical elements and terminology but facts remain facts and personal ideology is irrelevant. The fact is that current Ugandan music has changed drastically and if you look at some of the top artists like Navio and GNL they are absolute carbon copies of American hip hop artists. Changes in language used are not sufficient enough to warrant a genre like hip hop being given a new name. It still bears all the stylistic elements of hip hop so it remains hip hop. The same thing goes for other top artists like chameleone, peter miles, rabadaba et al whose dancehall music is only differentiated from jamaican dancehall by language. Moreover many of them actually are now performing using jamaican patois so any distinction with jamaican music is sometimes totally erased. As for pop/afropop, whe should remeber that the word pop is simply short for popular so we are simply talking about the popular/mainstream music in the country. It doesn't necessarily have to be "western", it just has to be the popular music in the country. And the reason why the afropop term is now growing in use is because the styles used between pop artists in various African countries are becoming very similar. Analyzing the current music of artists like Radio and Weasel which sounds Nigerian or the current zouk music of Irene namubiru should drive my point home.

But ultimately again I commend your approach and ideology but I think it would be wrong to misrepresent to global readers what exactly is in Ugandan music right now. Those are my thoughts. Let me know what you think.

Chris.Gido (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


Re: Accuracy is the key - response and follow up .

Chris, Thank you very much for the response in relation to the issues raised on the subject as per the preceding comments. I should also recommend , rather belatedly I regret , your effort and contribution to this important article, and sincerely hope you wont be discouraged by a few critiques like mine now and then.

So many issues still exist unfortunately that , in response and follow up to your last comments, I can only limit myself to the most contentious (in my opinion) of the issues.

Firstly , a few issues regarding the article itself

Title versus content : key omissions

I have just been able to review better the article, as well cross-referencing it with other 'Music of (country)' examples on Wikipedia, and it's just possible the biggest issue here is that you titled this article Music of Uganda, while in the end -unexpectedly- it does not treat the topic as exhaustively or discerningly and in as all-embracing a manner as one would expect. I cannot take away the depth of work you must certainly have taken to compile the existing information, all I am saying is to be fully commensurate with the title, the content would have been far broader in scope and analysis. This is actually the overriding impression I personally had that prompted my initial submission (Savannahsoul), for instance - essentially an inclusion on 'indie' Ugandan music in this case. 'Music of Uganda' would also suggest an emphasis on indigenously native or developed music -whether contemporary or even 'non-popular'- not simply the obvious 'foreign-influenced' popular fusions as largely expounded upon. In fact even for these latter cases, while devoting good cover on the nominal facts you still tend to imply there's almost no effort stylistically for creative uniqueness from artists (to quote,"...the same thing goes for other top artists like chameleone, peter miles, rabadaba et al whose dancehall music is only differentiated from jamaican dancehall by language... current music of artists like Radio and Weasel which sounds Nigerian or the current zouk music of Irene namubiru ....moreover many of them actually are now performing using jamaican patois so any distinction with jamaican music is sometimes totally erased.",end quotes). There's obivously truth in some of these statements, but for whatever reason some artists choose to copy styles, in fact it may not be the general rule as a further review of respective 'portfolios' or discology should reveal.

I actually know for sure (as a practising Ugandan musician/producer) ultimately choice of 'style' is more or less a question of what might 'sell' or what best exhibits abilities, rather than what an artist actually likes to do: especially for younger upcoming artists where the commercial value of the work - read the artists' immediate livelihood - is paramount. It also takes vast resources -time, professional help, loads of money- to produce and promote 'from scratch' original 'genres' that can compete with anything 'western': your average 'poor' artist from Uganda can only dream of such, so typically is reduced to having to plagiarise where possible. This is a crucial fact which you do not seem to have in perspective. It is not an excuse but simply reality.

Finally on this item, what about 'niche' but important music genres like opera/theatre music (Alex Mukulu,E.Kawadwa, etc ), 'old school' Religious music (Joseph Kyagambidwa,Isaac Mukulu,etc), where the article does not even provide a link? Doesn't music from Ugandans of less known profile, for instance those in the Diaspora, also count? Remember a lot of these artists only left the country physically but continue with their (Ugandan) music elsewhere - for instance many of Kampala's Band members in the late 90's -2000's now UK, USA and Scandinavian- based; if their work shouldn't appear here where should it?.
Perhaps it's too idealistic, especially given the resultant scope of the article, but I certainly feel such key omissions only lessen the article's content value substantially while throwing aspersions on the indigenous creativity itself of Ugandan musicians.

Facts; basis of their presentation and consequent distortions

Again I do not have personally any significant dispute with the accuracy of facts you have presented, it's more the choice of what you do present and/or what is left out (omissions) that causes concern. There's is also an issue with the direction of emphasis, to wit quantitative rather than the qualitative aspects being in effect given the highlights - a case you suggest of having to stick to 'accuracy', but at what cost to overall national image especially as this article appearing here on Wikipedia- the default portal of the more 'discerning' researcher online - invariably doubles as a sales document for the country. 

In particular are the following :

- Most times the most popular (in the sense of 'in vogue/the in-thing' artist, music style or even terminologies) is highlighted, without a qualitative comparison directly or otherwise to similar but arguably better alternative to balance out any distortions: e.g.
the word 'Kidandali' definitely as you say is controversial, and in effect what you'd wish to use (and actually is more acceptable) is 'Endongo' or simply 'Band' for "Band Music". Ugandan Bands vary distinctly at levels of pure experience, professionalism and not only style of music played: Afrigo (ditto The Cranes, The Tames, Rwenzori,and now Milenge Jazz) is (were) far above the younger Kads/Eagles Bands in the former aspects for instance, so placing them under this frankly derogatory term is short of being insulting. These things matter to the local artists' self-worth even if not as much as to a global reader.

I personally would have also wanted to see the contributions of the late Philly Lutaaya, Peterson Mutebi, Tony Ssengo,Charles Sekyanzi (all RIP) and contemporaries Moses Matovu, , Sammy Kasule to name a few, more definitely (individual insert if possible) recognised as defacto if not greatest 'Ugandan pop music pioneers' in the same extent as you do our younger artists Chameleone, Misach, Iryn and so on. Omission of such mention only serves to heighten the feeling of disproportionate if not biased emphasis as well. This additional info could be input by yourself (Chris) or at least leave or allow links on the page to where information can be or is already supplied.

Still on emphasis of the 'most popular' , you could thus inadvertently impress that other styles have largely been consigned to the dustbin of musical history. This may be so on first impressions - afterall music trends like culture itself are dynamic, contemporaneous in dominance- but does it really mean then previous hot music styles - say KwasaKwasa, South African, Raeggae - are any less important or popular now than say Dancehall, R&B or Hip-hop influenced current Ugandan music. Music choice furthermore tends to be purely down to personal taste, background and to an extent latent generational peer influence: case in point lots older folks typically would distrust younger peoples tastes and vice versa. What if actually then the older music styles are actually 'more listened to' going by actual listener numbers than the new, and hence both qualitatively and quantitatively 'more popular' in effect? How would you balance this potential distortion out in the article without a suitable mention of the possibility.

Returning to the specific issues with the Savannahsoul article:
Creating a genre as a defined exercise
I believe the reason you objected to this article in the first place is that you potentially simply didn't believe such a development (conscious creation of a music style)could take place, jet alone in Uganda. As a matter of fact, this is symptomatic of the self-defeatist lack of self-belief tendency lots of us Africans unfortunately are imbued with. To answer this doubt, simply ask or answer the question how else do all other western genres (Ragga, Hip-hop, Eurotechno) come about in the first place? The other crucial fact is sometimes 'styles' are created by a few individuals working at a particular place and time: it could be a studio , a performance venue, etc favouring unique interractions between single- minded artists the products which eventually emerge becoming exclusively associated with that work. Motown or Abbey Road are classic examples of this. This was the case with the 'traxbox' venture, much as it might seem unbelievable.

On pains of being a sore in the neck, I'd suggest you review my submission critically to understand the reasons and objectives, as well as the 'product' in stylistic terms of Savannahsoul at traxbox. Alternatively try the link (since the submission is currently deleted) here : http://www.traxbox-amspug.com/savannahsoul_genre.html (note this page was created 2005, but the music mentioned developed much prior to the year). A demos archive library also can be accessed for sampling the 'product': Vocalsied and instrumentals : http://www.joseph-mawejje.magix.net/all-albums/!/oa/2572167/ Additional instrumental style :http://www.joseph-mawejje.magix.net/all-albums/!/oa/6480677/

As an insight/ independent precis on a typical 'style creation' process, I could do no better than suggest you may have a look at the popular sytle 'Zouk' here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zouk: and in particular as applied by the group Kassav': i.e. , The leading band to emerge from this period was Kassav', who came from Guadeloupe and Martinique. They gave the style a pan-Caribbean sound by taking elements from compas, reggae, and salsa. Kassav' was formed in 1979 by Pierre-Edouard Décimus, a long-time professional musician who worked with Freddy Marshall. Together, the two of them decided to take carnival music and make it a more modern and polished style. Their first album, Love and Ka Dance (1980), established the sound of zouk. They continued to grow more popular, both as a group and with several members' solo careers, finally peaking in 1984 with Yélélé, which featured the international hit "Zouk-la-sé Sel Médikaman Nou Ni"..With this hit, zouk rapidly became the most widespread dance craze to hit Latin American in some time, and was wildly popular even as far afield as Europe and Asia. Zouk became known for wildly theatrical concerts featuring special effects spectacles, colorful costumes and outrageous antics.


I hope the above ,and all my previous points and factual evidence on the matter should suffice to put things in their proper perspective, and answer your questions regarding particualrly why it should be denoted as a 'genre' on its own merit, Ugandan at that. As for popularity or the lack therof, I already meantioned possibly this was due to publicity shortfalls at the time of first release, secodnly because I am no longer as active or even based in Uganda (on this note, it's quite the opposite that being abroad limits one's interraction with the home country as you hint; not with all the media and communication possibilities now possible). This in no way means the style/or term does not have sufficient grounds for resurrectrion or adoption by current artists, for all the reasons and benefits this would entail as mentioned in the earlier arguments.

'Rules versus philosopy of the Wikipedia as a free forum

You stated , to quote, its important that for something to be included in an encyclopaedia about a country, it has to be known and accepted in the mainstream of that country. Otherwise it becomes debatable and debatable things should not be in an encyclopaedia. I cannot disagree with you more for two reasons:.
a)as hinted upon on the first comments, you cannot dispute existence of a fact simply on grounds of personal or collective ignorance of the said. .
b) There cannot be an artificial pre-condition for 'new' facts being revealed such as - in this case- being mainstream, widely known - because apart from that being abjectly unrealistic ,ultimately no new knowledge would ensure into the public knowledge. This is the logic behind things as 'press releases', secret declassification, anything that hitherto might not have been known. c) Any fact at one time can be debatable especially when being previewed the first time, or even for longer if so pre-perceived. Often this is a function of subjective personal point of view, which is acceptable even in an encyclopaedia as long as due qualification is made. I believe this is the reason why some of the controversial facts you raise (kidandali) are so qualified , and certainly it was why I left a special disambiguation note on my 'savannahsoul' submission in addition to clear links to proof and evidence. Clearly the same rules should apply especially on this forum of Wikipedia. I would also suggest we do not forget the impact of any means of imformation dissemination that can have a favourable impact on the development of our country. You are basically acting as a vanguard of the national interest in the same time you are informing the global audience - in my opinion the roles cannot but be concurrently extant. Therefore and as I hinted before, the onus is on native/knowledgable contributors to ensure we paint not only a factually accurate but overally favourable picture (as opposed to mere negatives even if factual)of our heritage, because that's the best we can do. I do not believe this is in any way against the rules of the forum especially where the sole purpose is to dissimate as much information as possible freely.

Conclusion
I could raise a few other issues but for the sake of brevity will limit myself to the above. As a final personal suggestion and request however, I can sum up as follows:

- The article needs to reflect better the content as expected of its current title: my suggestions above hopefully illustrate this point. I believe its also the general basis for the comments and similar-toned suggestions as raised by the very first commentator on the article, user nuus above.
- You need to allow submission of more 'non mainstream' material even if it might not be presently familiar to you, even if this article is your initial input. This is in any case the very goal of wikipedia, especially when the possibility exists that lots of other editors could have a viably useful insight in matters, and paticularly in this case because the material being discussed constitutes an issue of important , nay national interest. At the very least, any Ugandan should within the general guidelines of the forum be free to add/edit material without having to retrospectively defend the submission.
- The article I submitted i.e. Savannahsoul be reinstated in its original entirety, at the very least to allow other independent preview and hence a more democratic assessment, but also because in all fairness there was no justification for its removal now the position is explained to you. I personally would prefer you (Chris) to do this rather than attempting it myself. There are no issues of copyright infringement as all the works therein referenced are in the main assignable to myself as owner, and already in the public domain elsewhere.

I hope I can respond  more favourably next time, for now will remain hopeful the issues so raised are duly addressed. Any reactions will be surely as welcome. All due respect is inffered as a mtter of course.

Joseph S. Mawejje (talk) 05:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


Savannah Soul - 6th Nov 2012

Thank you Joseph for your comments and analysis. I think I should start by letting you know that I don't own this Wikipedia article and neither would I like that assumption to be made. One of the first things people realize after becoming wiki editors is the fact that they cant just write whatever they want as there are other editors who watch these articles and need to feel comfortable about this content otherwise they reserve the right to remove/roll back these changes. That is why the "Talk" page exists because it plays a very very crucial role whereby editors can discuss and deliberate on views and issues in order to prevent "edit wars" of editing and deletion on the main article. If these wars occur they are futile because other senior editors and administrators simply come in remove these editors from the article or simply lock the article or worst, just delete it. So I think you realize the need to be objective in this process of editing. Trying to be threatening or hostile is useless because there is nothing anyone can do about anyone or anything on here. This is a public space and everyone here is simply a volunteer and there is no ownership hence no one can bully anyone. Instead it is a convergence of minds and debate that makes this wiki what it is. I just thought I should say this because in your last message you sounded to me like you were getting carried away emotionally by your strong opinions about this genre and so I understand your frustration. But that's just how Wikipedia works. Logic over emotion.

Now to your point about omissions in the article and what you would have liked to see in it, I understand some of the points you make. You think there needs to be a much larger mention of everyone who was involved in Ugandan music in the past but its not really necessary. Most of those names and artists you mentioned of the past I also know and in fact I do cite their influence in the article like Philly and the rest. Its just that the article has to be simple and concise, straight to the point. Having a very wordy article trying to touch on everything and everyone is not what is necessarily needed. Short, precise and well formatted/articulated articles in my opinion are always the best articles for any reader, whether novice or researcher. Thats why I try to touch on everything form tribes to local instruments to styles of dances then to Kadongo Kamu, Philly Lutaaya and Afrigo all the way to Chameleone and Navio.

But its important to note that this article is not absolute and anyone with interest can edit it and expound on it and they are free to do so just by clicking the "edit" link at the beginning of every section. Although its also important that they take time to learn how to edit properly a wiki article or else it becomes a mess. There are people who "watch" the article like me to make sure it is relevant, accurate and well edited and in the event of a problem will either correct the changes if they are small or roll back and call for discussion to get consensus. The role of a "watcher" is crucial otherwise the article can easily go to the dogs as everyone simply just writes and adds what they want without being held responsible by anyone else. I hope you now understand. If there is anything you don't understand please check out the Wikipedia manual with all the rules and guidelines on how to edit articles and code of conduct.

The issue of how a genre is created and then given a name is a very crucial one. Successful music genres are rarely just named by their creators using a top down approach as you are suggesting, where one producer comes up with a specific sound and then names it and then tells people about their genre. They usually start as specific "sounds" in specific scenes and grow from the bottom upwards and then that's when a name is usually formulated to refer to this specific "sound" thus you then have a genre. If you do more genre research you will note that most genre names are actually just coined by the media and publishing houses and not the artists or producers. For them they just create music. Many times it can simply begin with artists describing a specific sound to a producer. Then another artist liking the sound and telling a producer he wants a song like the other one. And so on and so forth. But gradually the "sound" grows to a point that many "varied" artists and producers are producing this sound. And then there has to be a name coined for this sound because many people now know or like it and it has to be sold by publishers and the media has to talk about it thus a phrase is coined so you end up with words like grunge, kwasa kwasa, reggae tone e.t.c which then become genre names for a specific sound with well defined stylistic elements that are well recognized by "various" people/observers. The reason I am writing this is to expound on what I mean by your genre being unfounded or unknown. This is not to say it doesn't exist. Maybe it does. Its just that at the moment I don't think it is well founded enough to be included in a national music encyclopedia. Otherwise then anyone will come and say for example they have a studio called "Engoma" and they have a new genre called "Ekigunda" that they have created and so they come and include it in the national encyclopedia. Then where does it end? Please note that I have nothing against you or your genre, its just that at the moment it is very unfounded and thus I don't think we should include it in the encyclopedia until it is a more well known/supported genre by more people than just yourself. Thats why I asked that you provide more credible sources apart from trackbox.

The Kidandali issue is a good example of what I mean. Up until about a decade ago, Kadongo Kamu was the only "indigenous" genre you could attach to Ugandan music and not get into a debate about its legitimacy. But with the end of Afrigo and the rise of Eagles production and all the artists affiliated with it and those who "copy" their music, there is a specific sound that rose very fast to prominence in Ugandan music to become the most common/popular sound of music by mass appeal in Uganda today. All one needs is to walk downtown Kampala to understand. But the unfortunate thing being there was no distinct name to refer to this music, forcing some elements in the media to call it "band music" because of its connection to Eagles and Afrigo Band. But anyone well versed with global music will tell you that "Band Music" is too vague a term to give to the most popular music genre in a country, especially when its not even performed by bands anymore but individuals. Thats how the name became an issue with others trying to call it Afrobeat which is also way off the mark. Thats how the Kidandali naming project began where together with other media activists we got a word used vaguely everyday in Ugandan music, albeit derogatorily by most, and used it to give this sound an original name that would also make sense in Ugandan social terms. But its still just a "naming project" because genre evolution takes time as various observers have to agree and adopt gradually. Its not something that can happen overnight or with a simple edit or link on a website. Its a grass roots thing that has to involve everyone from artists to producers to media to critics if it is to gain any traction or credibility. Otherwise it remains an idea. Albeit a good one.

I would suggest that you start by creating a Wikipedia page for Savannah Soul as an article on its own without necessarily editing the main primary Uganda music page. This would make it a secondary page and would reduce the current conflict and I would have no need to delete it. Then it can have its own talk page and different global editors will then "fact-check" it and see where it goes from there. Maybe gradually as this project of yours grows it can become something well founded in Uganda. That is very key. Diaspora is also good and can indeed represent the country well but ultimately Ugandan issues have to have a strong indigenous/homegrown connection.

To do this you may have to get a crash course on how to set up and edit Wikipedia pages using the sandbox. One of the reasons I deleted the edits you made was because they were poorly formatted and written. You can use the example of the Kadongo Kamu or Kidandali articles as a guide on how to write an article about a music genre. The form and stylistic elements have to be well defined. So do the pioneers and current practitioners of the genre. The production houses. The Influences. The artists. Famous songs and albums e.t.c I think also a better explanation of the Term "savannah soul" and how exactly you came up with it and why. What do you mean by soul? Are you talking about the "western" soul music or what? By savannah what do you mean? The entire greater savannah area of Africa or not? If so can you correlate this genre also to musicians and artists in Kenya and Tanzania and greater savannah? If so which artists and which songs? Is the form Identical across the board? Or is it just based on language or region? These are some questions that can prompt a better analysis and better article.

Those are my thoughts and opinions. Reply where possible. Cheers :)

Chris.Gido (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Savannahsoul -6th Nov 2012 - response

Thank you Chris for your recent comments (above) on the subject. I've taken due note of your recommendations regarding editing of articles on the forum, and are presently re-editing all my submissions to conform. Also much apologise for the edit mistakes already made, regrettably I am still yet to get to full grips with the wiki coding and syntax, but I am getting there.

Now in response to the fore-going;- forgive me the frustration, for in as much as you say you do understand the causes, frankly it is not yet fully dispelled. I need also to assure you I am not in anyway intending this to come down to what you describe as an 'edit-war', or God forbid thinking of threats and hostilities just to make simple arguments known. So I will only reiterate the general facts and arguments expressed already on the subject, and earnestly implore you to revisit the various points made. All the answers to the questions you continue to ask about savannahsoul (defining or unique elements, objectives, artists) are all there (did you check any of the last links for instance?), and as well the perceptions and misrepresentations that exist in the article which as a fellow contributor I feel need addressing. This is the more important objective of the discussion in my opinion, if not above the issues you raise about writing format, style and edit on the forum.

I am again drawn to the kind of (involuntary) distortion of the picture which persists in parts of your comment: for instance this paragraph :

..The Kidandali issue is a good example of what I mean. Up until about a decade ago, Kadongo Kamu was the only "indigenous" genre you could attach to Ugandan music and not get into a debate about its legitimacy. But with the end of Afrigo and the rise of Eagles production and all the artists affiliated with it and those who "copy" their music, there is a specific sound that rose very fast to prominence in Ugandan music to become the most common/popular sound of music by mass appeal in Uganda today...

For the contentious issues in this particular case, you only need to revisit the points I've already raised pertaining (eg end of Afrigo), as I cannot possibly reiterate them any further.


Ultimately, I am still not sure why you (or the editor concerned if not yourself) cannot revert the article - rather suggesting I start a separate one instead - given all effort on my own part to see that all the reasons you raise for its deletion are addressed. I've in fact gone a step further in my last submission to explain why reinstating the article is itself a justifiable action: to repeat, so that other 'editors' may have a chance to discuss,comment even arbitrate on it here just as we are doing, and to dispel the impression that the deletion was not biased or presumptuous, based on a single editor's perceptions as it presently stands. Please at least advise me why I wouldn't have the same editorial/user leverage to reinstate the article myself, noting the reason why I haven't done it yet is simply because I believe equally in due process and everyone deserving fair action. Its the same reasons I feel I shouldn't edit (read delete) portions of the article which you have already submitted even if that might actually improve things or resolve issues.

This (article) as I said remains an important and pioneering work, credit to you as the initiator, so please just know we all mean well ultimately and, keep up the good work. Just make sure you can accomodate alternative views on the subject. Mutual tolerance and appreciation is of vital importance. Will be glad to see a favourable reaction, cheers for now. 176.26.14.22 (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

PS: The term is actually spelt and pronounced 'Savannahsoul' (monosyllable) not 'Savannah Soul' (di-syllable). Shortened form 'Savsoul' is also equally used. Joseph S. Mawejje (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


Savannah Soul - 8th Nov 2012

Hello Joseph. Thank you for the reply. Unfortunately I realize we are now reaching a stalemate on this issue. So I will be a bit brief. First of all I think all the points and questions and answers we can all make have already been made above so there is not much new me or you can say on this issue. Although the issue is now about whether the prior edits you had made about the genre can be re-instated by me. Unfortunately I cant do that as I feel there are many outstanding issues which I am not satisfied with as a pioneering editor of this article and thus reserve the right to roll back contentious edits and consensus has been reached on this talk page. Some of the issues include the questions I asked about the genre at the end of my previous post to which the answers are still vague at best and you are also not making any effort to answer them directly which is what is creating a lot of contention.

But also the way the edits had been formatted was poor and not in line with Wikipedia editing guidelines. It seemed more like a copy and paste from a website. Wiki formatting is very different from website formatting and this is why I said you first need to be well versed with editing a wiki page. And unfortunately I cant make any corrections to the edits not only because I disagree with them but also because I am totally ignorant of that genre or anything to do with it in the first place so I cant help format it even if I wanted. This is why my final suggestion was that you create its own page and first format it well from there and highlight the necessary information well and then we can include an intro to it on the main music page like with the 2 music genres. But its gonna have to be you to do this. I will not do it for you. I think its important that you show commitment to this project and not just "dump" information because it then raises questions of motive if you cant properly sit down and write and format your info and learn how to integrate it by yourself starting with its own new article first before trying to put it on this major article about Ugandan music. Thats my opinion.

So in closing, I will just say at the moment I have a lot of issues which I feel are outstanding on this genre so I cant revert the deletion until these issues have been dealt with. However, you can put it back yourself but I think it goes without saying that I will just revert it again. Thats where the "edit war" comes from. If it happens then senior editors/admins will just step in and revert the article back its original state and then lock the article from further edits. This is not what either of us wants because the article should remain open to others to add edits as long as there is no major conflict or contention on those edits/changes.

Thank you for your efforts.

Chris.Gido (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Thank you

Chris, I too suggest we get this to a close and simply agree to disagree. I am game enough to understand I am a new user on this forum and, as already indicated, accept the issues as far as use/etiquette is concerned and are/were ready to conform. If any other thing be said however, please do remember we all have different styles of writing, levels of committment, backgrounds and even actual time to contribute, so if my previous attempts fell short of the expectations, I can only say I am sorry. This works both ways as I definitely cannot say I'd agree with everything you express or the manner in which it's done. The 'conflict' you allude to is to me non-existent, and I personally have never meant or seen it to be that; just a justifiable request on my own part for explanation. In the end it's come down to whether you can really convince anyone else about the justifiation of deleting the article without any prior independent review, by another editor or user, and ultimately still refuse to revert it despite the implications and objections I raised. I also would need a copy , say saved in the sandbox, for record purposes and even better anaylsis but I cannot get that original. Reverting the article would have had mutual benefit because either of us could have easily got this all or part of it wrong, something only some independent party could arbitrate. A wider discussion also would definitely improving the article generally. As it is, and I stand to be corrected, I feel this is unexpected and unjustifiable one-manship which also creates a detrimental precedent; if someone else wished to contribute as I've tried on this prticlular page we may as well give it up knowing this is the ultimate result were any 'nonconformity' to exist in a submission, even if inadvertent. I really do not beleive I have to start a separate wiki page for Savannahsoul just because its deemed 'unacceptable' on the 'Music of Uganda' main page. What I'll do is - and this is really as a compromise - include a small note on the main article about it BUT qualifying it as 'niche' Ugandan music, with reference and links to the appropriate material already online. There wont be need to complicate matters by deleting this too as I am sure it will conform. I have also taken the opportunity to refer this discussion to other people who may have a stake, interest or even better alternative insights on the subject, to help to foster a more healthy contribution, hopefully you might be seeing this soon on the forum. Otherwise keep up with the good work, consider this was ultimately an unfortunate disagreement. with the best regards,

Joseph S. Mawejje (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


Savannah Soul - 9th November 2012

Thanks for the reply. Like I said before, I understand your frustration and why you would now start to characterize me as some despot ruler or something like that. But also like I said before, that is not the case. Its just in my opinion instead of being ideological and emotional, we need to be intellectual and factual, putting aside any prejudices we have about our country in order to present the truth to the world. Its just that I am an expert on the "current" Ugandan music industry and thus I will not allow this genre to be part of this article because not only is it not factual of what is going on in Ugandan music today, it looks simply like a marketing tool you are using for your studio called Traxbox and the music you would like to produce as a producer. And am going to try to further explain why I think so for you but also for the administrators who might get involved in this dispute if you continue with this stance. Am going to do this by quoting excerpts from the Traxbox content that you are linking to on here about this genre. Am going to do that below.


QUOTE: We hasten to clarify that this term is at the moment, as far as we know, strictly only used by us in this context, i.e. solely for purposes of describing the same-named music genre above being actively developed at TRAXBOX AMSPUG (The term is originally conjured up in the above context by J. Mawejje)


With this statement I feel you clearly demonstrate that this whole issue is just a personal project of yours and Traxbox and does not go beyond that.


QUOTE: We also do not attempt to assume or claim any authority to specify or demand use of this term,or insist in any way on a rigourous adherence to this approach , but hope however this or similar terms would be adopted more universally


With this statement you are merely "hoping" that this term is adopted by people. I think by saying this you are conceding that this term is not used by people in mainstream Ugandan music apart from yourself.

Another main problem with this genre is the fact that you cant define it very well and show how unique it is in any way, let alone whether it even exists in practice. A number of quotes show that it is actually just an ideology or something that you would like to see happen. Some quotes are below.


QUOTE: Savannah here stands for the Savannah Region in Africa (demographically the Central, Eastern and Southern Africa), while 'Soul' refers literally to the character or soul of the life of this area of the world. The term 'Savannahsoul' -'savsoul' for short- aims to describe and uniquely characterise the indeginously evolved genre -- neo-contemporary, multi-culturally influenced but uniquely indeginous- of the new music that is in development


This statement falls short on many fronts. The savannah region is a very huge geographical region encompassing many African countries with different styles and types of music and languages, with the countries most known for the savannah grasslands being Kenya, Tanzania and South Africa. So then by saying this genre is "Ugandan" is questionable. And this "evolving genre" you talk about is just alluded to but not exactly defined. The quotes below help make this clearer.


QUOTE: Song Lyrics being in more than one local or international lanugage of the area; typically English or French interspersing with local language; just as is actually done in normal speech within this region


This cant be far from the truth about what is happening in Ugandan music, let alone East African music in general. The highest percentage of all music in Uganda is in the Luganda language. The second distant is probably Swahili before English. I have honestly not listened to a mainstream Ugandan music record in the last decade that is sung in French. So I don't know where that emphasis on French comes from. Correct me if i am wrong.


QUOTE: From-scratch free-style music accompaniment and arrangement that do not immediately copy any other popular global styles but rather adapt in the first instance to the original music.


This is the way that you describe the form and style of the genre. I have read this statement a number of times but I have no idea what it means. And yet the style and form of a music genre is one of its most important elements, yet this is how you describe it. But also when it comes to another very important element of a music genre, which is the artists who are practicing it, the names you put forward are not convincing. There are times when it seems as though you are still stuck in history and I don't mean this in an insulting way. You are talking about the music done by artists over a decade ago whose music over the last decade does not resemble anything like you claim. Ragga Dee and Rasta Rob have always claimed they were dancehall musicians and the influence of early ragga musicians like shaba ranks is very evident in their early work, regardless of what you claim. Indeed a lot of the music they have produced over the past decade todate is indeed closer to dancehall music, Ragga Dee in particular. Steve Jean was one of the first practitioners of R&B music and even though he is no longer actively singing, his current productions for artists like Naava Grey follow in the same vein of R&B. Shanks is best known as being a pioneering Hip Hop/Dancehall practitioner and stays true to the same especially today if you analyze his music with the Goodlyfe Crew of Radio & Weasel.


QUOTE: Savannah Soul is for the greatest part an experimental type of music being promoted at Traxbox


All in all I think the above statement gives a good idea of what this genre is. A personal experimentation idea of a studio that you would like to be adopted. And I have no problem with that at all. The problem I have is that you are now trying to use a national encyclopedia to promote or "market" this project of yours by claiming that it "exists" as a part of Ugandan music when in truth it doesn't exist in Uganda at the moment. And so allowing it to be part of the encyclopedia about Uganda's music will be similar to allowing a grave distortion. In my opinion, this is simply a personal "marketing" campaign for your studio and it tells when one looks at these "samples" you talk about on your website and see its simply a product catalogue of things like midi files and music for films and videos.

So my friend, with all due respect, I think you have chosen the wrong place to promote your studio and its products. I have nothing against them or you. I am simply concerned with the integrity of this article and maintaining it as a start class article for Wikipedia Africa. And so any edits to the article to put this genre without trying to resolve these issues on this talk page will just lead to being reverted. Persistence will mean calling in an administrator to block further edits about this. That is why I have gone through great length to write this last reply so that there is evidence for further action by higher authority.

Please do reply if you have anything to say. Kind regards.

Chris.Gido (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


Re: Savannahsoul 9th Nov 2012

Hello Chris, Firstly, I really are happy with your last submission because it so much simplifies things. If only you had explained yourself in this manner, i.e.raising the specific issues with direct reference to my submission, we wouldn't have got to such acrimonious lengths. Anyone can now see why you had at least reasons to pull the article if mainly on forum-specific grounds, the more so now that it's at least reporduced here. Well done. It's so much the reason why you would have to reinstate the article if anything I would then have edited it myself to your satisfaction, Iam quite sure.

As the matter seems to be ultimately incompatibility with the main article viz established wikipedia standards, clearly there are points that you highlight which I can relate properly with the better illumination now provided;- the fact for instance that there apparently is no direct use of the term in Uganda at the moment; most of the artists references have 'moved on' locally or indeed actually have never personally characterised their music as savannhsoul; and even that the article could be construed as a mere promotional stint on the part of the studio. Many of these facts were not lost to me, in fact on the contrary I was well aware of the 'niche' character of 'savannahsoul' ,both as a music genre and as a descritpive term, at every point, much more now that it's at least 15 years past since 1998. This is exactly why I made the distinct qualifications to that effect, as you have quoted verbatim above. In retrospect too, I would have updated the information to reflect current status and also suitably recast it for wikipedia purposes, rather than rely on the existing standard information online. This is solely because of being new to the forum (though only as an editor as I use it exhuastivley elsewhere).

However having said that, I do have to emphatically state a numner of things not least for the record:

Firstly, that the salient points about 'savannahsoul/traxbox' remain; we did phsycially and intellectually develop this style as already described, with clear vision and objectives again as already described, and as a prima facie Ugandan creation, period. I am very respectfully aware that your yourself are a highly erudite person, and so I am comfortable you understand what exactly I mean by the preceeding, and what due intellectual process it would have invoked being as it were 'experimental'. This is something that comes naturally with my background, but it should not be construed elitist or self-serving; far from it as more than anything else the 'obvious' need to have our (Ugandan/African) music more better defined in its own right ( for all the benefits this brings,mentioned previously) was the primary compulsion behind it all. I'd personally seen enough of Ugandans (both in Kampala and crucially abroad) inadvertently turning ourselves into westernised 'wannabe copycats' by default, in so doing presenting such a pathetic image of ourselves to the outside world, that something had to be done. This is not at all 'emotional' stuff, it's a real hard look at oneself, and taking affirmative action to help yourself, taking any native resources imbued of your environment . No one does it for you. It is also not a case of 'living in history' - far from it there is enduring relevance of the above stand even as for the present day. Chameleone, Iryn and a few of their contemporaries who now are distinctly repositioning their music away from direct copies of western styles (but without sacrificing overall musical excellency) could be , finally, embracing this exact philosopy and putting it across. The authenticity, exlcusivity and respect the resultant music invokes is a clear result. It underlies the fact why other 'Afro-ethnic' societies like Jamaica (Raeggae/Dancehall), Creole-sepaking islands (Zouk) and even nearer to Uganda the Congo (Kwasakwasa,soukous) and South Africa (Quito) have so sucessfully established their native versions of 'Afropop' on an international scale - with commensurate benefits.

Regarding the issue of self-promotion I have to also clearly state: It's simply the nature of the status of the style, i.e. at the moment almost exclusively at Traxbox, that I had to reference the samples from this website. Believe me I do not have anything to hide and I couldn't be lesser desperate than trying to promote this music on Wikipedia, of all places. I just believed I was actually contributing constructively to the to the topic as a Ugandan and in particlular as a personal with some substantial local experience. 'Music of Uganda' didn't come to me as so exclusive or so limiting a topic - given the very broad and diverse nature of valid content possible therein- that it's sadly turned out to be. It's also, I must say, part of an underlying belief in 'self definition' and taking your own matters in hand, not personally but as a nation viz the rest of the world, that I would have though it 'justifiable' to present as favourable a picture of the music in our country, even on wikipedia , especially since it is really only a matter of looking out for and presenting the best positives (facts, perpsectives) rather than emphasising anything that is negative. It is my humble opinion, as inferred in all the previous argument, the article tends to pander to the latter of the two positions - certainly unintentionally I would believe.

It is also goes without saying that Traxbox Amspug as a studio and personally as a producer, we are pursing the basic ideology as defined for savannahsoul as a working principle, much as we did with the earlier artists. That these latter did not know this (or even now seem not to know) simply is much a result of the time and everything then being in 'nascent' stages. We probalby had not even got the name of the then 'experimental' music being made. However if we (or I personally) had continued actively in Uganda as amusician or producer, there's is no doubt that a far bigger section of the population would have known about the music. We have intention of re-releasing the material in any case so one will expect most of the issues still outstanding will resolve much sooner than later.

Obviously we are bound to still disagree but I really are happy that at least in my own estimation any latent acrimony that may have arisen is now defused. I am short of time at this particular moment so will stop here. Please feel otherwise free to reply as always. Rgds Joseph S. Mawejje (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


Savannah Soul - November 10th 2012

Hello. Thank you for the reply. Its good to see that you now understand my position on this issue. Rest assured that I understand your arguments and in fact I sympathize with your point of view. Seeing as you read my personal page you saw that I, just like you, propose ideas of Pan African-ism and being independent from western influence and hegemony. But in the same statement I also state how I think ultimately the idea of pan africanism and African nationalism is more of a mirage than a possibility. This issue has helped make my point. Regardless of how noble the idea is of having artistic independence from the west, ultimately the powerful force of globalization has forced western hegemony on most areas of our cultures, music included. Today with satellite television everyone in Africa follows western artists and movie stars like idols so it should not be any surprise when our own musicians try to do what the western culture espouses. Its part of the process of "getting to grips with reality". And so trying to force the issue from the top down is just a waste of time. It has to come from the bottom upwards if it is to be meaningful and credible. And that's where the word "credibility" comes into play. An encyclopedia has to be a credible source of information of what is taking place around the world. This includes telling facts the way they are on the ground not the way we would want them to be, no matter how negative. It would be akin to the ostrich that hides its head in the sand and leaves it s body out. I am an intellectual first and that is what dictates my view on life. And so should it be for you, otherwise the door to bias and corruption is then opened. This encyclopedia article should give facts about the music of Uganda the way it is, both positives and negatives and we shouldn't try to airbrush the negatives. It kills the integrity of the encyclopedia. Thats my final position and most importantly the official position of the Wikipedia foundation.

This is most probably my last reply on this genre issue but if you have any particular question I will be happyto reply. Thank you very much for your opinins, knowledge and efforts.

Chris.Gido (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)