Following on from the thread about the possible influence on Gospel music of the Gaels from NW Scotland one of the posters remarked that he would have liked the program to investigate the musical culture of West Africa where the slaves came from.

This made me think. How can musicoligists say that because the music of West Africa now is as it was 250 years ago? Might not the music of this region been 'contaminated' by missionaries from the very same area of Scotland (or the southern US for that matter) bringing their lining out to the native populations. Not just that but the 'contamination' from influences from all over the world via religous practices, radio and television and the introduction of new instruments.

We cannot be certain, for example, how Mozart's works sounded, or how he meant them to sound even though we've got the written scores. How can musicolgists talk about what was, or wasn't done, around the camp fires hundreds of years ago in the African bush? Just look at how many versions of songs and tunes there are from the British Isles and most of them are no more than 150 - 200 years old. This illustrates how quickly changes come about in oral traditions even in, what was at the time, the most advanced and literate nation in the world (possibly!).

Are similarites between two or more traditions just coincidence, related to each other or the result of convergent evolution? How can you prove it either way where populations have moved around, inter bred and traded goods, ideas and music for hundreds or thousands of years?

T