Absolutely fascinating and starting to give me a line on this thing that I have been struggling to define. It is very interesting to me to start to look at the differences in how these two countries evolved. For example, I am quite certain that the effects of the US Revolutionary War played a large part in how these two cultures evolved differently. Because the US, as we now know it, was born in revolution, it seems to have spawned a central idea that being "American" was an ideal. Whether that idependent idea that has evolved in so many good, bad or inconseqential ways was a positive thing.... well I don't know. But the Canadians didn't have that same experience and it produced a different mindset. I think on things like the Metis. That cultural experience of melding the various ethnic and native peoples into a distinct culture doesn't really happen here. Our expansion and growth came at the expense of native cultures, for the most part. The melting pot here meant that everyone was supposed to become WASPish and American. Whereas in Canada, there was recognition of the various peoples, and an attempt to allow them some measure of autonomy. Saying that, I am not unaware of what became of the Metis, but what I am speaking of is the actual creation of them from disparate groups, and not the rebellion and quashing of them. In fact, let me make it clear that I am speaking in broad oversimplifications here for the sake of the larger discussion of how the music developed.

I think that when one takes into account the earlier comment by Bruce Murdoch about eschewing labels and just letting the influences (historic, ethnic, wilderness) that are out there effect the music, you come up with this unique take on things.

Mick