Hello fellow musicians of the world. My question is more historical. As an admirer of both Latin music and blues/jazz, I always wonder why United States music of African origin wasn't as rhythm centered as Latin music. I mean, there are a lot of different claves in South America: merengue, salsa, cumbia etc... and flexible claves: samba, bossa nova, etc... In all these styles, the percussion seems come from an African origin. It is not the same as in jazz and blues. There is syncopation, but it seems that the concept of clave is not that strong, nor is the use of a variation of percussion instruments of African origin (with some exception - New Orleans, etc). Why is it like that?

I already got an answer for that, but I wanted to check if it is right with someone who studied it more seriously. The hypothesis brought to me is that African slaves in south American were allowed to play percussion; instead, in the United States, it was prohibited, so the music developed in singing and later in church chorales and blues.

But then, who prohibited it? The government, or it was more a cultural thing: the majority of slave owners had that mentality? Do we have a record of that? Why was singing allowed then? Is that something to do with the model of colonization?

Hello fellow musicians of the world. My question is primarily a historical one. As an admirer of both Latin music and blues/jazz, I always wonder why United States music with African roots isn't as rhythm centered as Latin music. I mean, there are a lot of different claves in South America: merengue, salsa, cumbia etc… and flexible claves: samba, bossa nova, etc.… In all these styles, the percussion seems to come from an African origin. 

It is not the same in jazz and blues. There is syncopation, but it seems that the concept of clave is not that strong, nor is the use of a variation of percussion instruments of African origin (with some exception - New Orleans, etc.). Why is it like that?

I already got an answer to this, but I'm looking for confirmation from someone who has studied the subject more seriously. The hypothesis suggested to me is that African slaves in South America were allowed to play percussion and that in the United States, it was instead prohibited, so the music developed through singing and later in church chorales and blues.

But then, who was behind that prohibition? Was it the authorities, or was it more a cultural thing: the majority of slave owners had that mentality? Do we have a record of that? Why was singing allowed then? Is that something to do with the model of colonization?

Hello fellow musicians of the world. My question is more historical. As both admirer of Latin music and blues/jazz, I always wonder why united states music of African origin wasn't as rhythm centered as Latin music. I mean, there are a lot of different claves in south america: merengue, salsa, cumbia etc... and flexible claves: samba, bossa nova, etc... In all this styles, the percussion seems come from an African origin. It is not the same as in jazz and blues. There is sincopation, but it seem that the concept of clave is not that strong, nor is the use of a variation of percusion instruments from African origin (with some exception - new orleans, etc)  . So why is it like that?

I already got a answer for that, but I wanted to check if it is right from someone that studied it more seriously. The hypothesis brought to me is that African slaves in south American were allowed to play the percusion, instead in united states it was prohibited, so the music developed in singing and latter in church chorale and blues.

But then, who prohibited? The government, or it was more a cultural thing: the majority of slaves owners had that mentality? Do we have register of that? Why singing were allowed then? Is that something to do with the model of colonization?

Thank you!

Hello fellow musicians of the world. My question is more historical. As an admirer of both Latin music and blues/jazz, I always wonder why United States music of African origin wasn't as rhythm centered as Latin music. I mean, there are a lot of different claves in South America: merengue, salsa, cumbia etc... and flexible claves: samba, bossa nova, etc... In all these styles, the percussion seems come from an African origin. It is not the same as in jazz and blues. There is syncopation, but it seems that the concept of clave is not that strong, nor is the use of a variation of percussion instruments of African origin (with some exception - New Orleans, etc). Why is it like that?

I already got an answer for that, but I wanted to check if it is right with someone who studied it more seriously. The hypothesis brought to me is that African slaves in south American were allowed to play percussion; instead, in the United States, it was prohibited, so the music developed in singing and later in church chorales and blues.

But then, who prohibited it? The government, or it was more a cultural thing: the majority of slave owners had that mentality? Do we have a record of that? Why was singing allowed then? Is that something to do with the model of colonization?