I think most people would EXPECT that music to have come from the subcontinent unless they were specifically told it was from the UK. And if the musicians were of Indian birth I would take that to mean they were born in India, not the UK, so it would still be Indian music by any estimation regardless of where it was actually recorded. Playing Led Zeppelin on the Moon doesn't make it "Lunar music. " Now, if we're talking about native Brits of Indian descent recording traditionally Indian music in the UK, well, now we're a lot closer to what jazz and blues actually are, but I also suspect that, consciously or not, elements of traditionally BRITISH culture would creep in to increasing degrees. It's really a good parallel, in fact; is John Lennon or George Harrison playing a sitar "Indian music"? I suspect whether such music is authentic or they're just interlopers depends on whom you ask.

If we want to speak of where it originated, maybe "black" music is OK, but it's long since ceased to be that; jazz has been (wrongly) called the only uniquely AMERICAN (not "black" ) music. Enjoying and performing jazz crosses racial and even cultural lines (personally I don't care for it; it always seems to be trying too hard for my taste, and often a bit pretentious, as in its advocates claims that it's the only truly American music, which ignores blues, country and rock to name just the most obvious. ) In terms of antecedents jazz is "black" music alright, but only at a level where jazz, blues and gospel were variations on a single underlying cultural theme (and it gets quite murky there, because the latter two start to include the Appalachian traditions born in Scotland and Ireland and enshrined in Nashville. )


Again, America is a nation and a culture, but it is NOT a distinct race; few nations are anymore, which is ultimately a good thing, but I think it's far more true in America than anywhere else. If America were a dog our breed would be "mutt. " Our best moments have been when we all identified as "American" sans hyphen, and our worst when we racially segregated. That makes all the difference here, IMHO, because things like musical taste can very easily be defined by culture, but not by race unless we embrace some very ugly and thoroughly discredited ideas. The case of a black Dutchman playing jazz highlights that aspect well; he may be black, and I white, but when he's playing jazz he's playing music more from my culture than his. It's "Straight Outta Compton" not "Newly Written in Amsterdam" (or, of course, NWA for short. ) Ultimately, I think jazz is more of American than black origin, and, again, I think that's a good thing. In those terms it's easier to understand the appeal to people who wouldn't be considered even remotely black, and the subtle interplay between other forms of American music, some of which are often considered as "white" as jazz is considered "black. " Les Paul and Chet Atkins were virtuoso jazz guitarists, and the world is better for it even if they found little audience for that music with either devotees of "black" music like jazz or the predominantly white audiences that wanted to hear them play country.

Music is music, and while it's frequently defined culturally, it should never be defined racially; few things apart from genetics should be, IMHO. We're getting into complicated and controversial areas in a lot of respects here, because I also think jazz and blues could, at least for many years, better be called "black" music in the North than the South, because on many levels the whole reason the South had Jim Crow in the first place was because it was long far more integrated than the North in other ways. The widespread existence of "separate but equal" facilities pretty well establishes that whites and blacks were interacting regularly and extensively, and the creation of ghettos in Harlem and Watts taught many blacks fleeing Southern racism that the problem wasn't really geographic. That said, the implication above that ads suggesting music is "too black" would be offensive but ads suggesting music is "too white" (or whatever) are not is reminiscent of the same problems America has had for a while, and the reason terms like "black music" are troublesome. It conjures up images of liberal white guilt, of privileged whites somehow thinking they've expiated sins in which they COULDN'T have been complicit by patronizing (in every sense) "black music" and of blacks who resent white poseurs trying to appropriate "their" music. No, Europe probably doesn't have those kinds of problems: I recommend leaving it that way.