Writing about another culture's music that looks objective is shaped by who is writing, how, and for what purpose. The prejudices of the describer leak into how the evidence is presented, so the description itself has to be questioned, not just the music.
A broad name like "African music" sounds as if everyone agrees on what it covers. In fact it means different things to different people, so using the label smuggles in a consensus that does not exist.
Scholars of non-Western music are steered by their field's priorities toward explaining it through society and ritual, rather than analysing its notes and structure the way Western music is analysed. This quietly treats one tradition as art to be examined and the other as anthropology to be observed.
Terms like "additive rhythm" or "improvisation" get invoked as if they captured what is distinctive about a foreign music. Often they are lasting myths or easy catch-alls that stand in for actual analysis of how the music is built.
When debates about a people's music are conducted mostly by outsiders, an insider's viewpoint can reveal modes of creativity that the usual outside frameworks miss. Changing who holds the pen changes what counts as the music's logic.