At 07:46 PM 11/6/2006, David Rastall wrote: >On Nov 6, 2006, at 5:50 PM, Eugene C. Braig IV wrote: > > > ...I may be wrong, but too often "parlor" seems to imply "quaintly > > obsolete" > > to fans of the modern steel-string. > >Okay, I can see that. Just as the idea of the parlor itself is >quaintly absolete today. Sort of like "lounge music" or "barbershop >music." Perhaps the term "garage band" will be quaintly obsolete 100 >years from now. > >But I thought "parlor music" was a legitimate 19th-century musical >genre. The sentimental popular/art songs of the 19th century, such >as those by Stephen Foster, are termed "parlor songs," or at least >that's what they're called by a great number of people. I don't know >whether the term itself "parlor music" was used in the 19th century >or not, but in the context of parlor songs, a guitar or piano used to >accompany such songs could indeed be called a parlor instrument. Or >so it seems to me anyway.
As I'd mentioned, I think "parlor" makes a fine adjective. I just don't like its revisionist use to name/define an instrument type. Best, Eugene To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html