At 01:30 PM 11/6/2006, David Rastall wrote:
>On Nov 6, 2006, at 11:29 AM, Eugene C. Braig IV wrote:
>
> > ...Martin fans tend to trivialize or quaint-ify
> > the shop's early guitars with the "parlor" moniker.
>
>I don't understand the stigma attached to the word "parlor."  Can
>someone enlighten me please?  Romantic guitars were mostly played in
>the home by amateurs;  at least amateurs constituted the vast bulk of
>the sheet music market.  The parlor is where they would have played!
>What's the problem with considering 19th-century guitars parlor
>instruments?  Isn't that what they were?
>
>I've never heard any complaints about references to the lute as a
>"household instrument."  Is there some kind of snobbish element at
>work here, that can't stand the thought of anything dignified being
>associated with the "parlor?"  Is it just a word-game being played
>here, or is there something else about that word "parlor" that I'm
>missing?

That's not quite my source of consternation.  If we refer to instruments as 
their contemporaries named them, "parlor" simply is a modern, added-on 
misnomer; the instrument simply was "guitar" to its 
contemporaries.  "Parlor" is a fine adjective, but I don't like it as a 
defined instrument type for an instrument that simply wasn't called that by 
its contemporaries.  In spite of a large amateur market (which isn't so 
different from today), there were also a fair number of concert artists who 
performed on such guitars in concert halls, Giuliani through Foden and 
Bickford.  I would wager there are many more Dreadnaught-style guitars 
being played by amateurs in private parlors than there were contemporary 
19th-c. guitars.  In spite, nobody calls the Dreadnaught a parlor guitar 
simply because that's not what it's contemporaries named it.  I may be 
wrong, but too often "parlor" seems to imply "quaintly obsolete" to fans of 
the modern steel-string.  I prefer simply "guitar", as they were originally 
named.  If the context calls for clarification, I might add an era of 
manufacture, maker's name, physical measurements, etc.

I'm happy to call modern small-bodied guitars "parlor" if that's what their 
makers would like them named, but I won't call historic guitars "parlor" 
just because they weren't.  That said, I don't take offense if you'd like 
to refer to early 6-stringers as parlor. Enjoy.

Best,
Eugene 



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Reply via email to