From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Wedding music suggestions?
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 16:00:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.050301.29629@oct17.dfe.dec.com> chaban@fortsc.enet.dec.com (Ed Chaban) writes:

>    (References deleted due to absurd number)

>In article <1992Aug17.180456.27862@Princeton.EDU>, roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes...
>>>Why? because I'm pointing out your rudeness toward those who chose the music
>>>we chose?

>>Huh?  To whom did I express rudeness?  Whom did I tell, "you shouldn't
>>have done that"?  I pointed out *my* reaction to the music, based on
>>what I kow of the music and the musical cultures that produced both it
>>and its use at weddings.

>Typical.  I'm not disputing your facts. I'm disputing your judgement.  I 
>submit your "definition" of the Lohengrin Wedding March is archaic
>given the common usage.  

"*THE* common usage"?  A) It's not so common as you'd think; b) it's
localized to this country, pretty much; c) in many places in this
country, you wouldn't be allowed to use it.

>Your rudeness is implicit.  Choosing the Lohengrin
>is something an "illiterate" would do is what you seem to say.

Ah, OK.  It's not your reading skills; just your over-fertile
imagination.  I may "seem" to say a lot of things -- yesterday, I was
"seeming" to say I was a "paranoid Wagner-hater" or some such -- but
perhaps we could limit ourselves to what we *do* say.  I've certainly
given you that courtesy.  If you think I might be saying something, try
asking for clarification before you flame, hm?

>>>>c) Did I ever say you were *not* free to choose what you liked?  I only
>>>>expressed my personal bewilderment at the process by which these two
>>>>numbers became favorites at actual weddings, as opposed to weddings in
>>>>plays and operas and movies.

>>>You called the choice "inappropriate"

>>Go back and read what I said: it's inappropriate wrt its original use:
>>to depict a recessional in a wedding that turns out very, very badly.
>>Anyone who knows the story of Lohengrin will be reminded of this the
>>moment the music is played.  

>No, only some hypersensitive achedemic like yourself will have such a reaction.

You know, I came to Wagner very late.  But long before I did, dozens of
opera lovers --none of them academics-- told me about the Wedding March,
and how it gave them pause.

In Germany and France people watch movies in which people get married to
the strains of the Wedding March and just shake their heads -- they
could *never* imagine doing that.  When they find out that people in
America, not just movie people, actually do this, they're doubly taken
aback.  

It's really only an American custom, as far as I can tell.  And that
makes it pretty interesting, and worth comment.

>>>>Funny, when I plan a big party and invite lots of guests, I take the
>>>>guests' sensibilities, wishes, etc. into consideration.  And since music
>>>>has the power to offend, the choice of music at a large gathering should
>>>>not be made as though nobody but those throwing the party were going to
>>>>be present.

>>>This was not a "party", it was a religious ceremony.

>>Oh, well, *that* changes *everything.*  It's just *fine* to insult
>>invited guests at one of those, right?  

>Did I say that?  

Well, why did you reply to my comments about a party by pointing out
that the gathering wasn't a party?   That was *all* you said.  You
offered a distinction.  If the distinction was irrelevant, why did you
make it?  (Yes, this is a case of my flaming before I received
clarification -- guilty as charged.  But there wasn't anything to read
into or out of; just the one sentence.)

>I simply said that our choice of the Lohengrin March was spiritual in nature.  

If you said it at all, you didn't say it simply.  I doubt many people
read the sentence above as either saying or implying that.

>In spite of what amounts to a "Wagner trivia
>question"  This piece says "Here comes the bride" to the biggest segment
>of the population.  

If it's such a trivia question, why do so many people react forcefully
and negatively to it?  You would *not* be allowed to do that in a lot of
churches, or in most synagogues.  And to others the signification simply
isn't there.

>My wife and I have heard it played at numerous ceremonies
>and we wanted to hear it at ours. 

And I made no attemtp to stop you, or to tell you that you'd
donesomething wrong.  I agreed from the start that this is a modern
American custom -- but that it can signify other things as well.  

Suppose your great-uncle from Germany had come to the US for the first
time to attend your wedding.  He might have gotten *quite* a surprise.

> If someone was insulted, I think the
>decision to put them on the guest list was "inappropriate".

Well, you've got a funny idea of hospitality, then.  I choose the guests
first, *then* the music.

>>Sorry, but appropriateness is *far more* important at a religious
>>ceremony.  As I pointed out in a previous posting, many churches have
>>rather strict guidelines concernin the type of music to be used.  And
>>reasons for those guidelines.  

>You don't say? We were married in an Episcopal church. I did the "politically
>correct" thing and included some Purcell. 

Depending on the Episcopal church, the Beatles would have done just as
well.  8-)  My brother-in-law is an Episcopal priest--and it's from him
that I got the expression "faith a la carte."

But don't try the Wagner thing at most Lutheran churches.

>>But the point remains: you invited those guests to share in the
>>ceremony.  Unless you're so narcissistic as to see them as nothing but
>>further window dressing for the experience *you're* going to have (i.e.,
>>of getting married), your primary concern must be for *them*.
>>Otherwise, "Cocktails for two" would do just fine, at a ceremony
>>attended by the two of you, the minister, and the waiter serving
>>cocktails and as a witness.

>Hey, I've even been to some "alternative" ceremonies that would really 
>upset a stick-in-the-mud like yourself.  Go to a Quaker wedding someday,
>they are not always pleasant!

a) I grew up among Quakers.  Went to their school.

b) I've heard screwier music at weddings than you ever will.  Got a
friend of mine to do a string quartet arrangement of the closing theme
music from Dr. Who for two other  friends who were getting married.
Half the crowd scratched their heads; the other half fell of their
chairs.  Civil ceremony, I might add.

c) Stick in the mud?  *You're* the one that's gotten all insulted...

>(Proceeds to go into tirade {deleted} and presumes I'm unaware of what a
> jerk Wagner was and faults me for not reading his postings in his defense
>  - Some of us work for a living!)

Got it.  Time to post, no time to read the postings to which you're
replying.  Time to call something a tirade, no time to repost it -- and
*nowhere* in the stuff you deleted did I presume you were unaware of
Wagner's personality, btw.  I mentioned that I didn't like Wagner the
person, that's all.  

I suppose if I said "good morning" to you, you'd assume I figured you
didn't know that?

Sorry, but you *didn't* read my postings before you flamed, as several
others have already pointed out.  Perhaps you might want to check
new.announce.newusers on your coffe break or something.

>>And THAT, O Semi-Literate One, is what my paragraph above was about.  If
>>you want to listen to Wagner, you buy a ticket.  If you don't, you don't
>>-- and the choice is up to you.  But many people DO have nasty
>>associations to Wagner (and lots of opera buffs go into hysterics when
>>they hear the Wedding Chorus at an actual wedding); and anybody planning
>>a wedding should take this into account.  Nor should they tell those of
>>their guests who don't like Wagner -- for whatever reason -- to seek
>>therapy; that's not what a wedding is for.  

>No, you simply don't invite people who don't understand the new meaning
>history has given the Lohengrin March.  

Well, at least we now know what's important to you at weddings and such.

But honestly, do you suppose the guy who asked about music for *his*
wedding takes this attitude?  

>Look, I may not have a music degree, but I was brought up around good music
>and have performed at a number of weddings.  I *KNEW* the origin of the March
>before you blessed us "illiterates" with the information.  

What is this?  The Piece that Dare Not Speak Its Name?  Besides, *you*
said "illiterates," not me.  Heaven knows why.

>How many of us
>were in diapers at a wedding when we first heard the tune?  

Actually, I think I've only been to about 2 or 3 weddings where it was
used -- that Conservative one being one of them.

>Not all of us made those neural connections in an opera house.

But some did, and others made them in other cultures.  It's a big
country, America.  

>You really are a bloody snob.

Why do you say this? What have I said (as opposed to what you've
imagined) that would lead you to this conclusion?  So far, the only
snobbish thing I've seen here is your insistence (you've said it twice
so far) that any guest who might possibly take offense at anything said,
done, or played at the wedding should stay away, and that those who are
making up the guest and music lists shouldn't take such feelings into
consideration.

That's just plain rude.

Roger