From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: rec.music.classical
Subject: Re: Wedding music suggestions?
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:04:56 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Aug17.050733.20978@oct17.dfe.dec.com> chaban@fortsc.enet.dec.com (Ed Chaban) writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug16.215957.12768@Princeton.EDU>, roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes...
>>In article <1992Aug16.194403.18619@oct17.dfe.dec.com> chaban@fortsc.enet.dec.com (Ed Chaban) writes:
>>>
>>>In article <1992Aug16.144811.9375@Princeton.EDU>, roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes...
>>>
>>>>I will never understand the use of the Lohengrin Wedding March.  As far
>>>>as I can tell, this is only used in the US (people in Germany used to
>>>>get a chuckle when seeing it in an American movie); and it's hopelessly
>>>>insappropriate as soon as you know the source. 
>>>>After all, a) it's a recessional, and b) he leaves her almost
>>>>immediately.

>>>>Oh, and the Mendelssohn's a recessional, too.  

>>>>I guess there's just something about life imitating art imitating life
>>>>that people can't resist.  (I've even heard the two pieces performed in a
>>>>sort of medley, with harmonic fumfering in between, at a wedding in a
>>>>Conservative Jewish synagogue.  On the organ.)

>>>We are free to choose music we like without regard for the opinions of
>>>pretentious Princetonians.  

>>a) I attend the University of Chicago.  I only post from here.

>I'm happy for you.

Clearly not.  My living near Princeton seems to give you pain.

>>b) You're sounding pretty pompous yourself.

>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.

>>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.  

>Seems you have *REAL* problems with the music of Richard Wagner as evidenced
>by what you have written (See below)

Seems you have *REAL* problems with reading comprehension.  See below.

>>>Personal choices like these are not to be criticized.  

>>Why not?  

>Ask around.  Clearly, your mother never taught you how to be polite.

And no doubt you're an expert on manners as well as music.  Your posting
just reeks of both...

>>>Even if a bride and groom were to  choose Spike Jones' "Cocktails
>>>For Two" as wedding music,  guests' opinions of that choice are of no
>>>consequence.

>>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?  

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.  

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.

>>And, yes, Wagner *does* offend some people.  Is this any different from
>>a symphony concert (cf. the Israel Phil's ongoing struggle wit
>>hanti-Wagnerians)?  Yes, of course.  At the symphony, you go for the
>>music, and you know what's being played beforehand.  At a wedding, you
>>do *not* go for the music, but must listen to it anyway.

>Ah! now we get to the the *REAL* source of your comments.  You're 
>another one of those paranoid Wagner-haters.  

Allow me to congratulate you on your rich fantasy life.  

Just a few months ago, I was *defending* the Israel Phil.'s attempts to
play Wagner, both in this group and in soc.culture.jewish.  I don't hate
Wagner's music, as everyone around here knows; I listen to it, teach it,
and discuss it.  Wagner the man was quite unpleasant, and the uses of
Wagner's music have upset many people.

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.  

Not *my* wedding, in any case.

>I'd suggest you get professional help... QUICK! 

You too.  Look up Literacy Volunteers in your Yellow Pages, or get
someone to help you look it up.

>Hey, the people we invited have no opinions on Wagner.  Some people are
>offended by the Dead Kennedys. Who are you? Tipper Gore? 

Excuse me, but did I criticize *your* wedding?  I'm glad you knew about
your guests' musical tastes; no doubt you *did* take them into account
when you planned your wedding, your comments above notwithstanding.  

Now read my original comment ONE MORE TIME:

"It's hopelessly inappropriate as soon as you know the source."

If you *don't* know the source, it's just fine.  

Happy?  

Roger