From: chaban@fortsc.enet.dec.com (Ed Chaban)
Subject: Re: Wedding music suggestions?
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 17 AUG 92 20:58:13 PST


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

>>>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.

>>>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?  I simply said that our choice of the Lohengrin March
was spiritual in nature.  In spite of what amounts to a "Wagner trivia
question"  This piece says "Here comes the bride" to the biggest segment
of the population.  My wife and I have heard it played at numerous ceremonies
and we wanted to hear it at ours.  If someone was insulted, I think the
decision to put them on the guest list was "inappropriate".

> 
>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. 

> 
>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!

(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!)

> 
>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.  

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.  How many of us
were in diapers at a wedding when we first heard the tune?  Not all of us
made those neural connections in an opera house.

You really are a bloody snob.

-Ed