|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Wedding Disco
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
For example, as a wedding recently, the couple were insistent they they leave the church to an Elton John track on CD, rather than the pretty spectacular church organ. According to the Weddings Project (as I understand it), we should have simply said "of course! What ever you want."
I've never been involved in planning a wedding but I imagine I'd be pretty miffed if the minister or anyone else gave unsolicited advice to my wife-to-be and me regarding our exit music. Even if there was a 'pretty spectacular church organ'.
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
We did, respectfully, suggest alternatives. The couple stuck with what they wanted. And I have to say that it was one of the limpest exits of bride and groom that I have seen in our church. It just lost something... We've just found, over many years, what we know works in our building and what tends to flop.
In your opinion, of course. But what does your opinion matter? Isn't it up to the couple to choose music, decoration and everything else that suits their preferences, unless the minister etc. genuinely feel there's something theologically dubious about the couple's choices?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
In your opinion, of course. But what does your opinion matter? Isn't it up to the couple to choose music, decoration and everything else that suits their preferences, unless the minister etc. genuinely feel there's something theologically dubious about the couple's choices?
Well, this is the point. If they aren't willing to come under the priest's authority during their church wedding, what is the point? If you're a church, their 440 quid in your bank account is the point. People who get paid to clean up vomit in nightclubs don't need to have an opinion on whether its good or bad in absolute terms, that it's good for them is all they need consider.
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
quote:
Originally posted by Earwig:
I've met Kate Bottley, and I reckon she was very up for this. She's also heavily involved in the CofE's Weddings Project.
Ah! That explains a lot.
One of the key bits of the ethos of the Weddings Project appears to be "give the punters what they want, when they want it." I'm not saying that there shouldn't be an attempt to meet the requests of couples but I found the two day seminar given by the Weddings Project to be a trifle too much of a teeter into craven submission.
I am uneasy about the kind of pressure that is sometimes put on churches to relinquish all standards. I actually think that most churches have a good idea of what will work work and what won't, and that these insights of experience are ditched at your peril.
For example, as a wedding recently, the couple were insistent they they leave the church to an Elton John track on CD, rather than the pretty spectacular church organ. According to the Weddings Project (as I understand it), we should have simply said "of course! What ever you want."
We did, respectfully, suggest alternatives. The couple stuck with what they wanted. And I have to say that it was one of the limpest exits of bride and groom that I have seen in our church. It just lost something.
We weren't trying to be deliberately obstructive or snooty. We've just found, over many years, what we know works in our building and what tends to flop.
And how far do you go in yielding to the whims and trends of wedding couples? Is there a line that you draw, beyond which you say "no can do"? If so, where is it?
Let me be clear - I believe strongly in trying to provide weddings of the highest quality, where the couple (and their guests) go away deeply satisfied by all we have been able to do for them. We will do an awful lot to make their day as perfect as we can. But I am just not sure that the Weddings Project approach is the right way, because so often it seems to point to ways that cheapen and diminish.
(We also tend to get great feedback from our wedding couples, so we must be doing something right.)
I think they have fallen entirely into craven submission. A church wedding is now essentially venue hire. There's no way out of this. It's a buyer's market.
The people who still want to get married in church at this point tend more often than not to be suggestible people of no particular cultural education. Their wanting to get married in church despite having no serious religious committment is of a piece with their having the same taste in music as everyone they have ever met. In other words, if they had more taste, they probably wouldn't be getting married in church anyway, so the church is justified, I think, in just taking the money and running.
[ 26. June 2013, 20:37: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
In your opinion, of course. But what does your opinion matter? Isn't it up to the couple to choose music, decoration and everything else that suits their preferences, unless the minister etc. genuinely feel there's something theologically dubious about the couple's choices?
Well, this is the point. If they aren't willing to come under the priest's authority during their church wedding, what is the point?
Sorry, I think this is completely the wrong way round. What have the aesthetic components of the wedding service got to do with the priest? If the couple seek his / her advice then, great, give your view on, for example, the beautiful sound of the church organ. But otherwise it feels to me like a rather rude imposition on the part of the priest.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
In your opinion, of course. But what does your opinion matter? Isn't it up to the couple to choose music, decoration and everything else that suits their preferences, unless the minister etc. genuinely feel there's something theologically dubious about the couple's choices?
Well, this is the point. If they aren't willing to come under the priest's authority during their church wedding, what is the point?
Sorry, I think this is completely the wrong way round. What have the aesthetic components of the wedding service got to do with the priest? If the couple seek his / her advice then, great, give your view on, for example, the beautiful sound of the church organ. But otherwise it feels to me like a rather rude imposition on the part of the priest.
Theirs is the imposition. They're in a church. Not a bouncy castle, or a pub function room.
It's essentially meaningless to get married in a church if you're just using the priest as set decoration.
However, you'll note I went on to say that the church doesn't need to concern itself with this, just grin and bear it for the money.
[ 26. June 2013, 20:49: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
It's essentially meaningless to get married in a church if you're just using the priest as set decoration.
Hmm, I think there's plenty of middle ground between going with the priest's views on everything (coming under his / her authority, as you put it) and 'just using the priest as set decoration', the latter approach being nothing like what I was suggesting. Apologies for not being clear about that in my previous post. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
It's essentially meaningless to get married in a church if you're just using the priest as set decoration.
Hmm, I think there's plenty of middle ground between going with the priest's views on everything (coming under his / her authority, as you put it) and 'just using the priest as set decoration', the latter approach being nothing like what I was suggesting. Apologies for not being clear about that in my previous post.
How is there a middle ground? How is the priest not just there for the look of the thing, if s/he no longer exercises the authority s/he has when carrying out any other liturgy?
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
You might want to marry before God - with the assistance of a priest - without necessarilly wanting to leave the church to something by Bach. The two aspirations are not mutually exclusive.
(BTW is it really that different from this.)
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
roybart
Shipmate
# 17357
|
Posted
The priest in this instance certainly seemed to be participating willingly -- one might say, joyfully -- in the dance.
A priest who felt strongly that this was inappropriate -- for any of the reasons given in the posts on this thread -- could simply have said, No.
The couple would have gone elsewhere, of course. Is that one of the things that critics disapprove of .... that there WAS an "elsewhere," i.e., a church where those in charge were happy to accommodate the couple with the kind of ceremony they wished?
I'm quite classical in my aesthetics, but I see nothing sacrilegious, impious, insensitive, or even "vulgar" here.
[ 26. June 2013, 21:53: Message edited by: roybart ]
--------------------
"The consolations of the imaginary are not imaginary consolations."
-- Roger Scruton
Posts: 547 | From: here | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
The priest in this instance certainly seemed to be participating willingly -- one might say, joyfully -- in the dance.
A priest who felt strongly that this was inappropriate -- for any of the reasons given in the posts on this thread -- could simply have said, No.
I haven't been talking about the video in the OP since my first observation that it wasn't a flashmob.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
You might want to marry before God - with the assistance of a priest - without necessarilly wanting to leave the church to something by Bach. The two aspirations are not mutually exclusive.
(BTW is it really that different from this.)
What they want is of no interest to me unless and until I get paid as a result of it. If they weren't implicitly assenting to hierarchy - and thus, the idea that what they want and doing it right may not be the same thing - why do they involve a priest at all? Unless, of course, they just haven't thought that hard about it. In which case, again, they'd be better off deferring to the priest. But they won't, and they'll get what they want, and they'll pay their money. That's all fine. The full version of the paragraph South Coast Kevin quoted continued:
If you're a church, their 440 quid in your bank account is the point. People who get paid to clean up vomit in nightclubs don't need to have an opinion on whether its good or bad in absolute terms, that it's good for them is all they need consider.
I'm glad for the churches that get the money, and calling it what it is: meaningless aesthetics in a buyer's market. There's no contradiction here. I am all for people getting what they pay for. I am all for the right of the craftspeople who have to bite their tongues to say, after the wedding party has rolled on: boy, those people had awful taste.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
"Marriage is a gift of God in creation" which means it is one of those good things which is given by God for all to enjoy irrespective of faith. I'm not troubled by the fact that that goodness is celebrated, as is often the case, by whoops and applause (or by dancing).
As for music, I can't see why appropriately chosen music by Elton John is less desirable in church than, say, the dubious cosmology of Wagner and Lohengrin which passes without comment.
In the end, as priest at the wedding, I am there to enable something of God's goodness and love to be known to the couple and to the congregation, in the context of the couple making their marriage together. Our Lord's example seems to have been to embrace a spirt of celebration and party on such occasions. IMHO, even without that dominical example, my role is better fulfilled by gracious accommodation than by over-zealous adherence to some standard of liturgical purity, or an attempt to be an arbiter of the couple's taste.
In many cases an evident willingness to work with the grain of what the couple want makes them much more likely to take seriously advice about things that won't really work, or to accept those things where I really have to draw a line.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
roybart
Shipmate
# 17357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
I haven't been talking about the video in the OP since my first observation that it wasn't a flashmob.
Ah ... I see.
Earlier in this thread you wrote:
quote:
The people who still want to get married in church at this point tend more often than not to be suggestible people of no particular cultural education. Their wanting to get married in church despite having no serious religious committment is of a piece with their having the same taste in music as everyone they have ever met. In other words, if they had more taste, they probably wouldn't be getting married in church anyway, so the church is justified, I think, in just taking the money and running.
You seem to have -- or believe you have -- a great deal of knowledge about people's motivations as to church weddings, and the motivation of church leaders in booking weddings. You also have a strong sense of what does and what does not constitute "worshipful" behavior during weddings.
Since you will not discuss the wedding in the video (on the grounds that this was not a legitimate example of a "flash mob"), can you share some other specific real-world examples or the kind of abomination you are complaining about?
--------------------
"The consolations of the imaginary are not imaginary consolations."
-- Roger Scruton
Posts: 547 | From: here | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
roybart
Shipmate
# 17357
|
Posted
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:
I haven't been talking about the video in the OP since my first observation that it wasn't a flashmob.
Ah ... I see.
Earlier in this thread you wrote:
quote:
The people who still want to get married in church at this point tend more often than not to be suggestible people of no particular cultural education. Their wanting to get married in church despite having no serious religious committment is of a piece with their having the same taste in music as everyone they have ever met. In other words, if they had more taste, they probably wouldn't be getting married in church anyway, so the church is justified, I think, in just taking the money and running.
You seem to have -- or believe you have -- a great deal of knowledge about people's motivations as to church weddings, and the motivation of church leaders in booking weddings. You also have a strong sense of what does and what does not constitute tasteful -- and "worshipful," -- behavior during weddings.
Since you don't want to discuss the wedding in the video (on the grounds that this was not a legitimate example of a "flash mob"), can you share some other specific real-world examples or the kind of abomination you are complaining about? And how you would handle couples who came to you requesting what might appear to be tasteless (or worse) additions to the marriage ceremony?
--------------------
"The consolations of the imaginary are not imaginary consolations."
-- Roger Scruton
Posts: 547 | From: here | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
No. Not 'on the grounds'. I said, I was not talking about the original video since my only post on the subject. My subsequent responses spun off from a post of Oscar's.
At one point, I and most of my friends were involved in the running of churches (from dogsbodies to Lay Readers), and church musicians. I have plenty of first-hand experience of the stuff people ask for.
How would I handle it if it were up to me? I'd give them what they're willing to pay for. Do you not understand anything I've been saying?
[ 26. June 2013, 22:55: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Sorry, I think this is completely the wrong way round. What have the aesthetic components of the wedding service got to do with the priest? If the couple seek his / her advice then, great, give your view on, for example, the beautiful sound of the church organ. But otherwise it feels to me like a rather rude imposition on the part of the priest.
I don't agree. I think it entirely proper of a priest to point out that the acoustics of his church do not mesh well with popular music played from a loudspeaker, and that people have been disappointed with the effect in the past. If the couple want to go that route anyway, then they are making an informed choice.
If it's just the priest's aesthetic preferences, though, he probably shouldn't offer them unsolicited.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
As for music, I can't see why appropriately chosen music by Elton John is less desirable in church than, say, the dubious cosmology of Wagner and Lohengrin which passes without comment.
Many churches I know do not allow Wagner's Lohengrin music. (I suspect U.S. clergy may be given more authority over what goes on in their churches.)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Many churches I know do not allow Wagner's Lohengrin music. (I suspect U.S. clergy may be given more authority over what goes on in their churches.)
While not as many as in years gone by, many parish priests still do not allow Lohengrin.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I think it entirely proper of a priest to point out that the acoustics of his church do not mesh well with popular music played from a loudspeaker, and that people have been disappointed with the effect in the past. If the couple want to go that route anyway, then they are making an informed choice.
If it's just the priest's aesthetic preferences, though, he probably shouldn't offer them unsolicited.
Okay, good point. My comment you quoted was too black-and-white and I apologise. So, yes, I'm fine with informing the couple that, in your experience, recorded music just doesn't sound as good as live music in this particular building. But the priest absolutely shouldn't express an unsolicited view on what sort of music is fitting for a wedding service.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
There is of course the point that some people are left completely cold by organ music, no matter how huge and impressive the organ is*.
*please, someone, do the Finbarr Saunders bit on that.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
But the priest absolutely shouldn't express an unsolicited view on what sort of music is fitting for a wedding service.
I think this is quite wrong for a number of reasons and it may in fact be the duty of a priest to point out what may be 'unsuitable' and what may be more 'fitting', and it doesn't have to be anything to do with personal preference.
People choose inappropriate music all the time, and while any priest can't be expected to have an exhaustive knowledge of music, where it is clearly inappropriate they have a duty to point it out. For instance, some pop music is riddled with inuendo that some poor saps don't even hear. Some music will clash with a particular acoustic and sound like a jumbled mess in a particular building and some people will choose things in the heat of the moment and five years later, truly and deeply regret it. That isn't to say there aren't pieces that do work though.
One classic example here is that many people choose 'She Moves Through The Fair' because it sounds nice and the text has the word 'wedding' in it. It's actually a song about a dead lover who dies on the eve of the wedding day and appears as an apparition to enact a curse. Now, knowing this, if a priest has this requested, do they not have a duty to point it out? I've heard it so many times at weddings and every time I hear it, I truly cringe.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
quote:
They're in a church. Not a bouncy castle...
Well you could get married in one of these and park the bouncy castle next door...
The disco music would probably work better in there too.
Just for the record, we chose the Triumphal March from Aida at our wedding and we've had people telling us that was inappropriate too - though the organist's reaction when we said we wanted that instead of the Wedding March was 'Oh good!'
[ 27. June 2013, 11:07: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Many churches I know do not allow Wagner's Lohengrin music. (I suspect U.S. clergy may be given more authority over what goes on in their churches.)
I wonder if that's a USA thing. I would have the authority to prohibit the music - but the Bridal March from Lohengrin is so common as to be in the organist's list of "Kick it and it'll play it itself" music for weddings (with Mendelssohn's Wedding March from Midsummer Night's Dream as a recessional). This means I would look extremely strange if I chose to insist it couldn't be played. That wouldn't stop me if I thought it was wrong, though.
TBH, my own view is that music is music is music, and unless it has clear anti-Christian or otherwise inappropriate connotations (so I always look at lyrics of requested songs, for example), then I may advise, but I try not to impose my taste on the proceedings.
[ 27. June 2013, 11:43: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I recently described the Lohengrin "wedding march" as quote:
the one that’s spent the last century or so being wrecked by third- and fourth-rate English church organists.
Suitable for a wedding? Well, the story goes like this. Woman accused of child abduction marries bloke without knowing his name. On wedding night, bloke kills husband of real child abductor and then leaves without consummating marriage.
There are parishes in the CofE where that story wouldn't even get you an appearance on the Jeremy Kyle Show. (Except the bit about not consummating.)
[ 27. June 2013, 12:07: Message edited by: Adeodatus ]
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Many churches I know do not allow Wagner's Lohengrin music. (I suspect U.S. clergy may be given more authority over what goes on in their churches.)
They don't? Why? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I mean, I think 'Here comes the bride' is perfectly awful ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif) and I'd never choose it in a million years, but it's not OFFENSIVE. (Just ghastly. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ) But if people actually want it ...
Of course the helpful clergy-person could always tactfully suggest a much better piece. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) But to outlaw it seems a bit draconian.
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Many churches I know do not allow Wagner's Lohengrin music. (I suspect U.S. clergy may be given more authority over what goes on in their churches.)
They don't? Why?
I mean, I think 'Here comes the bride' is perfectly awful and I'd never choose it in a million years, but it's not OFFENSIVE. (Just ghastly. ) But if people actually want it ...
Of course the helpful clergy-person could always tactfully suggest a much better piece. But to outlaw it seems a bit draconian.
Erm, you are aware of Wagner's deep anti-semitism, right? That is surely offensive.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
So was Martin Luther's.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
? Well, the story goes like this. Woman accused of child abduction marries bloke without knowing his name. On wedding night, bloke kills husband of real child abductor and then leaves without consummating marriage.
You forgot the bit where the bride drops dead in shock at finding out that the swan on the vilalge pond is not only her brother but also the rightful king of Belgium.
Or something like that...
Personally I thik its a very nice piece of music, especially in context. But Midsummer Night's Dream has better associations for a wedding. For a start the characters in the story don't die, don't get throen out from their families, and do get to live together, and even have a bit of sex as well. Which is probably an advantage for a wedding.
On the other hand there is the serious issue of child abuse...
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Erm, you are aware of Wagner's deep anti-semitism, right? That is surely offensive.
Wow. Exactly which bit of the key of B-flat major contains the antisemitism?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
? Well, the story goes like this. Woman accused of child abduction marries bloke without knowing his name. On wedding night, bloke kills husband of real child abductor and then leaves without consummating marriage.
You forgot the bit where the bride drops dead in shock at finding out that the swan on the vilalge pond is not only her brother but also the rightful king of Belgium.
Or something like that...
Okay, maybe a minor slot on the Jeremy Kyle Show.
On wedding music, what do other faith groups do? I know that for funerals in some faith groups, everybody gets exactly the same: there are no variations, no special requests. A certain degree of this kind of solemnity would seem suitable (to me, at least) for an occasion on which the participants have taken oaths which will bind them for the rest of their lives.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Erm, you are aware of Wagner's deep anti-semitism, right? That is surely offensive.
Yes, Jade, I am aware. The Merchant of Venice also has anti-Semitic elements and I don't want to outlaw the play.
Wagner's music is still controversial in Israel (unsurprisingly) but it DOES get played there ... on radio, if not in concert (I think):
http://www.danielbarenboim.com/journal/wagner-israel-and-the-palestinians.html
There are times when one has to separate the artist from his art, I guess. I loathe the man's views, but this wouldn't stop me from watching one of his operas.
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Sorry for not clarifying - I think banning Wagner is a little much, given that I'm sure plenty of other composers used in churches had pretty dodgy views too. I was just saying why it happened.
Re this 'flashmob' wedding - I think it was my own introversion (not to mention love of traditional church music) that just made me go 'eek' at it. Certainly, not my thing. But I don't think it's innately unholy or anything, it's just the style is so obviously modern that it's annoyed the Po-Faced Miserable Fuckers, and I try very hard to not be an PFMF since it's so easy for lovers of traditional church like me to do. My best friend walked up the aisle to Simon & Garfunkel (don't know which song, I'm not a fan myself - but it wasn't Bridge Over Troubled Waters!) as part of her church wedding, and I wonder if that would get less censure here. That's probably optimistic though...
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
My best friend walked up the aisle to Simon & Garfunkel (don't know which song, I'm not a fan myself - but it wasn't Bridge Over Troubled Waters!) as part of her church wedding, and I wonder if that would get less censure here. That's probably optimistic though...
Ah, I love it when couples choose not obvious or traditional music for their wedding! My friends who got married a few weeks ago left the church building to 'When I'm Sixty-Four'. A great choice, I thought.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Graham J
Apprentice
# 505
|
Posted
Every wedding, every single one, is an opportunity for the representatives of the church to meet couples and to show them what the church stands for. We may stand for openness to contemporary culture and unconventional ideas that the couple bring with them or we may stand for liurgical beauty and orthodoxy. Either way we must surely stand for the love of Jesus Christ and our meeting with people should reflect this. Not as a professional veneer with a hidden aganda or sense of superiority and condescension but as a genuine attitude of love and respect.
With this attitude I believe that we can say both 'Yes' and 'No' to all sorts of things and still be good ambassadors for our church and our God.
--------------------
GJ
Posts: 46 | From: Örebro, Sweden | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
Well said, Graham J.
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
quote:
postted by South Coast Kevin
So, yes, I'm fine with informing the couple that, in your experience, recorded music just doesn't sound as good as live music in this particular building. But the priest absolutely shouldn't express an unsolicited view on what sort of music is fitting for a wedding service.
1. Its not just a question of recorded music not sounding too good - or maybe its that most churches don't have a PA system that is designed to broadcast music - its the COPYRIGHT implications.
Contrary to what many people - clergy especially - believe, there is NO blanket agreement with the PRS to allow recordings to be used for services.
Yes, there is an agreement relating to funerals which in effect means that virtually anything can be played but this does not extend to other services.
In the case of reproducing recorded music one needs the permission of either the performer directly or of their agent (usually the record company), not the publisher of the sheet music.
2. You are quite wrong in saying a priest shouldn't express any views about music within a liturgy in his own church: the Parish Priest is ultimately responsible for ALL the content of any service which takes place in the building.
Where there is a competent Director of Music then they should advise a wedding couple about suitable music - and no, that doesn't necessarily mean they'll be limited to "trad" hymns and organ music. But it does mean that they'll get advice from someone with rather more experience for a wedding than the couple getting married.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beardybard
Apprentice
# 17737
|
Posted
This is a celebration between the two, while the others...are joining in occasionally .
As long as the two are celebrating the not like the folks in Russian weddings games, this is alright with me.
Posts: 6 | From: London | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I don't really have a problem with what happens just before or just after the Solemnisation of Marriage (which IMO should be done seriously). It's really no different to an organ voluntary which takes place as the service ends and the choir and clergy process out - at which point sometimes the organist chooses something really jolly like Lefebure-Wely or Sousa. In small churches, the reception or wake often takes part in the back of church as there is no church hall. So the procession from the front (main part of the service) and the informal time for refreshments and greetings is the dividing line between the two parts of the occasion. More informality at this point helps to smooth the passage from serious to relaxed.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Contrary to what many people - clergy especially - believe, there is NO blanket agreement with the PRS to allow recordings to be used for services.
Presumably they believe it because of things like this quote:
MUSIC DURING REGULAR SERVICES
Music which is played or performed within an act of divine worship (either live or from a music recording) currently does not require the cover of a licence because both PPL and PRS for Music choose not to charge for this activity. The term “act of divine worship” (sometimes shortened to “act of worship”) includes all main Sunday services, special festivals, weddings and funerals.This exception does not include civic Christmas carol concerts or any other public performance.
from here and quote:
we do not charge for music used in divine worship, wedding ceremonies, civil wedding and partnership ceremonies, funerals or in funeral homes.
from here
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
My friends who got married a few weeks ago left the church building to 'When I'm Sixty-Four'. A great choice, I thought.
Some friends got married last year, in a purely secular ceremony, and chose to have the audience/congregation sing "When I'm Sixty-Four". This, it transpires, was an error. Everyone can sing the main tune, but nobody at all could sing the bridges, and the couple only provided the words, not the music.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
The limp ending of the wedding is a very good point to the choice of music. The recessional music is for a very dramatic part of the day – the exit of the newly married couple and their friends and families first full view of them, as a married couple, as they walk out of the church into their new life together.
No matter how lovely and not inappropriate some love songs are they do not create the atmosphere for the moment. It is not necessarily about the personal taste of the priest, the priest or organist or whoever will have much more idea of what will ‘work’ and what won’t to create the day the couple want. However at the end of the day once it has been explained to them, if they choose to ignore it is their day, and their risk.
One of our group of churches is a pretty village church and gets a lot of wedding, so we see allsorts. Last year a couple, against advice, had their favourite love song to leave the church; it was a sweet but innocuous song. It made so little impression on the congregation, that they didn’t even realise the moment was happening and the couple were half way down the aisle, before the congregation realised and stopped their chatting. It truly was a limp ending to a lovely wedding.
Somebody upthread said that the church had £440 in their bank account from a wedding. The church of England nationally might set such a charge for the whole wedding, however the local church only receives in the region of about £200 (I haven’t got the exact figure to hand). The rest is paid out to other people and the diocese.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
BroJames, cheers for looking up the PRS and PPL position on using copyright music at weddings. I thought it was exempt but you've saved me the work of checking!
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
You are quite wrong in saying a priest shouldn't express any views about music within a liturgy in his own church: the Parish Priest is ultimately responsible for ALL the content of any service which takes place in the building.
Where there is a competent Director of Music then they should advise a wedding couple about suitable music - and no, that doesn't necessarily mean they'll be limited to "trad" hymns and organ music. But it does mean that they'll get advice from someone with rather more experience for a wedding than the couple getting married.
All right then, I think if a priest is willing to have a wedding service in his / her church building then part of that giving of permission is that they cede responsibility to the couple for large parts of the service. Within the law, I think the priest should give gentle guidance as to the content of the service but no more than that; if the couple want music, decor etc. that the priest considers to be in awful taste then that's too bad; the priest should suck it up, IMO.
Priests who aren't prepared to let couples choose whatever hideous music they want, shouldn't let their church building be used for weddings as they're obviously far too precious about it.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
I think that's a bit harsh - there are obviously limits to what is appropriate in church. Wanting to use church in ways that respect God is not a bad thing. With all respect SCK, if you worshipped in a church more aesthetically-pleasing than a warehouse or conference centre you'd understand
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think that's a bit harsh - there are obviously limits to what is appropriate in church. Wanting to use church in ways that respect God is not a bad thing. With all respect SCK, if you worshipped in a church more aesthetically-pleasing than a warehouse or conference centre you'd understand
Try a school hall! So our decor is posters about healthy eating, presentations of some of the students' work, and the latest positions in the intra-school competitions. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Seriously though, I think some people are drawing the line on what is appropriate in quite a harsh way. If it is really about aesthetics (e.g. this music is too low-brow for such a wonderful setting) then I think the priest has to set aside those concerns, or not have weddings in his church!
But, yes; I'd understand a priest not permitting music that he /she felt was displeasing to God in a wedding they were conducting. Music which praised Satan-worship would probably be a no-no, for example...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I think that's a bit harsh - there are obviously limits to what is appropriate in church. Wanting to use church in ways that respect God is not a bad thing. With all respect SCK, if you worshipped in a church more aesthetically-pleasing than a warehouse or conference centre you'd understand
Try a school hall! So our decor is posters about healthy eating, presentations of some of the students' work, and the latest positions in the intra-school competitions.
Seriously though, I think some people are drawing the line on what is appropriate in quite a harsh way. If it is really about aesthetics (e.g. this music is too low-brow for such a wonderful setting) then I think the priest has to set aside those concerns, or not have weddings in his church!
But, yes; I'd understand a priest not permitting music that he /she felt was displeasing to God in a wedding they were conducting. Music which praised Satan-worship would probably be a no-no, for example...
But why are aesthetics not a good enough reason to put some boundaries down? Something like 'only organ music please' in a church with a magnificent organ makes perfect sense and isn't restrictive at all. 'No recorded music' is even less restrictive, and just means something actually beautiful can be used instead of a tinny recording.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Only organ music please (because our church has a magnificent organ) may seem harsh to a couple who would like to pay for a string quartet, for example. It's a totally different sound, and the different sound may be what a couple are going for if a couple ask for recorded music. I agree that if the sound system really won't cope with it then the couple should be told.
Sure, I'm all for giving guidance to a couple about their choice. Is this really what you want to say at this point? Will our sound system which is only designed to support speech really give you the quality and volume of playback you need? Will this music really be choreographically/ dramatically all right to support this moment in the proceedings? But in the end, ISTM that getting into an argument about aesthetics, or drawing too harsh a line gives more of the wrong message about God's love and welcome to people than the occasional dodgy choice of music for the recessional.
[ 30. June 2013, 06:43: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Only organ music please (because our church has a magnificent organ) may seem harsh to a couple who would like to pay for a string quartet, for example. It's a totally different sound, and the different sound may be what a couple are going for if a couple ask for recorded music. I agree that if the sound system really won't cope with it then the couple should be told.
Sure, I'm all for giving guidance to a couple about their choice. Is this really what you want to say at this point? Will our sound system which is only designed to support speech really give you the quality and volume of playback you need? Will this music really be choreographically/ dramatically all right to support this moment in the proceedings? But in the end, ISTM that getting into an argument about aesthetics, or drawing too harsh a line gives more of the wrong message about God's love and welcome to people than the occasional dodgy choice of music for the recessional.
I've not been in churches big enough for string quartets, but a string quartet does seem reasonable. But I definitely think a 'no recorded music' rule is reasonable, if only from an acoustics point of view.
I definitely don't think clergy should be harsh or rude! But politely asking if the music can be in keeping with the setting and history of the building seems fair. I don't think couples should be turned away on the basis of music (unless it was, you know, Satan-worshipping or whatever) but neither do I think churches should just give in to 'give the punters what they want'.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
2) Should it have been done when it was (ie - after "those whom God has joined together...")?
No no and thrice no.
That is one of the most solemn and powerful moments in the wedding service. To leap straight from there into "Everybody dance now" was just crass. It deflated the whole ceremony. It removed the awe and wonder. To me, all it said was "this is OUR ceremony and we don't give a flying f**k about anyone else."
But it was their ceremony. And not everyone recognises awe and wonder in the same way; for you, what this couple did removed the awe and wonder, but maybe for them it perfectly encapsulated how they mark occasions that are full of awe and wonder. Each to their own, I say.
And so say I.
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
In churches like my current one where couples may leave down a short aisle and choose to have bells rung, very few people are going to hear more than the first four bars of any recessional music.
Anything after that will be drowned out by the bells.
In my last church, the bellringers stood inside the chancel, right next to the organ and so it actually got dangerous if they tried to play and ring at the same time, because the ringers couldn't hear one another call - not to mention the noise for the rest of us!
Personally I am much more likely to veto poetry* than music choices, but do always check out the lyrics of songs. I have no musical sense or taste to speak of so don't really see why I should impose my choice of tune on a couple. Doesn't stop me thinking they're wrong of course.
anne
*since listening to a bride's father read "I will be here" to the couple - slightly creepy to hear Dad promise to be there when they wake up and in the dark and so on.
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
