Thread: Wedding Disco Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025851
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
A bride, groom -- and CofE Vicar! -- lead a "flashmob."
(I would have joined the two older women who leave.)
Maybe this should be in Hell...
Posted by Carys (# 78) on
:
Was wondering when this would appear here, been much discussed on Twitter. Apparently aunt Betty went to the loo rather than walking out.
It's not style, but it worked for the couple. It was celebration and I don't think it's really different from an anthem or such like.
Carys
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
Aren't anthems meant to praise or worship God? How does "Everybody Dance Now" do that?
(I guess I'm just grumpy.)
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Another argument for elopement
Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on
:
It's not exactly to my liking, but I'm sure there are plenty of Christian worshippers in the world who wouldn't raise an eyelid at dancing in church. The particular song chosen is perhaps more of an issue.
Western marriage ceremonies are a bit devoid of movement. If I recall correctly, the Orthodox have quite a bit more flair when it comes to the ceremony.
[ 25. June 2013, 01:15: Message edited by: Olaf ]
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on
:
I saw it yesterday.
My first thought was that the couple were just two people who got married in a church.
Rather than being two committed members of a radical indigenous theological movement based on Second Sam. 6:12-15
[And leave Miriam and her sisters out if this - she and they had dignity and anyway dancing wildly is a classic post-traumatic reaction]
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
I've seen several discussions about this elsewhere but this morning's the first time I've had a look at the clip.
1) If it were my flashmob, the two grumpy great-aunts would be part of the plan, to add merriment to future viewings. The female version of the Senex Iratus of classical theatre.
2) It was a very CofE disco moment wasn't it? Apart from the discalced vicar, it felt a bit luke-warm and nervous. Like middle-class white English congregations trying to sing spirituals.
3) Saying 'Now you may kiss your bride' is totally naff.
4) If they'd practised it a little more and done it a little more enthusiastically, it could have been a pleasing and original way to emphasize the declaration of the marriage. After all, it was only two minutes. I've been at weddings where the poem about the two lonely dinosaurs went on interminably.
5) I wonder what Aunt Vera and Aunt Joyce did after they walked out? Hung around? Or drove to the garden centre? My guess is the former. Didn't want to miss the lunch and a chance to spread the disapproval.
6) It seems to me after a decade of officiating at weddings that it is incumbent upon the priest to help the congregation see in lover and beloved an icon of Christ and the Church, and it's incumbent upon the congregation to be prepared to look for this. If this truth can be conveyed through a disco flashmob instead of a solemn and joyful anthem, then I see nothing wrong with it.
[ 25. June 2013, 06:18: Message edited by: Amos ]
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
Sorry to double-post: I've since learned that this wedding took place in rural Nottinghamshire. Knowing this, I take back all my comments about luke-warmness and lack of enthusiasm, and doff my cap to the bride, groom, vicar, and friends for vigorous and joyous proclamation.
[ 25. June 2013, 06:34: Message edited by: Amos ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
The comments I've read from the couple suggest it has made them likely to come back to the church, whereas they'd originally gone to the church for the wedding only at the suggestion of their reception venue. That looks like success, to me, much as I would have wanted to hide under a pew had I been present.
Posted by Poppy (# 2000) on
:
It was short and it was joyful. Brilliant.
I've used dance in services in place of a hymn, in the sermon slot or as prayer. The problem of moving the furniture to allow the congregtation to move means that it isn't practical for a main Sunday service (although I have led processional dances around the church) but on retreats and conferences it can work really well.
Dance can be joyful, it can be medatative and it can be prayerful. For dyslexics like me who have to wade through acres of words at every service it is a blessed moment of encounter with God.
Posted by MrsDoyle (# 13579) on
:
I blame gay marriage! (no not really but someone had to get it in!)
Posted by Devils Advocate (# 16484) on
:
I dont see that happening at our shack somehow . I would need to administer Sal Volatile to Father ( Not to mention several large gins)
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
Poppy, you and I have had our differences over the years on the matter of liturgical dance. I'm so glad that we're agreed about this one! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And so peace breaks out.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Seen a lot of people on twitter saying how wonderful this is and this is how the church should be. Will nowhere be left for introverts? ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by MrsDoyle:
I blame gay marriage! (no not really but someone had to get it in!)
Don't blame me, my wedding plans (if I get married) include liturgy from the 1549 Book of Common Prayer, and copious amounts of classical music.
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Seen a lot of people on twitter saying how wonderful this is and this is how the church should be. Will nowhere be left for introverts?
Or people with taste?
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Aren't anthems meant to praise or worship God? How does "Everybody Dance Now" do that?
(I guess I'm just grumpy.)
Hardly. My take is that, like most liturgical nonsense, and despite various attempts at rationalizing this one as an authentic this and a genuine that, and how much good can come of it, blah, blah, blah (same claptrap that we have heard for decades while churches empty)...The simple reality is that people are simply taking something that is purely secular (and basically self-indulgent, to boot) and trying, through the use of many creative arguments, to rationalize inserting said self-indulgence into the Church's liturgy and sacraments. Despite all of the postmodern talk about liturgy being the work of the people (obviously there is some truth to that), its primary purpose is to reverently direct hearts and mind to God. Part of this involves a surrender of personal will, and that simply is not popular at this point in history--quite the contrary, as anthropocentrism is the order of the day. A wedding reception is the proper venue for this sort of display of "Look at us," but then again, that would not "make a statement" in quite the same way, would it? (And this is coming from a Yank whose own self-absorbed culture produced much of the music that encouraged these Brits to shake up their own sensibilities).
The reason that devotion to the Sacred Heart and Divine Mercy are so conspicuous in the Church is that they remind us of this in a most uncomfortable way.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
A bride, groom -- and CofE Vicar! -- lead a "flashmob."
No. Just no.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
A bride, groom -- and CofE Vicar! -- lead a "flashmob."
I must be getting old. This makes no kind of sense to me at all, on any level.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Aw ... what lot of curmudgeons you all are!
Do I like it? No.
Would I, a reticent 59-year old British man, be embarrassed to take part? Definitely.
Can I dance? Not in a thousand years.
Is it in liturgical good taste? Pull the other one, it's got bells (and smells) on.
Does it focus on God's glory and majesty? Well, hardly!
And yet ... there's something about it. Just don't make it mandatory (any more than Kate and Wills' trees in Westminster Abbey).
[ 25. June 2013, 13:34: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Miffy (# 1438) on
:
Now Amos - according to one source, the wedding party had been practising their dance moves for nearly four weeks. How much longer do you need?
I'm sure the old aunties were merely seizing the opportunity to pop out for a loo break.
I thought it was absolutely brilliant! And I'm an introvert. As long as it doesn't become mandatory, as BPTF says, I'm all for it.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Aren't anthems meant to praise or worship God? How does "Everybody Dance Now" do that?
(I guess I'm just grumpy.)
Two people in love expressing their joy, surrounded by friends and family doing likewise, seems pretty much like worship and praise of God to my mind.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
What Amos said. The only wrong note was 'you may kiss your bride', which is not only naff but sexist.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I agree with Baptist Trainfan. It's not my way of doing things, but:-
A wedding is not a wholly liturgical act. The couple are marrying each other. They are doing so before God. The church blesses the wedding and prays for their marriage. But the wedding is still theirs, not the church's. It is also a time to rejoice. There are some things that really would be inappropriate, just as there are with funerals. But we aren't entitled to say you can only get married in our church if you comply with what Mrs Beamish thinks is good taste.
As it happens, I don't like 'you may now kiss the bride' either. It's a peculiar innovation which people have picked up recently from films. I don't know where the film industry got it from.
It's also a lie. Even before the Great War there would have been very few couples where not even their lips had touched each other's until after the wedding.
Anglican Brat, are you sure a wedding according to the 1549 Prayer Book would a. be valid, and b. be different from one according to the 1662 Prayer Book, which is?
It is of course your call whether you can persuade your fiancée actual or hypothetical, to use the old vows and the old preface rather than its more mealy mouthed replacement.
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Aren't anthems meant to praise or worship God? How does "Everybody Dance Now" do that?
(I guess I'm just grumpy.)
Hardly. My take is that, like most liturgical nonsense, and despite various attempts at rationalizing this one as an authentic this and a genuine that, and how much good can come of it, blah, blah, blah (same claptrap that we have heard for decades while churches empty)...The simple reality is that people are simply taking something that is purely secular (and basically self-indulgent, to boot) and trying, through the use of many creative arguments, to rationalize inserting said self-indulgence into the Church's liturgy and sacraments. Despite all of the postmodern talk about liturgy being the work of the people (obviously there is some truth to that), its primary purpose is to reverently direct hearts and mind to God. Part of this involves a surrender of personal will, and that simply is not popular at this point in history--quite the contrary, as anthropocentrism is the order of the day. A wedding reception is the proper venue for this sort of display of "Look at us," but then again, that would not "make a statement" in quite the same way, would it? (And this is coming from a Yank whose own self-absorbed culture produced much of the music that encouraged these Brits to shake up their own sensibilities).
The reason that devotion to the Sacred Heart and Divine Mercy are so conspicuous in the Church is that they remind us of this in a most uncomfortable way.
Ceremoniar, your post reminds me of a formerly well-known American poem which begins like this:
'Miniver Cheevy, child of scorn,
Grew lean while he assailed the seasons;
He wept that he was ever born,
And he had reasons.'
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
It's not my kind of thing, but it seems to be winding up the right people to make me see it as a Good Thing.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
About a month ago we had a hymn to the tune of a Waltz. There was dancing in the aisles.
Regarding this flashmob, I enjoyed how the little boy in front got down with it.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
About a month ago we had a hymn to the tune of a Waltz. There was dancing in the aisles.
Don't worry. The church has enough po-faced miserable fuckers to pour cold water over any normal person being caused to actually smile in church rather than run screaming.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Surely you can have fun in church without being totally cringe-worthy?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Surely you can have fun in church without being totally cringe-worthy?
Not sure the evidence is on your side there ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
But seriously, your cringe-worthy is someone else's meaningful and enjoyable event.
FWIW, I find genuflection and crossing oneself cringeworthy. I have no intention of going into the whys and wherefores because I haven't a clue. I just do. "Cringeworthiness" is not in and of itself a guide to whether something is the sort of thing up with which we should not put. Relax, grab a decent beer, put on some rock and roll. We can do pretty much what we like in church when it comes down to it without bothering anyone else because there's hardly anyone there.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's not my kind of thing, but it seems to be winding up the right people to make me see it as a Good Thing.
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on
:
quote:
Don't worry. The church has enough po-faced miserable fuckers to pour cold water over any normal person being caused to actually smile in church rather than run screaming. [/QB]
Is this seriously an acceptable post in this forum?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Aw ... what lot of curmudgeons you all are!
Do I like it? No.
Would I, a reticent 59-year old British man, be embarrassed to take part? Definitely.
Can I dance? Not in a thousand years.
Is it in liturgical good taste? Pull the other one, it's got bells (and smells) on.
Does it focus on God's glory and majesty? Well, hardly!
And yet ... there's something about it. Just don't make it mandatory (any more than Kate and Wills' trees in Westminster Abbey).
I know! get Steve Chalke to do it and within a week everyone'll be clamouring to do it!
Posted by SyNoddy (# 17009) on
:
Mrs Beamish might throw her hands up in horror but I for one am delighted that the couple's joy was expressed, along with that of their families and friends, in the midst of their wedding service.
Can someone just remind me what was Jesus first miracle??
Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SyNoddy:
Mrs Beamish might throw her hands up in horror but I for one am delighted that the couple's joy was expressed, along with that of their families and friends, in the midst of their wedding service.
Can someone just remind me what was Jesus first miracle??
Was it disco dancing? Oh wait, no, no it wasn't.
Besides, His wine was good...
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
Don't worry. The church has enough po-faced miserable fuckers to pour cold water over any normal person being caused to actually smile in church rather than run screaming.
Is this seriously an acceptable post in this forum? [/QB]
In my experience, it seriously is.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:
quote:
Don't worry. The church has enough po-faced miserable fuckers to pour cold water over any normal person being caused to actually smile in church rather than run screaming.
Is this seriously an acceptable post in this forum? [/QB]
Not only acceptable, but rather pertinent. Seriously.
Ceremoniar, thank you for your post. Until I'd read what you'd written I was very doubtful of the value of this flashmob wedding moment - but now I'm willing to think well of it and those who did it, including the vicar. You have one or two opinions there, which would make good points in the discussion, but they're fighting to make themselves heard above the disgust you feel for the persons involved. So I'm going to come down on the side of goodwill towards all people, including inappropriate dancing queens in church.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Hey! Trendy vicar alert!
A very memorably occasion, and I hope the couple do return to the church. But they'd need to be aware that normal services are probably nothing like this.
As for the aunts, we shouldn't be too hard on them. I'm sure that for them, this was just an interlude rather than an essential part of the proceedings. People are allowed to dip in and out of the action at real discos, so there should be no compulsion to watch dodgy dancing in a church!
Posted by SyNoddy (# 17009) on
:
Aunty Betty was going to the loo! And as is the accepted norm, took a female companion along. Her husband stayed and danced with the best of them.
Apparently the wedding couple were non church attendees but following the whole process of planning and rehearsing their wedding are now attending.
Sounds like a brilliant outcome to me
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
What if God was one of us?
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
Exclamation Mark - ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But seriously, your cringe-worthy is someone else's meaningful and enjoyable event.
This.
quote:
"Cringeworthiness" is not in and of itself a guide to whether something is the sort of thing up with which we should not put.
I do sympathise with Jade. If somebody tried to do this to me at my wedding, I'd send the heavy guys round. I find it naff, and daft ... but also in an endearingly English way. Vicar of Dibley material, you couldn't make it up. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
And there's nothing like a 'Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' response to restore a sense of perspective.
Besides, let's remind ourselves of this awesome Royal Wedding spoof, which was just as enjoyable as the event itself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Kav0FEhtLug
[ 26. June 2013, 09:32: Message edited by: Laurelin ]
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Seen a lot of people on twitter saying how wonderful this is and this is how the church should be. Will nowhere be left for introverts?
Or people with taste?
Or dignity.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Seen a lot of people on twitter saying how wonderful this is and this is how the church should be. Will nowhere be left for introverts?
Or people with taste?
Or dignity.
I'm not normally a fan of proof-texting but I'll make an exception here. Forget taste and dignity, I'd rather be on the side of King David, who 'danced before the Lord with all his might' and said 'I am willing to look even more foolish than this, even to be humiliated in my own eyes!' (From 2 Samuel 6)
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Tell you what CL; I'll not insist you do interesting, engaging and occasionally quirky and unusual things in your shack if you don't insist we do whatever it is that floats your boat in ours.
Deal?
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
For me, there two slightly different questions.
1) Should it have been done in the first place?
Well - it's certainly not my thing and I wouldn't have gone along with it. And - to be honest - I am not that sure whether the priest concerned was really expressing herself or simply being used by the couple. If this was fully her style as well, OK. But I get the feeling it wasn't.
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."
The priest should have negotiated a more suitable moment for this (after the signing of the registers?) - not colluded with the couple.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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.
Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
And - to be honest - I am not that sure whether the priest concerned was really expressing herself or simply being used by the couple. If this was fully her style as well, OK. But I get the feeling it wasn't.
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.
The bumf about the Weddings Project says "This project aims to to attract more couples to a church wedding as the ceremony of choice; to build in the general public a growing sense that the Church of England is an enthusiastic believer in marriage and to care for couples so well that they have an excellent experience and recommend a church wedding to others, and to approach the task so that more of them may become part of a church community."
I reckon the dance helps with this.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
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.)
[ 26. June 2013, 18:22: Message edited by: Oscar the Grouch ]
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on
:
If I had read about this in a short article, i would probably have had doubts, or at least done some sniffing with nose in the air.
Having now seen the video -- which looks remarkably and delightfully like an episode of "The Vicar of Dibley," with Dawn French wearing a long blonde wig and having a great old time -- I find myself wishing I had been there.
As for those who heap scorn on this, I aam reminded of the rigorous Puritan John Endicott, who broke up dancing celebration (and whipped the participants) in Hawthorne's "Maypole of Merrymount."
Amos, I get your point about Miniver Cheevy, but Cheevy himself -- though living in the past -- tended to identify with the more romantic aspects of the past (Camelot, the Medici, knights in shining armor). His past he lives in is MORE fun than the "commonplace" world he lives in now. "Scorn" is indeed one of hia qualities, but so is "born too late." H
P.S.
[ 26. June 2013, 18:41: Message edited by: roybart ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
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."
I have been to several weddings where there has been a round of applause after the bride and groom kiss at that point in the service, and I have seen nothing wrong with that.
This dancing is a long way away from my taste, but in essence, isn't it the same thing?
I wouldn't do it, and I would feel decidedly uncomfortable if I was a guest at a wedding and I felt pressure to take part (and so I would suggest that people not do it because it's their obligation as hosts not to make their guests feel uncomfortable) but I don't think there's anything intrinsically bad about it.
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
That's not a flashmob. What do they think flashmob means? This isn't it.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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?
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
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 ]
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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.
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
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 ]
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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.
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
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?
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
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.)
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
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.
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
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.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
"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.
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on
:
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?
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on
:
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?
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
Hosting
It probably seems an opportune moment to remind posters that any straying into the realm of personal attack will make the baby Jesus cry and result in large hostly thwackings.
Just saying.
/Hosting
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
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.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
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.)
Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on
:
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.
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
It's evil, evil I tell you. I have more issues with Leonard Cohen's Hallelujah, though.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
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.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
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.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
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 ]
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
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. But to outlaw it seems a bit draconian.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
So was Martin Luther's.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
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...
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
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?
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
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.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
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.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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...
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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.
Posted by Graham J (# 505) on
:
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.
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on
:
Well said, Graham J.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
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.
Posted by Beardybard (# 17737) on
:
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.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
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.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
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
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
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.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
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.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
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...
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
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'.
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on
:
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.
Posted by anne (# 73) on
:
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.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
BroJames
A couple I know recently took advice from PPL and PRS about their original first choice for recessional music.
They were informed BY BOTH that, since it would be when the actual service was over then there would be a fee levied...
String quartets while these can be effective there may be problems: for a wedding it is likely to be impossible for them to be put in the centre of the nave near a resonating board (or similar) - say under a chancel arch - so the sound may not carry.
Second, people soak up volume much like soft furnishings - with a large church and sizeable congregation a quartet is unlikely to be audible.
No, I'm not a grouch but having recently had a wedding with just a harpist for the hymns I can tell you it was disastrous: inaudible even during the hymn intros, useless for the verses. It ended up with an unedifying duet between the vicar and bride's father and since the vicar in question is tone deaf ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
And a harpist plinking out the Canon in D by Pachelbel lacks oomph..
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
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.
A Church of England priest don't have a choice about that. If a couple fit the legal requirements, the vicar is obliged to allow the wedding..
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anne:
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!
The physical attributes of the builidngs does shape what is possible and what is not. Musically or otherwise, our problem is that we do not have a magnificent organ and we can't match the grandeur that some might ask.
We have so many brides who have seen something in a film or in a bridal Magazine, that they are desperate to have at their wedding, not realising that what they see working for example in a large garden in a film, might not work in a small village church. But I digress..
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
A Church of England priest don't have a choice about that. If a couple fit the legal requirements, the vicar is obliged to allow the wedding..
How sure are you of that? He or she is obliged to marry them, or in certain circumstances to allow his or her church to be used if they can find someone else to perform the service. I would be much less confident in asserting that this means they are entitled to insist on the inclusion of anything that is not in either the BCP or Common Worship - which applies to all the hymns and music.
I'm fairly sure, for example, that the couple can't write their own slushy yuk-making vows in stead of the prescribed ones.
Although Common Worship gives quite a lot of extra optional material, I also do not think people are entitled to omit prescribed bits they don't like. For example, there are two alternative prefaces, but as far as I know, it's one or the other, and that's the only choice. You can't have neither, or just something like 'In marriage the couple can wash one another in their happy bunnyhood frolicking in the sunshine upon their happy hillside of love'.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
A Church of England priest don't have a choice about that. If a couple fit the legal requirements, the vicar is obliged to allow the wedding..
Yes, but the requirement is to marry the couple according to the rites of the Church of England. There is no actual requirement to allow the couple any choices whatsoever. I don't think there's even a legal impediment to a parish priest deciding that all weddings in his parish will be 1662, with his choice of readings from scripture. It might not be the best pastoral practice, though.
Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on
:
I was answering South coast kevin who said
'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.'
I never meant to imply that priests had to allow the couple anything that they wanted - just to say that what Kevin suggested, refusing a wedding was not an option.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
There's always going to be some non-negotiables. At the very least it has to be the presence of a priest (or deacon) and the exchange of the legally-prescribed vows. So while the parish priest has to allow a couple to marry, s/he must insist on that. It seems perfectly reasonable to insist on more, and certain basic parameters, though common sense and pastoral wisdom would indicate the need for flexibility.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
BroJames
A couple I know recently took advice from PPL and PRS about their original first choice for recessional music.
They were informed BY BOTH that, since it would be when the actual service was over then there would be a fee levied...
Interesting. I wonder if it applies to the processional too (and music before the Sunday service, and the final voluntary). It would imply that a fee needs to be paid for any music for the recessional (and those other cases too) where the composer or arranger has been dead for less than 70 years, including organ music.
I do consider it part of my responsibility to advise if something really won't work (including harp for processional/recessional and hymns). I don't recall having a string quartet for hymns in a larger church. In a smaller church (seating 100-120) a string quartet at the back was well able to support hymn singing with the church packed. If the couple really wanted a string quartet for that part of the music, I would ask them to refer the question of its adequacy to the quartet themselves.
As we are not fortunate enough to have a resident organist, I don't have someone whose income depends on the fees from occasional offices to consider in the equation.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
I wonder how the question was put to the organisations in question. If you ask them if you must pay for music played "after the service is over", I guess they will say yes.
However, I would have thought that coming into and leaving the service are integral parts of the process of the service. Whilst I accept they are not part of the liturgy per se - I don't think most people would consider them separate events. If you said, in this wedding the bride will come into piece x have these hymns and leave to piece y - I'd be surprised if they said, well that's all fine but we want the money for piece y.
Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on
:
My understanding is that a payment will usually be arranged for the service on the grounds of the number of people required and their time. I've never heard of payment per piece but I suppose if a couple wanted something very complicated that would require a lot of practice-time beforehand then it could be argued they should pay for this as well? Compared to the cost of most modern weddings, we are not talking about very much money here, in any case...
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
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'.
Perhaps because you're seeing it from the viewpoint of a consumer purchasing a service. I'm sure there are churches that will oblige those who want to see it that way; I suppose the question is whether that's appropriate.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
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.
Perhaps because you're seeing it from the viewpoint of a consumer purchasing a service. I'm sure there are churches that will oblige those who want to see it that way; I suppose the question is whether that's appropriate.
I should explain that there are some assumptions behind my posts in this thread. I'm talking about weddings where the couple aren't part of the church that meets in the building they're using. So, naturally, I'm talking about weddings being officiated over by a priest who is willing to have their building used by such a couple (as it happens, I'm not sure I would be willing to do this, were I the priest here).
Given these conditions, I feel it would be impolite for the priest to offer anything but very gentle suggestions regarding the decor, music and so forth, unless the couple specifically ask for his / her input. Basically, I think by permitting the building to be hired by a couple that isn't part of the church, the relationship has pretty much become a consumer - service provider arrangement.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
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.
Perhaps because you're seeing it from the viewpoint of a consumer purchasing a service. I'm sure there are churches that will oblige those who want to see it that way; I suppose the question is whether that's appropriate.
I should explain that there are some assumptions behind my posts in this thread. I'm talking about weddings where the couple aren't part of the church that meets in the building they're using. So, naturally, I'm talking about weddings being officiated over by a priest who is willing to have their building used by such a couple (as it happens, I'm not sure I would be willing to do this, were I the priest here).
Given these conditions, I feel it would be impolite for the priest to offer anything but very gentle suggestions regarding the decor, music and so forth, unless the couple specifically ask for his / her input. Basically, I think by permitting the building to be hired by a couple that isn't part of the church, the relationship has pretty much become a consumer - service provider arrangement.
But in the CoE, priests don't permit their building to be hired by couples - priests are obliged to marry couples in their parish regardless of the couple's belief or relationship to the church (as long as the couple can legally marry of course). So if you were the priest at your church, and your church was CoE, you would have no choice but to marry the totally non-Christian couple who lived in your parish and was legally able to marry. In that context, it is not a equal consumer-service provider arrangement.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
South Coast Kevin, it goes with the cure of souls. The priest is priest for for all those in the parish, not just the ones that attend his or her church.
Wherever you live, and whatever you believe, there is someone whose task it is to have a mission to you.
I think I'm right in imagining that the recent relaxation of the rules about where you can get married doesn't actually change that. There's still a default assumption that you will marry in the parish church where one at least of the couple lives. The ability to marry somewhere else is a concession, not a right.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
The 2008 Marriage Measure gives couples a legal right to marry in any Church of England Church where one of them has a Qualifying Connection with the church where they wish to marry. The parish priest's only discretion on this is the reasonable exercise of discretion about the choice of date. (There is also discretion not to marry a couple, from within or outside the parish, where one of them has a previous marriage partner still living.)
A priest only has discretion about marrying a couple if neither of them has a Qualifying Connection.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
The 2008 Marriage Measure gives couples a legal right to marry in any Church of England Church where one of them has a Qualifying Connection with the church where they wish to marry. The parish priest's only discretion on this is the reasonable exercise of discretion about the choice of date. (There is also discretion not to marry a couple, from within or outside the parish, where one of them has a previous marriage partner still living.)
A priest only has discretion about marrying a couple if neither of them has a Qualifying Connection.
Thank you for that. I stand corrected.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0