Ironies in wedding music.

[randomness]

(For those of you who are familiar with Western Art Music, a. k. a. Classical Music, this may be very old news. Sorry if you're one of those people; I just learned this while doing some background research after reading about the wedding of HRH The Princess Victoria, Princess Royal of Great Britain and HRH Prince Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia.)

"Here Comes the Bride" (a. k. a. "The Bridal Chorus"), often used as a wedding processional, is from Richard Wagner's Lohengren.

The Wedding March, often used as a recessional, is from Felix Mendelssohn's incidental music for A Midsummer Night's Dream.

The irony is of the juxtaposition of Mendelssohn, born to Jewish parents (who, in the interests of assimilation, had him baptized in the Lutheran church) and the famously anti-Semitic Wagner in wedding ceremonies ever since Princess Victoria selected the two pieces for her marriage to Prince Friedrich Wilhelm on January 25, 1858.

Apparently Wagner even singled out Mendelssohn and his work, although when his article "Das Judenthum in der Musik" came out in 1850 it was published under a pseudonym, and it is not clear to me whether at the date of the wedding these views were well known.

At any rate, this is not a comment on whether either of these pieces should or shouldn't be played at a wedding, or on whether the personal lives of composers should affect how people feel about their work. It's agreed that both were great composers who wrote some fine music.

These two pieces have become such a traditional pairing, and yet I see a remarkable irony in having them played together.

---

HRH Princess Victoria, The Princess Royal was the daughter of Queen Victoria of Great Britain. Later, her son became Kaiser Wilhelm II.

HRH Prince Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia became Kaiser Friedrich III of Germany but only reigned for 99 days before dying of cancer of the larnyx. He was then succeeded by his son, Wilhelm II.

Comments

[chaiya.livejournal.com]

In The New Jewish Wedding, Anita Diamant asks couples to choose different songs for both processional and recessional, for these reasons.

[kenjari.livejournal.com]

I seem to recall hearing that some Christian churches also don't want those pieces used in weddings performed by and in them, because they are too secular.
I think there may be a general trend away from using those two pieces, anyway. They've gone from traditional to hackneyed. Most of the people I know who have gotten married in the last few years have used other music. More variety is a good thing, since there is plenty of great music out there, both secular and religious. Hopefully, people are becoming more interested in having music that says something about them and their life together than music that just says "hey look, it's a wedding".

I think it depends...

[orichalcum.livejournal.com]

People have different views on what makes something "a real wedding" in their eyes, and for some people, those pieces are very much part of the tradition. My friend (Retsuko) felt that her wedding wouldn't be the same without the Lohengrin. OTOH, we used Mussorsgky's "Great Gate of Kiev" from "Pictures at an Exhibition," because we wanted something different and original for the recessional, and the more traditional Bach "Air on a G String" for the processional, because we were fond of it and you can pace well to it.

In any case, I'm always wary of attributing too much importance to the ethnic/religious origins of a creator of an object or work of art, particularly in a negative or vetoing way. Growing up, we had to hide our German-made toaster and coffee machine in the closet whenever my Jewish grandfather came to visit, but that didn't mean that they weren't perfectly good kitchen appliances and appropriate for the uses we put them to. Wagner wrote some totally gorgeous pieces of music, some of which work well in weddings, as did Mendelssohn. Use the music or not because you like the music, not because using it is somehow supporting anti-Semitism - cuz it's just not.

[coraline]

also in lohengren, everyone dies at the end. not an auspicious omen for a wedding, i say.

[digitalemur.livejournal.com]

Hey, it works for me!

Then again, my parents wedding anniversary is the Ides of March, so....

[holmes-iv.livejournal.com]

Um? Not in the Lohengrin I saw—and I'm pretty sure that heavy an edit would have been noticed. Possibly that's one of the versions of it, but almost everybody survives the version Wagner set.

[coraline]

hm. well, that will show me not to listen to others without checking it out for myself.

[adamhmorse.livejournal.com]

Relying solely on the summary you linked to, however, it does appear that (for little apparent reason) the bride from the march dies and the groom ends up departing in sorrow. So it is still slightly dubious from that perspective, although I find that argument much less persuasive than for music that is traditionally performed with words.

[holmes-iv.livejournal.com]

Huh. Now hunting for a better reference—I'd read that as her fainting, because honestly, why the heck would she die? To my mind, the libretto is unclear, largely because "entseelt" is not a word that I or my dictionary have met before. However, a fair number of the synopses I got on a more detailed search have her dying, with the notable exception of the Seattle Opera synopsis. Considering that the Seattle Opera production is in fact the one I was referring to earlier, this begins to make sense, actually.

It seems to come down to how you read that "sinkt entseelt", and while I can't find a translation that make sense (dict.leo.org gives "dehumanized"), the consensus certainly seems to be that in Wagner it means "dies (but operatically)". So it would appear that while I may have been technically correct in citing "the Lohengrin I saw", the author's intent (perplexing as it seems) was to have her die.

So while I still don't think it makes sense, apparently coraline's source was at least as accurate as I was. Sorry about that!

[adamhmorse.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's really quite bizarre. I was reading it and thinking, "and then she lives happily ever after... no, wait..." I guess we'll just have to be baffled.

[eeyorecol.livejournal.com]

Another traditional wedding piece of trivia:

Brides (especially American and British ones) starting wearing white for their weddings only because Queen Victoria wore white to her wedding to Prince Albert. Before that, you either wore your best dress or had a dress made in your favorite color. (There is a scene in the book "Vanity Fair" in which one of the female characters tries to get her jerk husband to pay attention to her by wearing her wedding dress, which was brown, around the house.)

The Victorians also made up all sorts of crap that still pops up in weddings. Example: the meanings of flowers. Did you know that every flower that you can think of has a meaning? Red roses mean "I love you"; dried white roses mean "Death is Preferable to Loss of Virtue"; you can read more here.

So many weird traditions...

[skreeky]

I've heard so many contradictory meanings for various flowers (and even this list has some contradictory meanings for the same flower), I've long ago given up worrying about what my bouquets are "saying."

To paraphrase Alice, when I use a flower it means what I want it to mean.

[eeyorecol.livejournal.com]

I absolutely agree about the flowers.

There are so many articles in bridal magazines about using your flowers to convey your sentiments at your wedding. My thought is: it's your wedding. If you want to express something that can't be expressed in the ceremony or in a toast of thanks, then maybe there are deeper issues that need to be discussed.

(And that list was just the first thing that came up on Google when I put in "the meanings of flowers")

[bedfull-o-books.livejournal.com]

Although I can so totally see someone saying, "Oh, you can't use yellow roses. They mean infidelity...."

Too bad "love lies bleeding" is one of my favorite flowers.... ;-P

Truly, the whole wedding thing is so wrapped up in little petty traditions. I called my sister during the wedding planning stage and she said, "If one more person tells me, 'oh, you're getting married. Here's what you *have* to do....' I will just lose it."

Which is why I am all over the elopement thing. Really. Just elope. We will still love you. And those who throw a fit can just plan their own weddings....

[madbodger.livejournal.com]

Yep. A lot of churches don't like secular music like that at weddings, which are considered
church services. Then again, the Catholic church outlawed weddings as a pagan custom
for a while.

[julianyap.livejournal.com]

No kidding? When was that and do you have a source? I'd love to read more.

[madbodger.livejournal.com]

The secular music information is via my mom, I expect she could give more information if you were curious. However, I'm guessing the statement that intrigued you was the outlawing of marriage. I got it from the book "Sex In History", by Reay Tannahill ISBN 0812885406. It's in storage at the moment, so I can't quickly find the references she used.