LOVE/HATE: The Dance Dance Revolution Edition
A metric bouquetload of you sent me links to the massive ceremony processional dance number video that’s going around. So many, in fact, that I doubt there could possibly be anyone who hasn’t seen it, but I’m going to post it just in case you’ve been hiding under a rock.
What a way to revolutionize your wedding ceremony! Or not, since this may just become the new “our traditional first dance music skipped and now we’re going to rock out with a choreographed booty shaker.” Opinions around the web are divided. Some people think the choice of a Chris Brown song is a little inauspicious for a wedding. Others believe that such a fun and original ceremony idea speaks well of the bride and groom’s life together. Then there are those who consider the ceremony entrance dance a mockery of an otherwise solemn ritual.
LOVE all the way. I just think it’s fun and cute and, hey, why not? If you and your attendants can pull it off and like to get your groove on, who’s to say (other than possibly your religious leader) that you can’t dance your way down the aisle. What say you?
Hate! Not appropriate for a church. It makes a mockery of the seriousness of the commitment and the church. I realize I am more conservative than the average American when it comes to religion (I’m having the big Catholic Mass for my ceremony), but I am really surprised the officient allowed it. It would be really cute as an entrance to the reception. Although it did get a little long in the slow motion part.
I said it elsewhere but this seems pretty self-indulgent. I mean, have fun and strip down the aisle for all I care for a marriage that likely won’t last past a few years but this just seems like a crass attention-getter…..but hey, anthing for a few hundred thousand hits on youtube, right?
I love it. I’m used to seeing these entrances at receptions not ceremonies. I loved how the wedding party got into it. It was a little long but it certainly set up a playful mood to their wedding.
I am surprised the church allowed it, but my only experience with a church wedding was one where even the musicians had to be approved by the church.
I lean more towards keeping this at the reception, but I don’t hate it.
Okay, if this is going to work, every single person in your wedding party has to be both a good dancer and a ham…and if you’re getting married in a church, then it has to be acceptable in both musical and physical content to the venue.
In short, I think this is yet another case of confusing the ceremony with a theatrical production. It took a long time (seriously, our entire wedding ceremony – complete with musical interlude – took barely twice as long as this processional), and no doubt required a LOT of rehearsal. While I might find it charming for the first half a minute in the right sort of wedding, I don’t attend weddings to see a Broadway musical production number.
While I don’t find the concept entirely devoid of possibilities, I have to say I think it’s entirely too fraught with potential for disaster to make it a practical choice in the vast, vast majority of cases.
I’m absolutely in favor of choosing music that expresses the joy of the occasion. I’m entirely in favor of wedding party members looking happy during the processional. I’m fond of random expressions of good cheer during the ceremony. I just think this level of performance is better suited – as Anne says – to the reception than the ceremony. And then only if everyone is both able and eager to do it.
Don’t love, don’t hate…just seeing that it’s not at all for most of us.
this is incredible. i love it. obviously you want to have a wedding party that’s into it, as these folks obviously were, but that goes for any wedding; it would be kind of mean to stick a shy person into any sort of spectacle, whether it’s a dance production or a super-revealing dress.
i honestly don’t see how this is any more self-indulgent than writing one’s own vows or including rituals like sand/water pouring or reading passages. weddings ARE theatrical. it’s the whole point of getting up in front of the significant people in a couple’s life and acknowledging publicly that yes, this is the person i love best in the world. and if the couple prefers a smaller, intimate wedding, or a more formal wedding, fine. this is not for them. but if the stars are right and the wedding party is up for it, how on earth could anyone object to something so joyous?
Rehearsal–the couple were on the Today show this morning and said there was one rehearsal, that most of it was impromptu. They also said the officiant knew in advance and was thrilled with the idea. We are supposed to praise G-d with song, after all.
There are some traditions that are exuberant and some that are solemn. Either style can be full of intense religious meaning.
I think it’s class war to dismiss this as theatrical rather than zealous.
Well, David danced before the Lord, didn’t he? Dance was originally a part of worship, not a form of self-expression. I can’t see the performance (firewall), but although it’s not likely to be my choice for a marriage cermony, there is nothing irreligious (even for Catholics!) in and of dance, itself. If the celbrant was good with it, I don’t see that there’s a problem, just because they danced.
Love. Love love love.
I agree with angela & Kai that this read as joyous and exuberant and to me those emotions are perfectly at home in a wedding. It was unique, it fit the couple, it was sanctioned by the officiant- I think it was pretty perfect. We’re always talking about ways to make your wedding you own, to set the tone, to have style without needing to be super-spendy and I think this fits all of those things.
And how can you argue with those killer sunglasses the girls wore?
I absolutely love it. A wedding is a joyous occasion, to celebrate two people making a very serious commitment. So why focus only on the serious and not on the celebration? The couple and their wedding party are obviously exuberant, outgoing, FUN people, so why should they not have their ceremony reflect that, instead of trying to fit into what other people feel is “appropriate”? If I had been at that wedding, I would have been absolutely delighted!
Love! Maybe not in a big formal church, but that’s ok. I thought it was fun, and it looked like everyone who did it was having fun. I don’t know if I’m just hormonal or tired or something, but frankly, I cried when the bride came down the aisle. She just looked SO happy. She was doing something she loved, with the people she loved, and it’s something she’ll remember forever.
I agree with Twistie that you have to have the right crowd of people – but they obviously did.
[For the record, they were obviously in a more progressive church anyway, since the celebrant was A) female and B) not wearing robes, as far as I could tell.]
I loved it! It made me smile the whole time. A good way to make people feel as happy as you are when they are likely already getting antsy before you even start since they may have already been sitting for quite some time. I loved their their officiant was down, I loved that everyone was having a good time, I loved that people were laughing. While I agree that the political connotations Chris Brown now has may be less than wedding appropriate, I can also see where a song all about “this one night” that you’ve been waiting for is very much in the fun spirit of a wedding. I guess it was a little long, but it creates great momentum for the rest of the ceremony to move along apace. Fun fun fun, love love love.
Not bad! They get a High Silver Award in the 13 and over category for Class Large Group Production and a Special Judges Award for most entertaining choreography.
I HATE it. HATE! I think the idea is cute and if the church, officiant and bridal party were cool with it then it fun (if long) but I find their song choice really offensive. Why would you choose to support and glamorize some one who is guilty of domestic violence on your wedding day, during your wedding ceremony is beyond me.
I’m on the “to each his/her own” tip for this one. While I personally wouldn’t do this, I would disagree with some of the posters above about the dancing in the church sanctuary. Yes, there is encouragement to praise God with song and dance but NOT with ANY old song and dance. The song should actually perhaps mention God. The music was appropriate for a club/party setting not a church. That’s just my opinion. If the officiant was okay with it, then that’s all good. I think this would have been better if it were shorter, with less people and not in a church. It droned on after while. I wish them all the luck in the world.
Oy. That was “celebrant”. Fortunately, other people can spell just fine …
I so agree with anon. dancing and singing are NOT what made this inappropriate for a church setting. It was that the song and dance were self-indulgent and not in praise of God.
I liked it. It seemed really joyous and fun, and that’s a great way to start a marriage, in my opinion. However, I think it went on a bit too long, and I think the bride’s trip down the aisle was dull compared to what came before. The bride’s entrance and walk down the aisle is supposed to be the big deal, the culmination of the entrances, and hers wasn’t. Maybe she’s just not a great dancer, but I think they should have changed the music for her dance to make it stand out. Yes, I was a bride not that long ago, why do you ask?
I am a devout Christian who very much wants a church wedding and I cannot tell you how happy I would have been to be either a bride or a bridesmaid at this ceremony.
Also: I know the dear friend and devout pastor who I will ask to be a celebrant at my wedding, (should I get married) would INSIST on being part of the dancing and not standing still in the front.
As angela notes, weddings ARE theatrical, and people do things at them lots of their guests aren’t comfortable with. I personally believe that joyful dancing is deeply religious and highly exclusive rituals are not, but I didn’t begrudge a good friend a devoutly Catholic ceremonial mass in which very few of the attendees (including myself and the brides’ parents) were not welcome to take communion. That kind of service was important to her, so it was important to me.
Other friends of mine (both ordained pastors and both dancers) had a two hour ceremony that included handpainted banners, and a reminder of our baptism and liturgical dancers setting the table for communion. They announced at the reception that anyone who did not dance would not get cake! THAT was a really terrific party.
Sadly, the Chris Brown WAS a bad choice, but presumably the couple didn’t know that at the time. Otherwise I love, love, love.
Gays getting married would have done this dance MUCH better. And they’d STILL have a 50% chance at getting a divorce in 5 years.
As it is- it’s just more str8 people treating the “sacred institution of marriage” as a PR photo op.
@ David: Do I sense some hostility here?
To be fair, there are plenty of gay (and bi, and queer, and pansexual, and trans, and etc.) people who can’t dance to save their lives either.
As for the “sacred institution of marriage,” well, the main difference between a committed non-married couple living together and loving each other and whatnot and a married couple is the tax bracket and how society treats you, rather than the relationship itself. So I figure if you want to be hitched, as long as all parties involved are consenting adults, get hitched however you want, just let all other consenting adults do that same, regardless of whether they do it mid-circus trapeze act, in a town hall non-ceremony, or in a church/temple/mosque/synagogue/whatever. You’re still in love and still the same people without whatever event you do or do not have, and everybody else, government included, needs to butt out, because its none of their business who marries who or how
Well put, Annie!
Look, NtB! We have a troll!
Oh, and David, the word is ‘straight’ not ‘str8.’ We are not texting here.