Harpist or recorded music for ceremony?

posted 2 years ago in Ceremony
  • poll: What to hire?
    Harpist : (19 votes)
    95 %
    PA system : (1 votes)
    5 %
  • Post # 2
    Member
    366 posts
    Helper bee

    My initial gut reaction was to go with the harpist, bar none, however when I read your post, I reconsidered. 

    As long as you have the harpist seated close enough to the guests, I wouldn’t worry about the sound.

    However, I do worry about not being able to have microphones for you or the priests. Ultimately I think guests being able to hear your ceremony is more important than the music you walk down the aisle to. There are no more affordable options for microphones?

    As for the gazebo issue, what will happen to guests? Would they need to stand instead of sit? Would seating be a bit tighter, or would it be impossible? If it would be impossible, I would say, unfortunately to go with the PA system.

    For what it’s worth, I don’t think the PA system is a bad choice at all, I just think live music is so lovely. But as long as the music you choose is appropriate for a garden setting, having it played over a PA will not be an issue whatsoever. 

    Post # 3
    Member
    201 posts
    Helper bee
    • Wedding: July 2017

    I had a harpist at my wedding and it was amazing.  

    Post # 5
    Member
    309 posts
    Helper bee

    I think a harpist would add a lot to the ambience of your event and nothing beats live music for a ceremony. I am a musician myself and have played garden weddings with a harpist. I don’t think the sound will be lost in a garden. However, if you don’t have room for her in case of rain that is definitely a problem.

    Post # 6
    Hostess
    8525 posts
    Bumble Beekeeper
    • Wedding: Dorset, UK

    shadows9x :  Our options were if we wanted to play music at our venue we needed to buy and load an ipod and then have someone be in charge of the music for the ceremony. I didn’t want anyone to have to deal with the stress and worry of this so we have gone for a harpist which actually worked out cheaper. I feel so chill knowing she will show up, do her thing and none of my family / guest / bridal party will have to worry about mucking up the music!

    Post # 7
    Member
    201 posts
    Helper bee
    • Wedding: July 2017

    shadows9x :  I don’t think she had an amplifier… I didn’t think to ask her before and the day of everything was just a blur.  I loved having the harp music though – it was so romantic.  I had a very small wedding (just 20 people) – we were in a loggia (had a roof and open walls with arches).  I think with 40 people, they would have heard everything fine but it’s a bit different than open air since 2 sides had walls.  

     

    These are the songs we had.  My husband loves Leonard Cohen.. I thought Hallelujha may not be exactly right to use in a wedding, but it played before I got there 🙂  I cut an pasted it from an email, so hopefully it shows up ok 

    WHILE GUESTS ARE WAITING: Halleluja, Air on the G string

    BRIDE ENTRANCE SONG: Cannon in D

    EXCHANGE OF THE RINGS:  Ave Maria Schubert 

    RECESSIONAL: Wedding March Mendelssohn

    Post # 8
    Member
    167 posts
    Blushing bee
    • Wedding: August 2017

    We had a harpist at our garden wedding and I would 1000% recommend. It was just perfect for the setting. 

    Depending on your venue, I probably wouldn’t worry too much about an amplifier for 40 guests. If you had a larger wedding then maybe (we had 100 in total and ours was completely fine without).

    Post # 9
    Member
    359 posts
    Helper bee

    As a musician (who has done a lot of weddings) I’d 100% say go with the live music. I’ve been to a lot of weddings with recorded music but I’d never remember the music. I just think that if you can afford it, live musicians add a lot in personalizing. But of course, I’m biased. 😉

    Post # 10
    Member
    494 posts
    Helper bee

     Also a musician who plays at wedding here. One thing that I have noticed when attending weddings with recorded music is that people often talk over it. That won’t happen for your entrance obviously, but it will during the signing of the registry. If you have a live musician people will be a lot less likely to start talking and ruin the flow of the ceremony

    Post # 11
    Member
    1409 posts
    Bumble bee
    • Wedding: March 2017

    IMO live music really elevates a ceremony, makes it feel more elegant. We had a harpist, 2 violins, & a cello and they were amazing. It is absolutely worth the $250 extra dollars.

    Post # 12
    Member
    438 posts
    Helper bee

    I am usually in favor of live over recorded music, but I think not having mics for the priest and vows means people wont be able to hear the part of the day that is the whole point. I don’t think not having the harp amplified would be an issue, but hearing the talking without amplification outside may be hard. So that would sway my vote to the option that allows the priest and vows to be heard better.

    Post # 13
    Member
    613 posts
    Busy bee

    shadows9x :  I splurged on a cello/violin duet for my wedding, and I am so happy I did! It was worth every penny!

    Leave a comment


    Find Amazing Vendors