I used to play in a band and have been at hundreds of weddings. When you're not involved with the bride and groom and are looking as an outsider its always easy to see whether people are having a great time or enduring it.
I've seen a massive range of quality when it comes to catering. And I've seen the best received food to have been plentiful. It's lovely having pretty food. But the point of a meal is to eat it and have it fill you, not just admire how it looks.
Wedding meals have been a variation generally of some sort of soup or pate, a roast of sorts and generally a cheesecake or profiteroles. It's never gourmet cuisine because of how its prepared. Sometimes the portions are decent and sometimes they're pitiful. If you're served a pitiful portion its really OK to think its a bit shit.
Similarly, some have had canapés and others haven't. A few hours of solid drinking with nothing to soak it up normally means at least some are half sozzled by the time they finally sit down to eat.
You may laugh at what you think is my lack of taste and class in preferring some stodge to soak up alcohol, but I personally think that failing to cater to your guests needs and provide everything possible for them to enjoy a lovely event is where the class is lacking. I'd rather guests came and had a fantastic time with everything they could need, than have grumbles over being kept waiting around forever, being underfed etc because I chose to prioritise the aesthetic instead.
But that aside, the consensus has been to take a snack that can be eaten if needed. I'm not really understanding why that has been met with such venom when it seems perfectly sensible.