Evolution in wedding speeches is no bad thing; there is a lot of nonsense surrounding tradition that really needs to be dispensed with. A case in point is the tradition of the best man responding on behalf of the bridesmaids' toast given by the groom. Confused? Yes so is everyone else. Tradition states that the groom should toast the bridesmaids, which is great, and as it should be. Tradition then states that the best man should respond to that toast. Not only is this completely unfathomable, it's also a colossal waste of time. I mean, why stop there? Why not bring back jousting and the ducking stool?
There is very little in the groom speech that needs to be reinvented, that was until the idea of a joint groom speech: the groom and bride speak together. I am fully in favour of the bride making a speech. In fact, the ideal scenario would be for more speeches, but much shorter. That way all the speeches would be much more efficient, punchier and hopefully funnier, and you're not treated to a series 35 minute epics.
However, in my experience making it jointly between the happy couple just doesn't work. The groom needs to be able to stand up and tell everyone just what his bride means to him in a singularly meaningful performance. If she is standing right beside him when he's doing that, it will all seem like some election night special. Also the bride and groom would talk about both sets of parents - if you do that together, it's going to be death by parent tribute.
So, yes, let's hear it form the bride, but not at the same time as the groom; it just doesn't make sense. Have individual speeches, and make sure everyone's speech is kept to a sensieble word count. The more speakers, the shorter the individual speech.