DJ for us! We like how they have a wider range of musical genres to play, and they tend to be far less expensive than a live band. If you're wanting your guests to get on the dance floor and party hard, I always suggest going with a DJ.
DJ. I think bands have a style of music they typically play. Although they could probably deviate it wouldn’t be their true style so it might not sound as good whereas a DJ can mix all types of genres and play to the crowd more.
We hired a saxaphonist for the ceremony and a DJ for the reception. But I really love weddings with bands because it provides a nice live concert feeling. But we went with a DJ because we’re having a rooftop cocktail style reception. So the majority of our music will be played in the background to vibe to while mingling because it won’t be much of a major “dance party“ style.
I think a dj is better because like others have said they can play anything and while they are eating and taking breaks they can still have the music play. When you get a band the are going to need breaks and they only ever really play one type of genre. We got lucky though because we hired a dj/saxophone player. He will play saxophone during the ceremony, cocktail hour and dinner and dj the rest of the night.
I think a truly great band is the best! There's a band that alternates between the bars at my university during the school year and the bars down at the beach in the summer that were able to play a wide variety of current hits and classics and have fantastic energy. I would hire them in a heartbeat if I had an unlimited budget, but they do NOT come cheap and it's simply not in the cards for us. A DJ is definitely better than a mediocre or crappy band, comes with less equipment and manpower, and has access to more variety of music.