Band vs. Dj

That's surprising to me. The main reason we went with a DJ is because it was significantly cheaper than a band (like by thousands). I think a band could be fun, but be sure to read reviews.

For us, a DJ was an obvious choice. Most bands only play certain types of music. I want a real party atmosphere.

DJ was obvious for us. Cheaper than a band, and I can't stand listening to music that's not made by the original artist. (I blame my Dad for that one)

A dj can provide you with more music. If I want rap to country to line dancing and a mc will get the party going. And I'm surprised bc bands in my area run 10000 and up my dj only cost 2500

Casie, seriously? Where do you live? That seems super high.

My area too. Great bands can be up to 11,0000. Great DJ's run up to 2500. Bands are almost always more expensive.

A dj will usually provide continuous music/entertainment while a band usually takes a 20 minute break per hour.

@Celia There is another band with our band's entertainment company that goes for $15k...they've played at the White House. Crazy but true!

We're having a band, but I think a great DJ is much better than a so-so band if the cost is the same or similar. You run a higher risk of being disappointed with a band, especially if they're relatively inexperienced.

As a guest, I prefer DJs-- I'd rather hear the songs by the original artists than covers by Some Band, or spend the whole night listening to music I don't know. I know, not really what you asked, but this is the internet.

I just hired my band. I've always loved live music way more than a DJ so it was an obvious choice for me. The band I hired is very affordable because you hire them directly and not through a booking agent. What's cool about the one I found is there's several people in the band who play different instruments and sing different kinds of music so I don't have to stick to just one style. Just do your research and make sure you hear them play in person before you book them!

I have used both for functions and yes the band was good...but the songs always sound better when sung by the original artist...I think dj is way better!

I just couldn't decide which would be better! I agree with a DJ for all the reasons above, but I really wanted live music for the ceremony. In the end, since both charge by the hour, we did both! We've got a two-piece band for the ceremony and cocktail hour, and we've got a DJ for the rest of the night.

Not sure if this is a possibility for you.

A band can be amazing usually they are much more expensive because they can play everything so read the reviews. We went with a dj

Bands are usually more expensive. Im in central VA and one band quoted me $17k because it is NYE. the cheapest quote i got was $3500. my venue includes a DJ, so we considered doing both. in the end, we decided on cocktail and dinner live music (either a string quartet or jazz ensemble) and a DJ for dancing.

bands are nice bc people like listening to live music. they can give the party a higher-end feel and if you have one particular theme you can hire a band that goes along with it (i.e. country/bluegrass for a country wedding, big band/swing for a 1920s wedding, etc.)

A friend of mine had her wedding recently and had a band, and she counts that as the main regret she had of the night. The music was limited to what the band played so there wasn't much variety, it was very very loud (the space was small) and so people weren't really able to sit down and talk so many just wound up going home. Also, because the band was busy with actually playing the music, they weren't really able to read the crowd to decide what they should play to get the most people on the dance floor. Once we attended that wedding, we decided that we're going DJ all the way.

To be fair, the space was small and the band they hired wasn't a traditional wedding band, so your experience may be pretty different.

Good luck with whatever you go for!

I would go with a dj. More versitile

We skipped the music altogether and just did a dinner reception. BUT...

If we had had music, I would have preferred a band. This is because we aren't into partying, and so we probably would have had a jazz band or something like that. Something fun that people could dance to, with a bit of vintage flair. Pop in a mix CD or something for the band's breaks, or use those breaks for toasts. And we still would have ended the reception at around 9:30.

If you want people to dance all night, stay late, and all that - go with a DJ. You won't be happy with a band that can't change the type of music once older guests leave, who can't encourage everyone to get on the dance floor.

If you're really stuck, have live music for the ceremony and a DJ for the reception.

We went the DJ route too because bands in my area were costing us $2,500-$7,500.

It turned out better to go the DJ route since they are provide sound equipment during the ceremony and helping to emcee the reception. As others have mention, DJs have a lot more flexibility than bands but bands can provide a different ambience.

DJ. If I went to a wedding with a live band, I wouldn't dance

Thank you all! I think I'll stick with the dj. I have such a respect for musicians that I would want to hire local talent but I definitely prefer the variety and constant music from a dj.