Band vs. Dj?

I would’ve loved a band but I couldn’t find one for under $7k so we went with a DJ for budget reasons. But I’m a huge fan of live bands at weddings.

I would prefer dj just because I feel like they could be your announcer or Mc too. Whereas I’m not sure how long a band could really be playing for. However a band is also such a fun option!

I like DJ because I enjoy hearing the songs by the original artists.

We chose a DJ so we had an MC, a wider variety of music, and the cost.

Most bands cost multiple times that of a DJ, so I would first look into why the band is so cheap.

Live bands are *amazing*, but the problem becomes that they have a limited amount of songs and styles, not to mention they require more meals and more breaks.

We are doing both. We have a dj through dinner, and then a jazz band for the last 2 hours of the event. It’s in New Orleans, so plenty of bands, and able to customize ensemble size and hours- so we Were able to match our budget.

Wow, a band is usually more expensive than a DJ! It depends on the vibe & type of music. For our local reception, we had a swanky 50’s/60’s theme so a live band that played 40-60’s music was perfect (and a Frank Sinatra impersonator). But most of our guests were 45-65. If we were in our 20’s and so were our guests, a DJ May have been better for that party vibe.

We went DJ for the above mentioned reasons. All of the Live Bands in our area were expensive so our DJ vibed really well with classy but fun. We are putting the money we saved towards our honeymoon.

I always wanted to have live bands for our wedding, but yes, the good ones are so mega expensive. It is very hard, I am struggling with this question. We might going for a band for just a couple of hours and then a DJ. But then the turnover I am a bit concerned about. Do not want to kill the party.

I prefer DJ's because they are better for dancing. Every wedding I have been to that had a live band had less dancing. Also, live bands are sometimes too loud, and not in a good way! I think it just depends on the vibe you want your wedding to have.

I prefer a DJ because they are able to read the crowd and change the genre of music if what they are playing isn't getting people on the dance floor. A band is likely focused more on one genre of music and wouldn't be able to really change it up as much.

It depends on what you like. I personally prefer hearing the original versions of songs and like music that extends across a range of genres, so I think it would be challenging to find a band that could do justice to the variety of songs that we want to hear.

Also, it is courteous to feed your vendors, so that should be something to consider along with price. If hiring a band will save you a couple hundred dollars but you need to pay for meals for four or five people (or more), that might eat up the savings over paying for and feeding a lone DJ. If space is at a premium, bands usually need a larger set-up area, and I think its more difficult for bands to lower volume to accommodate smaller venues or those with sensitive hearing. If a band is too loud, that's more difficult to rectify than a DJ that is too loud. The DJ may also be able to provide additional services, like ceremony music, uplighting, and other extras, that bands don't typically offer.

Some people absolutely love live music though (its almost always too loud for me) and having a band will add a level of personal touch to your event. It's totally up to you!

What I have found is bands are way too expensive so we are going woth a Dj

View Quoted Comment

Totally agree. I think bands are great, but a DJ is SOOOOO much less expensive, so DJ it is! At least 5 times the cost in our area.

How were you able to find a band so cheap is my question! We had a live band and it was absolutely amazing, but it also cost well over $10K...