Band vs DJ

DJ all the way.

You're going to get a better quality DJ than band on a smaller budget.

I'm doing DJ for the reception and a musician for the ceremony and cocktail hour

We chose DJ. He will also serve as "Master of Ceremonies" to keep the event fun and on time.

Definitely a DJ.

Weddings with outstanding bands > weddings with DJs. However, if it's not an OUTSTANDING band, then a DJ is the move

My husband and I had the same dilemma when we were planning for a big wedding. We agreed on a jazz band (more like PostModern Jukebox) during cocktail hour and then a DJ for the reception.

DJ

I'm all about the band! But, I've been to a couple weddings recently with really, really, terrible DJ's and one with an insanely awesome band so I think that's officially swayed me. It will definitely be more expensive, but worth it, in my opinion.

We wrestled with this decision as well. So we did both - sort of. We are having a classic guitarist for the ceremony and cocktail hour then a DJ for the reception.

DJ

We had live music all night. 4 musicians for the prelude/ceremony/postlude, 2 during the cocktail hour, and a 12-piece band for the reception. They were so fabulous guests are still talking about them, years later.

I know bands are more expensive but I've always preferred a DJ (and that's what we are having). I've seen some great bands at weddings but it's just not the same as hearing the song as you know it.

I hateeee live music in small spaces (anything other than a concert venue honestly) so we went DJ. Plus I like the variety of what a DJ can play rather than a band with the new songs and dancing songs

ETA: words are hard

DJ!!!