Live Band V.S. DJ??? Thoughts???

DJ is pretty much always going to be cheaper.

I'm getting a band, they dj during their breaks and go through the whole night. They also are playing music thru cocktail hour and dinner. I'm pretty excited about this!! The last wedding I went to also had a band and they had a lot of members so a couple people would just take a break and rotate, so they had no breaks of music. It was a lot of fun!

A band vs DJ is definitely going to change the tone. The best events (for dancing) I've been to included a live band for the first part of the night then a DJ later but that is obviously the priciest and most complicated option. A band will have less variety and will need breaks as. I prefer a DJ if you're just doing one or the other.

A definitely prefer a live band, but they are wayyyyy more expensive

I like live bands but they are way more expensive like WWLynnie said. so we are going with a DJ

I always thought I wanted a live band.. but then with the variety of music (Spanish music and English) we wanted, we figured that it would be easier to get a DJ. Plus it's easier on the budget.

DJ for us - our live music choices are not ideal in our area.

I never got the whole live band thing. Idk maybe that's me. I personally prefer djs. You have a bigger variety of songs to chose from.

Bands are more expensive than DJs, but not all are totally outrageous. We are getting an 8-piece band for the reception (4 hours) and three of them will play a 45 minute set during cocktail hour for about $5300 total. It was a splurge but we both love live music and our venue is a professional music venue with stage and sound. I saw much more expensive bands out there but ours are self represented so they were a relatively good deal. You will only know by seeing what is available in your area and comparing the prices. Our band does NYC to Boston area, so they cover a lot of states. Try to find bands that have free showcases, I don't know about booking one without seeing them live first.

I prefer a live band because they feed off the crowd. A DJ does too but it's a different atmosphere. We had a band and they took breaks. During the breaks they played songs on their iPod and the dance floor was packed the whole night even with just iPod music. Bands are usually more fun but definitely more expensive.

I had both we had a live mariachi band for the ceremony procession music and some songs for cocktail hour. When they were finished, the DJ started to provide dinner mood music and then dance music! Live music is much more expensive

I hate live bands. Never seen a good one, and seen 3 of the "top 10" in the country (for wedding bands).

The last one was so cheesy I had to excuse myself I was laughing SO hard.

They may DJ during breaks, but everyone can tell the difference in the energy, so it's ALWAYS an awkward lull. I came back one time and thought the wedding was OVER, but nah, group was just on their fifth break of the night.

Every song does sound the same, because they usually only have 2-3 vocalists. They may be talented, but thats like saying that Paul Simon sounds like Louis Armstrong. You don't get the proper variety.

All their cover songs are going to be popular, top-40 cheesy crap. If I see ONE MORE BAND play "Shut Up And Dance" I'll lose it. They are not machines, so they can't learn every song in the world, so instead they'll play Shout, Shut Up & Dance, and Shake it Off. Yuck. And then the damn father daughter song is something like "Wonderful Tonight" because again, they don't know that wonderful esoteric cover of a song your dad used to sing to you when you were little, etc etc. Or the song needs a sax, and they don't have a sax.

And why. why. why. the dancers. They bring usually two or three moronic girls who attempt to do back up dancing (I guess to get people dancing?) It doesn't work, and instead these girls look like coked up go-go dancers in heavy makeup. Like strippers, but without the appropriate income.

Oh Kris, I LOVE mariachi bands! (And so do the guests!)

DJ's will always be cheaper. While I love live music, I would always opt for a top of the line DJ over a bottom barrel DJ.

Thank you all for your comments i think im leaning more towards DJ, only because i do have some very specific songs i want played, price is a factor, and i did find a dj with reasonable pricing! I just don't like having to switch my plans and start from square 1 again, even if i do have a bunch of time haha

Keep in mind that live bands are really really loud. There is really no way to keep the drum/bass down. If you are getting married in an area with strict noise ordinances, you may want to keep this in mind. Also, the sound will reverberate off the walls so all concrete venue + band = horrible ear pain for guests.

Some people prefer a live band but I don't. I've only been to 1 wedding with a live band. I hated that there was always a stop after every song and a couple seconds of silence for them to get the next song. A DJ just blends it all in so there is no down time for dancing. The music just flows. Plus, all songs they play will sound like their style. This one was a country band. So pop songs sounded more country-ish. Not that it matters to the couple, but I don't like country. I know a lot of people that don't. So it wasn't the best having every song have a country sound to them. And they cost more. Idk. It's all personal. But I vote no. You pay 4x as much and its not as good (in my opinion).

Wow! I seriously can't thank all of you enough! I've decided to go with a DJ. Just from weighing pros and cons. Plus you ladies gave me some great insight! Thank you all so much. <3