Which would you rather have at a wedding, a band or a DJ?

Question

My fiance and I are butting heads over which to get for our wedding.

Answer 1

dj- can play alot more music and so much cheaper!

Answer 2

Well as a person who has played in a wedding band (for 16 years) [about 800 weddings]  and a person who DJ/KJs - I think LIVE MUSIC if done well is preferred.  Obviously a good band cost way more than a GOOD DJ  and a BAD BAND you might be able to get for the same cost of a GOOD DJ.

A live band CREATES music from scratch - it's easier for them to add a verse or cut a tune short.

A DJ has an arsenal of tunes.  And can be very effective.

Some people think a LIVE BAND detracts more from the focus being where it belongs... on the BRIDE.

However... when it comes to WEDDINGS... and deciding here's 3 simple rules:

1) when there is a disagreement - go with what the BRIDE SAYS

2) When there is no disagreement - go with what the Bride says.

3) See rules 1 and 2.

It's the BRIDES DAY.  Nobody else's opinions really matters.

Answer 3

I'm thinking a DJ for ours. Only because with a band theres no guarantee everyone at the wedding/reception is going to like the band. With a DJ you can't go wrong. They can play all kinds of different songs from different genres and therefore everyone is guaranteed to like something out of the selection of songs. = ] Good luck!

Answer 4

A DJ. You can get a wider variety of musical genres that way. If you hire a band, they're going to have their set list of songs that they know, and if someone wants to request something outside of their repertoire, too bad.  

Answer 5

DJ all the way..

a)for money reason only one mouth to feed..

and b) he wont destroy songs by doing his own flare to it.  

Answer 6

Have both!!  Have either the Dj play first with soft music while you guys are eating - then when its time to cut a rug have the band play...

or vice versa....band first - Dj last....

Remember its all about compromising - welcome to the world of marriage!!  

Congrats too!!

Answer 7

How about a monkey ringbearer instead?

Answer 8

I prefer a dj since I want to hear the original versions of songs as they were meant to be played. They also have a much bigger variety of music.

Answer 9

a band, totes.

Answer 10

Live band. Classier :)  

Answer 11

DJ, you get to hear all the great songs by the original artists.

Answer 12

Band if you can afford it and it wouldn't be too over the top for the wedding. They're less likely to try and take over and run the event/MC it.  

Answer 13

Oh, a band for sure. We couldn't afford one for our wedding, we went with a dj.

Answer 14

a DJ that way you get a varity of music

Answer 15

a band...........or a dj maybe all

Answer 16

A Live Band and then I can Get on stage and sing with them...Oh Yeahhh!

Answer 17

A DJ.More fun

Answer 18

Most bands are too loud.  If your goal is to get all the old people or folks who weren't 100% well to leave, this is the way to go.  However, some DJs are also loud, but they often have a wider variety of music to select from.   Also, consider your space.  Most places I've been in are simply too small to have a live band.

Answer 19

dj, you can hear any band you want and its cheaper! :)

Answer 20

dj because you will never know if the singers voice will go out or if the dummer loses an arm. :)

Answer 21

Either are fine, but it all really depends on the music.

Answer 22

i would prefer a DJ.  That way he can play the song that you want by the artist.  A band is going to just sing the songs for you and then you have to worry about if the band going to sing them right.

Answer 23

With the high costs of weddings today, go DJ.  

Just don't forget the "wedding bands" (rings) <}:-})

Answer 24

dj all the way

plays different music

Answer 25

DJ for sure  

Answer 26

a DJ for sure.  A band usually only does one type of music and often its other peoples songs they are singing anyways.  Everyone likes different types of music so a DJ can cover everyones likes while a band really cant.