- Blog
- Bios
- Boards
- Classifieds
- DIY
- Gallery
- Vendor Reviews
- Shop Weddingbee
Weddingbee boards
I MUCH prefer a DJ to band. I like having the greater variety of music / sound plus like you, I like to hear the songs as they were intended.
I had a band at our "after the reception party" and loved them. I chose the music I wanted and they played it. It was so much fun. I considered a DJ and the laptop route, but the band adds to much to the party. We had an Ipod ready for band breaks and just a different variety of music, but we never even set it up. I vote band all the way!!
I'm totally with you. The Guy wanted a band, but I held out for a DJ, because I want to hear my favourite songs the way I know and love them!
We prefer a DJ because we know everything is true to the original. Also, we knew that if we got a band, we'd want a really good band, and we didn't have the money for it.
Sounds like you found a good compromise. Are you happy?
Well we're happy out. It's a great feeling to instantly wipe about 1300 off the wedding bill! And we know the DJ well, so I wouldn't feel shy about telling him what we want him to play.
And, we will actually have a wee bit of live music - FFIL and FSIL sing professionally part time, and are insisting on singing a few songs, so that should appease anyone looking for live music! They were really offering to do the whole night, but I'd rather have them relax and enjoy our wedding.
I would pick a dj everytime because they are cheaper (if cost is a concern) and they play music by the original artists as people are used to hearing them. Unlike an ipod, etc, they have a ton of music available that they can quickly grab based on what the crowd responds to and not play what the crowd doesn't like.
You must log in to post.
| Visit our sister sites | eHarmony Online Dating |
eHarmony Advice Dating Advice |
Project Wedding Wedding Songs |
JustMommies Pregnancy Calendar |
Create the honeymoon of your dreams.
We have just today decided to scrap the band hire and just have a DJ. We would still like to have an actual person minding the tunes, rather than the laptop.
We're kinda fussy about music - grunge time was our time - and with a normal mixed guest list to cater for, we know we can't hire a band that would play music we'd want to dance to. I don't think a party where about 5 people dance is ideal!
My other quib - and I know it's petty, but it is what it is - is that I kinda like to hear songs precisely as they were intended, if you know what I mean. Dream a Little Dream (Mamas & Papas) is our first song, and if it's a live band playing it, I just know I'll be listening in a critical way, to hear any mistakes, rather than just dancing happily with my honey.
So, seeing as we're gonna be running around talking all night - once the First Dance is over, leastways - we've decided to hire a DJ (that we happen to know) for about 500 euro, instead of band+dj for about 1800 euro. (Ca. $600 and $2000 respectively, I think.) If you're wondering why anyone would want both, here the band usually play 9-12, then DJ 12-2am.
Do ye all think we're mad? Tbh I'm dreading telling his family, there are a few musicians in it, and they wouldn't understand my choice to find money for the photog but not a band. I'm not loooking for advice, really, as we are quite happy with our decision, and himself will happily tell FSIL to back off if she gets too opinionated. I just wanted to know what you all think!