Post # 1
I haven’t been to many weddings at all, and none with a band. Which is better? We already hired a DJ but I can’t stop thinking that I should have gotten a band. We are getting married on new years eve and the band we love is $6,000 vs the $1200 for the DJ… Does it make that big of a difference? Has anyone ever been to a wedding where they had both?
Post # 3
@Amy43026: My Fiance and I are struggling with this question right now. Last night we went to check out a possible band and we realized that it wasn’t worth the extra money for us. However, if you really LOVE the band, then it might be worth it to you!
Post # 4
I don’t really understand why someone would have both? Of course, I understand the predicament of choosing one over the other, but I feel like if both a DJ and a band were hired, it would be crazy expensive and they would just step on each other’s toes…
I have been to weddings with live bands & they were very fun. I have been to (more) weddings with DJs & they were very fun, too. FI and I would have loved to hire a live band, but it just wasn’t in our budget and it wasn’t a priority for us. (I think the DJ will be great, though!) You have to decide what your budget priorities are, and if having a band is really important to you, see if you can find a way to afford it.
Post # 5
@Ms Bookworm: I saw venor review by somebody who had both. She said that they hired the dj to play during the band’s breaks. It seems a bit excessive to me, and the band we were considering would have played our ipod music for us during the breaks, but each to her own!
Post # 6
@Amy43026: We had a 3 piece bluegrass band for the ceremony (which was outside) and cocktail hour (~$500). Then a DJ for the dinner and reception (~$700). It worked out ok for us. In retrospect though, I’d have probably gone with the bluegrass band for the whole wedding~just because everyone came from far away and we spent more time talking than dancing.
Post # 7
Personally I prefer a DJ but only because most wedding bands that I’ve seen have been on the cheesier side. A DJ can play just about anything under the sun but a band is limited to only the songs that they know. With that said, I know that great bands do exist but they’re going to cost you. $4800 is a pretty significant difference. If I were you, I’d put that money towards something else, like an extra fancy HM! As long as you’ve hired a great DJ, you’ll have a fantastic party.
Post # 8
I prefer djs since I want to hear songs by the original artists. Plus, it’s cheaper.
Post # 9
@Amy43026: It depends on how formal your wedding is or the kind of mood you want to set. DJ would definitely give you more a party vibe. We’re actually having this dilemma right now too.
Post # 11
Thanks for your help, here is what I decided: jazz trip with vocals during dinner ($1200) and Dj for ceremony and reception ($1200).
Expensive but not $6000! the jazz trip will give me the formal dinner I want and hopefully the dj wil give me the fun party!
Post # 13
I’m partial to DJ’s, but at a friend’s wedding last year, we hear this AWESOME DJ/live music combo, and when we got engaged, that was the first thing we knew we wanted. Its a DJ along with a keyboardist, vocalist, and sax player.
I think its a great compromise and the best of both!
Post # 14
We ended up hiring a band. I actually haven’t seen them play yet, but my mom and Maid/Matron of Honor scoped them out for me. They said they were exactly what I wanted. They’ve also played at a lot of clubs and professional events, so I hope it works out.
The best part about them is for an extra $150 bucks they were willing to DJ their breaks. They will bring everything and set it all up.
I feel like it’s the best of both worlds. Live music and the songs and the classics we want by originals.
Post # 15
Wow, this is exactly what I’m dealing with! It’s helpful to hear what others are doing. I already know a saxophonist who is willing to play at our wedding, but I have to look for a DJ still.
Post # 16
We are definitely going with a band!!