Post # 1
My wife and I can’t seem to agree who to hire for our wedding reception. We’ve discussed this over and over again but we just can’t decide. One thing that we’re putting into consideration is that we both have old Colombian women on our guest lists. Her tias and abuelas are coming and so are mine. We were hoping to hire someone who would at least be entertaining for them too. They can be really picky just so you know. Can some married couples out there give us a bit of advice? Which one did you get for your wedding?
Post # 2
We had both.
We had the band for cocktail hour and during the reception, they played 45 minute sets with 15 minute breaks in between…which was when the DJ would come on. The band finished at midnight and the DJ took over for the rest of the night.
Post # 3
um maybe i would go with the band, but it’s not wrong to go with both too since picking only DJ might end having them not entertained enough
Post # 4
I say dj. I hate hearing bands do covers.
Post # 5
90% of time, I would way a DJ is the better choice, but my brother’s wedding last spring they had a band and they were AWESOME!! If you can get a band that is genuinely awesome, it’s worth it.
Are you wanting to have more traditional music options for the old school family? Maybe you could have a DJ for the dance/party (assuming you’re doing the typical dinner and dance reception) but hire a band for an hour during dinner to play traditional Colombian music?
Post # 6
I was struggling with the same decision a few months ago. And similar to your situation, I have a number of elderly German relatives who love polka dancing and don’t dance very much to more “modern” music, and I wanted to make sure they were entertained and got a chance to dance too.
We ended up deciding on a DJ, because 1) it was cheaper, 2) we really prefer hearing the original version of a song rather than a cover, and 3) our musical tastes are more diverse and we didn’t want to be limited by a band’s repertoire. This way, we can play the country and rock that we want to hear, some fun oldies for our parents and their peers, and throw in some polka songs for my German relatives to dance to.
I also really like sboom’s idea of having a Colombian band play during dinner as sort of a compromise. That could also be a good option!
Post # 7
Live band all the way! But ours will take breaks and when they do a DJ will go on!
Post # 8
If you and your Fiance have similar tastes within a small set of genres, bands can be great! I was the Maid/Matron of Honor for a wedding where both the bride and the groom (and their families) only wanted to listen to classic country. During the breaks, I plugged in my iPod for some line dances.
Anything beyond that, get a DJ. I love country, but I also like the 70s and my Fiance likes oldies and Motown. It’s too many different styles to expect a single band to cover well.
Post # 9
My bias is for a band and the energy of live music, as long as they are good.
Post # 10
DJ. I do not want to hear covers of my favorite songs. I don’t care how good the band is.
Post # 11
Generally I think you’re safer with a DJ just because a band often limits the style of music you can play. You can have the DJ play more oldies and classics earlier on in the night and then newer ‘younger’ stuff later on in the evening.
Or if you’re really set on having a band, you can have the band play the ‘classics’ earlier on and then make your own dancey playlists for later in the evening when you might want more modern stuff.
Post # 12
We went with a dj it was a lot cheaper then hiring a band. I think with a Dj you can get wider range of music but bands are always nice.