band vs. DJ for reception?

[mary poppins]

My FI and I are looking into what to do about music for our reception. Do you have any recommendations regarding having a band or DJ? What are the pros and cons of each?

 

[sweetpea&babycorn]

hi mp!

i think it all depends on what kind of "feel" you want for your wedding. at least from the wedding i''ve been to, a DJ takes up less space, and the sound is different. DJs are also considerably cheaper than bands.

for our wedding, my fiance is INSISTING on a band. he hates DJ, hates their sound etc. so he''s in charge of that (wahoo!). he likes the fullness of the sound of a band, and also that you can hear all the elements of the music they play. he feels that DJs just have this boomy sound and he doesn''t like it. but in addition, it also seems harder to pick a band that will play the music you like and has the sound that you want for your reception.

so i think you should consider your budget for music, and what you and your fiance prefer. hope that helps!

 

[Haven]

I think this is a HUGE decision because it completely affects the entire feel of your reception.

Bands have a swankier feel, and they typically feel more formal and elegant than a DJ, IMO. That is, if you choose the right band. (I saw the Wedding Singer, ha!)

DJs have a more party feel.

Band Pros
- Nicer, more elegant, full musical sound, definitely more formal (if that''s what you''re looking for)

Band Cons
- EXPENSIVE, they need more breaks than a DJ because they''re working super hard, they music isn''t performed by the original performer so if you''re someone who wants to hear Frank Sinatra sing "your" song during your reception, you won''t get that with a band.

DJ Pros
- SUPER AFFORDABLE, plays the music as you''re used to hearing it, I think they''re better for crowds that want to get down on the dance floor, they can play anything as long as they have the disc

DJ Cons
- Not as nice as a band, they lack celebratory feel that you can only get with live music, a tendency for cheesiness (be very specific about the songs you don''t want, because people, for whatever reason, will ALWAYS request The Electric Slide!)

I think the choice totally depends on what you want out of your wedding music. Whatever you do choose, be sure to see them in person many times before you sign a contract. And get personal recommendations.

We had an eight piece band and they were awesome. But we also had a formal daytime wedding. If we had a nighttime wedding with more of a party feel, for example, we would have totally gone with a DJ.

 

[iheartscience]

It definitely depends on what type of reception you want. I never wanted a band because I wanted a super fun and dancey late-evening reception, and I think a DJ is much better for that. Plus a lot of the music I like isn''t super mainstream, so a band wasn''t going to know the songs I wanted to hear.

I did have a musician for the ceremony, though, which was nice. I''m not a fan of DJs for the actual ceremony.

 

[brown_eyes]

We''re going with a DJ. It''s cheaper and they can play a wider variety of music and we want to dance the night away. One thing to watch out for with bands is that sometimes they will only play songs within one particular style and that can get boring after a while.

 

[yssie]

We''re doing a DJ because we''ll need Hebrew and Indian music!!

 

[megumic]

Band! Live performances trump DJs in my book, but it depends what kind of music you want to have and the trick is to find a great band at a reasonable price. Good luck!

 

[TooPatient]

Date: 4/29/2010 3:08:50 PM
Author: yssie
We''re doing a DJ because we''ll need Hebrew and Indian music!!

That should be a fun combination.

 

[yssie]

Date: 4/29/2010 5:03:29 PM
Author: TooPatient

Date: 4/29/2010 3:08:50 PM
Author: yssie
We''re doing a DJ because we''ll need Hebrew and Indian music!!

That should be a fun combination.

 

[Amanda.Rx]

We went with a DJ. It was MUCH cheaper. (about $750 vs. $3000+) We also liked that we could have a much bigger variety of music with a DJ. We had a young crowd that liked to dance, so music from the top 40 was important for getting people on the dance floor.

Plus, the DJ kept the party moving and made all of the announcements and stuff. That was very helpful.

 

[purselover]

Definitely live music- I hated our dj but loved our quartet. IMHO live music is a very nice touch and adds a very classy/formal feel to an event.

 

[beltane]

I completely agree with Haven''s analysis.

I LOVE the feel of a live band. The energy is unparalleled.

However, it''s very hard for one band to have the ability to play all the different "styles" of music that is usually wanted at a wedding reception... some slow romantic, some rockin, some fun... usually a band has a "genre" that it does well, and everything else is a poor attempt.

That said, a DJ can totally make or break a reception. If he/she is bad it''s OH-SO-bad! If you get a good one then it also means you get some fun and partying AND all your favourite music to boot!

We''ve opted for a DJ mostly because our wedding is too tiny to warrant the expense of a live band. But also because I have some specific songs that I want the real deal. I have always dreamed of dancing to Van Morrison''s "Someone Like You" for my first dance, and someone else''s version just won''t do on my special day!

Good luck with your decision... you''ll make the right one for you!

 

[Iowa Lizzy]

I think the pros and cons have been listed pretty well here. I love the atmosphere of a reception with a live band. It just seems so much more "celebratory." DJ''s have endless selections with endless genres.

We are doing both. We have a four piece (piano, drums, bass, vibraphone) jazz band that is going to play starting with cocktail hour (around 6ish) and then they''ll play durning dinner. We''ll have them do our first dance song and then they''ll play until around 9:00 so that the older guests can listen and dance to all the Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin classics. Once the sun goes down and the older guests start to leave, we''ll transition to the DJ who will play more contemporary dance music until midnight when the reception will end.

Depending on what part of the country you live in, this can get SUPER expensive. Luckily, we''re in the Midwest so DJs and live bands are much cheaper than on the coasts or down south. I''d have to go back and look at the numbers but I think our DJ and band will be under $2500 total (with the band being much more expensive than the DJ).

 

[beltane]

Date: 5/1/2010 3:36:58 PM
Author: Travel Goddess
We have a four piece (piano, drums, bass, vibraphone) jazz band that is going to play starting with cocktail hour (around 6ish) and then they''ll play durning dinner. We''ll have them do our first dance song and then they''ll play until around 9:00 so that the older guests can listen and dance to all the Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin classics. Once the sun goes down and the older guests start to leave, we''ll transition to the DJ who will play more contemporary dance music until midnight when the reception will end.

That''s brilliant!

 

[mayachel]

You may want to try a search, as there have been a few threads with the pros and cons of each in the past. I started one in the fall sometime-

We went with a band. A large part of that choice was that we had recently been to weddings where the DJ was just awful. Not in a, "just not our thing" kind of way, but that the bride was in tears kind of way.

We felt the only way to know what we were getting from a DJ was to be able to have seen them at a wedding, or had one personally recommended. Whereas bands very often have clips of their music. We went with a band that has been very gracious with communication so far. We feel like they have the sound we were looking for, as well as a wide repertoire of music. Personality wise, we felt we were able to tell they would make good MCs for us as well and there was no risk of breaking out the "chicken dance".

The other thing is, that while all the books said a band would be waay more expensive than a DJ, the DJs in our area were all about a $200-400 difference from bands we were happy with. For us, we felt that the price difference swayed us also to "knowing what we were getting". Our band is playing for 6 hours, and was around $2500. There were bands that were amazing in the $5000-10000 range, that we felt we just didn''t like that much more. There was one band that was less, in the $1800 range and they were clearly not as experienced with their sound as the one we went with.

Personally-I pushed to do an IPOD wedding, cause it seemed like a doable idea. My DF and parents said NO!