dj vs Band

DJ it is, then. He doesn't get to pick lofty ideas then dump the planning on you


A DJ is probably cheaper, acts as your MC, and can adapt the music to the mood of the crowd

Pro of DJs:
1- They are a more budget-friendly option than bands,since you're only hiring 1 person vs 2-3-4 or 5 for a band.
2- They can play all music styles, bands can only sing/play 1-2 styles.). A DJ has the world at their fingertips when it comes to music choices, so you won’t need to worry about a lack of variety.

3- You can have the DJ for your ceremony music, so you can save more money, unless having live musicians for the ceremony is important to you. If not, the DJ is the cost-effective option.

4- They don't take up a lot of space: you'll need to factor in the space available at your wedding venue. DJs take up less room than a band.
5- They can keep the music going during breaks: A DJ will take a few moments throughout the night to take a breather.they will line up a few songs so that there won’t be any silences during the reception.
CONS:

1- If you have a lot of guests who aren't into tearing it up on the dance floor, a DJ can get pretty boring, since they don't have the energy of a live performance.

2- A DJ needs to bring in their equipment, that mean a lot of wires. This can make the space look cluttered.

Pros of a live band:
1- The conductor can make adjustments on the fly if something goes wrong, such as tempo changes or adding additional repeats to cover a mistake.
2-the party “feels more real, more authentic” with a band.

Cons:

1- $$$$$$$

2- Live bands don’t always sound exactly like the recordings.

3- They may need longer breaks than DJs.

If he wants it, he can contact, create contracts, and book multiple bands himself. I cringe at multiple riders (aka band demands). However, is this is a new artist showcase or your wedding? Book a cover band or a DJ where guests know the songs, or people will get confused and bored.

Dj it is. You give them a few artists you like, let the know who you don’t and they take care of the rest. Much cheaper and guests are more likely to dance.

We did a jazz band instead of a DJ and it was super easy. They were local and ok with my lazy planning technique of telling them to start at this time, end at this time, and play whatever you want! Guests loved it (we even had a few guests stay really late to just listen to the band—very memorable).


But if you want certain songs or dancing, a DJ would be better. And a DJ is almost certainly cheaper.

DJ it is! I will compromise and have a local singer/guitarist play during cocktail hour. But, if he wants something more than that, I'm going to make him contact the different artists, sign contracts with them, and plan the music part of the evening.

Another advantage of a dj is that guests like to hear songs by original artists

I feel like for younger crowds & party vibe, or limited budget, a DJ works great!


For a classy wedding (absolutely for black tie), older crowd, maybe a themed event, a band is better.
For our swanky 60’s local reception, the only thing my hubby was dead set on was a band. Or he didn’t want the event at all! We had a Frank Sinatra impersonator & 7-piece band. People danced too (40’s-70’s ages of guests).