this is the code for the render ad
Ohio-Columbus

DJ vs. Live Music

My FI, family, and I are stuck on deciding between a DJ or having live music at the reception. I know that having actual musicians would be significantly higher in price compared to having a DJ, but I just wanted to ask everyone their opinion and/or experience about either of these two options. We are definitely not think the "Wedding Singer" type band (like cover songs, etc.), but I don't want to have only old people up there dancing and bore all the younger, fun guests and of course, I want to rock out too! lol FI wants classy as do I, but I want to have fun and not be a bore.... lol Any suggestions or advice? I need it! Thanks! :)

Re: DJ vs. Live Music

  • edited December 2011
    I wanted a DJ and FI wanted a band, until he went to a wedding with a DJ and remembered that you can play whatever you want!!!  I think the idea of bands is awesome, but, I worried that it really limits your musical selection. I like that with a DJ you can get the latest and greatest songs played.  Also, I don't think DJ automatically means less classy. It depends on a lot of other things. Mostly, not playing trashy, raunchy music (at least while there are a lot of older people still there).

    You could do a combo, maybe a band for dinner music and the first hour or so, then a DJ. Or band for a cocktail hour and a DJ for dancing. 

    We are using Serenata Duo (flute-guitar duo) for our ceremony and cocktail hour, then a DJ for the reception. 
  • JMS842JMS842 member
    10 Comments
    edited December 2011
    Thank you! I agree with your experience or rather your FI's with going to a wedding with a live band. I've been to one, don't think my FI has. lol  I prefer the live music for cocktail hour then DJ for reception. I've been talking to him and he has looked up prices of both live music and dj's for the reception and I think I'm swaying him my way. :) lol Thank you for the insight!
  • edited December 2011
    We are going with a DJ because of cost, but a friend of ours had a band called "Street Players"  and they were awesome! They played a huge variety of music and had the crowd dancing all night. Very entertaining! If our budget was larger I would positively book them.
  • BCsGalBCsGal member
    100 Comments
    edited December 2011
    For what it's worth, my sister had a swing band for her reception and I had a DJ for my reception.  While the swing band sounded great and people enjoyed them, my reception definitely had a more party atmosphere.
    Christina & Brandon - August 7, 2010 Anniversary
    My Planning Bio | My Married Bio | FOR SALE!
  • jnkreagerjnkreager member
    500 Comments
    edited December 2011
    We are doing live music for the dinner and a dj for the reception.  To be honest, we couldn't afford a band for the entire night, but I definitely would have considered it if we had enough left in the budget!  I have been to a couple of weddings where they have had GREAT bands, and they were soooo much fun!
    imageDaisypath Anniversary tickers
  • edited December 2011
    We used a DJ because we like either original or certain versions of songs and wanted those specific versions, and we wanted the option to play whatever we wanted. Our playlist turned out to be a huge hit, and our DJ was great at keeping the party going.
  • edited December 2011
    I agree with pp, I think that a live band would be terrific for cocktail hour and dinner, but for the dancing portion I'd definitely recommend a DJ.  I think it also depends on what time of day your wedding is.  If your wedding is during the day then I think a live band would be fine, but IMO, evening weddings tend to have more of a party atmosphere and I think that a DJ would be better since they can play the latest and greatest music.  Good luck with whatever you choose!
  • edited December 2011
    We had a Dj and loved it. I actually have never been to a wedding with a band, or at least not that I can recall.
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards