2006-10-22 12:17:44 · 15 answers · asked by sally spoiled 1 in Family & Relationships ➔ Weddings
Traditional- Band (to please the older generation)
Contemporary- DJ (to please everyone)
2006-10-22 12:32:46 · answer #1 · answered by treday25 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well my husband and I just got married in June and we decided on a DJ. We were very happy with his services. At the end of our wedding he even gave us cd's of all of our wedding songs which was great. Some of the bands that we looked into were quite expensive and they were not going to be at the wedding for that long. With the DJ, ours stayed even after we had left. I hope this helps you out.
2006-10-22 13:49:54 · answer #2 · answered by rainydayislandgirl 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I chose a DJ:
1) Plays a much broader range of music for a diverse crowd (which my wedding will be)
2) Less expensive than a band (a good band in my area is about $3K - 5K, the DJ was $1300 for 6 hours
3) The band my sister had was supposed to be amazing.. very professional 6 piece band. They did not play a lot of the music my sister wanted (even though they said they could) and they did not honor hardly any requests (even though my sister wanted them to). So that was disappointing. Not to mention they introduced my mother incorrectly. They gave her the wrong name altogether and then denyed they did that saying "we're too professional to make those kinds of errors."
Anyway... I went with a DJ. He is a classic pianist as well and so he is playing live piano during our cocktail hour and then DJ'ing for the reception.
2006-10-22 12:28:41 · answer #3 · answered by PT&L 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am having a DJ cause he will keep everything moving smoothly and keep everything on time. It all depends but I think a DJ is the best answer. More than likely cheaper than a band anyway. More selection also.
2006-10-22 16:08:07 · answer #4 · answered by CGS 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dj they will get the party jumping! Bring on the DJ. Lets get this party started!
2006-10-22 14:15:12 · answer #5 · answered by 38C 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We used a DJ for my daughters wedding and were very happy. He was told exactly what to play and we were very clear about his "patter". I didn't need a director for the wedding, his job was to play music, period. He did a great job. The cost was about 750 for 5 hours and I gave him a $50 tip.
2006-10-22 13:19:06 · answer #6 · answered by tjnstlouismo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think receptions with DJ's are more fun. The ones I've been to with bands are kind of boring. I guess it depends on if you want your guests to have fun or you want to look like you have a lot of money.
2006-10-25 01:36:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I prefer a DJ. They don't have to take so many breaks and can play a wide variety of music, where a band can't play such an assortment.
2006-10-23 00:34:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you can possibly afford a band, go for it! It's more interesting and more fun! I miss weddings with real bands - they are rare!
2006-10-23 01:33:32 · answer #9 · answered by Lydia 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on what you want & where you live. That will influence the money issue.
I work with a band the is quite versatile, and not outrageously expensive.
There's nothing quite like live music.
2006-10-22 12:34:22 · answer #10 · answered by weddrev 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
definatly dj try sonny hellers music box hes great
2006-10-22 12:25:22 · answer #11 · answered by jenny m 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋