I play in the bands, so read this knowing that. It's still worth writing straight, because a couple who would be happier with a DJ won't enjoy a band either.
What a DJ does better
- Exact recordings. If the first dance has to be that record, a DJ plays that record. A band plays a version of it, well, but a version.
- Range. Forty years of music in one evening, across genres no live group covers convincingly.
- No gaps and no load-in. Music runs continuously, and one person sets up in a corner.
- Cost. A DJ is one fee. A band is six to ten.
What a band does better
- It's an event in the room. People watch live music. They don't watch a playlist, and the difference in how a room feels isn't subtle.
- It reads the floor. A band that can see the dance floor emptying changes what it does next, in the moment, rather than working through a list.
- It's the thing people remember. Guests talk about the band. Nobody has ever described a wedding by its playlist.
The hybrid, which is what most good receptions are
Band for two sets across the peak of the evening, recorded music either side and in the breaks. That covers the gap problem, keeps the floor going while the band is off, and puts the money where it does the most work. Nearly every reception I play is shaped like this and it's the arrangement I would recommend to my own friends.
Where a band is the wrong call
A small room with a low ceiling and eighty guests, where a full band is simply too loud. A budget where hiring a band means cutting something you care about more. And a couple whose taste is centered on records that no live group covers well. That's a real preference, not a failure of imagination, and a DJ will serve it better.
If a band is right for your day, what a wedding band costs covers the money, and the wedding page covers why ceremony, cocktails and reception are three different bookings.