dj vs. Band/quartet

We choose both... The Quartet for a 2 hours performance for the ceremony and the cocktail. The Dj for the venue and the dance.

Thank you Ladies

Dj is less expensive so I will be going with that. Plus we are less likely to run into not being able to play songs due to not knowing them. With a DJ he/she can get a list from you with your must have's and you are set! I am 20 years old and I know that DJ's are at the clubs and all - but you could also look at a band or quartet being something for the older generation then too (having them at bars and pubs).

We chose a DJ purely because it's more economical for us. A band would have been way over our budget unfortunately.

Band/quartet coat more for the hour than a DJ for one price for the whole day.

My brother had an Indian live band for one occasion. They were expensive just for one evening. For this reason i went with a DJ.

I'm doing a DJ and personally I don't think the reason people DJs are any more fun than live bands. I've been to weddings with both and I love both. But DJs have a more wide range of music and tend to encompass things more people will know and like which is great when you have a range of ages going. Also DJs don't really need to take breaks the same way a live band would, so for my wedding where party which will be going for hours, a DJ was the best choice. I have heard of people doing both throughout the reception just to close all the gaps and keep it going even longer, but that's not in everyone's budget.

My Dj is unique because her partner is a singer and she's a pianist. So they will be performing at my ceremony, cocktail hour, and 1st dance. Then they will be djing afterwards.