Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    At my wedding, we had both (sort of), and it worked pretty well.
    Actually, we didn't have a band. we had a string quartet (since r and i
    really like that kind of music). we ended up getting a dj, too, because
    certain people (parents, who are usually pretty decent, but in our
    case, went nuts around this event) said that dancing was very
    important. [the two types of music ran sequentially, not concurrently.]
    the dj worked out well. he had music from the 20's to the 80's and was
    willing to work with us to find the tunes we wanted to hear the most
    (he even added to his already-extensive record collection on our
    behalf). he had a good sense of humor, was flexible, and was extremely
    supportive of me when i really needed it. 
    
    the guests liked both kinds of music -- they were able to talk without
    shouting, and they also enjoyed having the opportunity to dance.
    
    personally, i don't like wedding bands much because they redo other
    peoples' music but not very well. they tend to be loud and pushy
    and they start sounding the same no matter who they are and what
    music they're playing.
    
    contact me by mail if you're getting married in the boston area
    and would like some names. also, there's an early note in the file
    about non-sexist wedding ideas where people discussed different
    types of weddings.
    
    good luck and enjoy
    liz

    
    	I agree with the previous reply.  I've been playing music semi-
    	professionally since 1968. Most wedding bands I've heard were
    	horrible. A good wedding band is expensive.
    
    	I would go with a good DJ. DJs can have the music *YOU* want.
    	They have more control over the volume too.
    
    	Be sure and go and see some DJ perform before them.   That way
    	you can make sure they have good audio equipment (There are a lot
    	of people out there with a $300.00 stereos and scratched records
    	calling themselves DJs) and a professional attitude.
    	
    
    	Good Luck,
    	Guy Novello
    

 re;-1

    I've only been a passive observer of the dialogues presented in
    the WOMMANOTES file, but I felt I needed to give a response to 
    the previous note -
               
<    personally, i don't like wedding bands much because they redo other
<    peoples' music but not very well. they tend to be loud and pushy
<    and they start sounding the same no matter who they are and what
<    music they're playing.
    

    I play in a so called "wedding band" and really resent this type
    of stereotyping.  The appropriate term would be General Business
    band, and ideally a general business band should be able to meet
    any type of musical challenge be it playing in a club, wedding,
    private party or whatever.  We take pride in playing our music well,
    and not sounding like the kind of band you described.  Yes we do
    other people's music, and in some cases I would dare say I like
    our interpretations more than the original artists.  We also make
    it a point *not* to play a lot of the standard fare offered by several
    other GB bands.  Of course, you get what you pay for also.  A lot
    of people do not want to pay the additional cost of hiring a
    professional band.  Several of the cheaper bands are composed of
    musicians who do not practice together as a group, and simply "sit
    in" with other musicians to make some bucks.  They have all the
    sheet music and may play anything you request if they have the music.
    
    Of course, it may totally lack the original impact of the song since
    none of them really know what the feel of the song should actually
    be since they've never listened to it in detail, and rehearsed it
    in unison.  I used to play with another band on the "call me up
    and if I'm available I'll play ..."  basis up until a few years
    ago when I got sick of being perceived as their band was being
    perceived.  Unfortunately, there's so many of these bands around,
    that's what gives GB a bad name,  and they're usually cheap too,
    so consequently the majority of the GB bands that you encounter
    do fall into the category described in the previous note.
    
    GB bands may seem to be pushy, but often times it's the result of
    requests from the people who hired the bands.  The band ends up
    with the responsibility to steer the event in the direction specified
    by the customer.  For us, every wedding is different, and details
    of what the customer wants/doesn't want are generally worked out
    in advance, and noted on the contract.  
    
    As far as band vs DJ is concerned, it's all a matter of personal
    preference.  Personally, I believe that a *good* live band can be
    much more spontaneous since they have the artist's liberty of being
    able to improvise whereas a DJ is restricted to strictly pre-recorded
    material.   As the previous note stated about wedding bands, there's
    also lots of lousy DJ's out there too.  It's not a difficult thing
    for someone to realize the $$$ potential for their minimal investment
    in some sound equipment and time, and consequently a lot of people
    without valid credentials have been able to penetrate the DJ business.
    One favorable argument for a DJ is that they're more apt to be able
    to accomodate any requests for specific songs.
    
    We used to accept requests from people for songs to play at their
    weddings, but it quickly became a caveat.  We would get lists of
    songs that people would expect us to learn and play at their weddings,
    most of them being songs which we would spend lots of time learning,
    and then playing them once at their wedding, and never again
    thereafter.  Since we play very frequently, we were unable to learn
    new tunes that the band wanted to play also because we had to
    constantly learn all of this popular/not_so_popular music for the
    weddings.  We could always learn the songs in a half*ssed manner
    as several GB bands do, but as I stated earlier, we do take pride
    in playing whatever we choose to play as best as we can.
    
    - LV

    

    Ah!  A question that's near and dear to my heart and one that
    I'll try and answer from a slightly different angle.
    
    As a working musician in a rock/pop band, we occasionally
    got requests to do weddings.  We played two of them with
    very different results.  The one at which most of the guests
    were friends of the bride and groom's parents was a disaster;
    we were "too loud" and we didn't play the "right music."  In
    the other instance, the audience was almost entirely friends
    of the bride and groom and the only problem was that they *didn't*
    want us to stop.
    
    (BTW, in both cases, the bride & groom assured us that it was 
    going to be their friends (vs. their parents'); obviously one
    couple was engaged in wishful thinking).
    
    The lesson is, of course, "know thine audience and their tastes".
    One typical "problem" with "GB" bands (GB = general business =
    functions, weddings, not clubs), is that while they tend to
    please "older" people by playing "the standards" well (fox
    trots, walzes, hully-gully, etc.) they usually sound "wimpy"
    when attempting rock.  The opposite is true for the rock groups.
    
    This is what makes the DJ a possible solution; if the jock's 
    library is good, (s)he can play anything and it'll all sound
    good.  Plus it's easier for a DJ to tailor the volume level
    to the room. (Ever try to turn the "volume" down on a rock drummer?)
    The down side of the DJ is that most of them have little visual
    appeal, but this is usually a low priority for a reception.  The
    same can, in general, be said for GB bands (and, IMO, too many
    rock bands).  Finally, DJ's are usually considerably less expensive.
    
    Obviously, the toughest situation to satisfy is the mixed audience
    and, maybe the DJ is the best solution.  The older the crowd, the
    more I'd lean towards a GB band.  Until recently, rock bands were
    not a particularly viable solution, but with the baby boomers
    reaching mother/father of the bride age, this is changing (to which
    I sez "Hot damn - now we can get a chance to play some of these
    nice gigs").
    
    In any case, I have a few contacts here and there in the business
    and if I can help out, please feel free to call me (223-5435 or
    443-4036 (h)).
    
    Steve
    

    I had just a violinist, and I found it very nice.
    
    						Ann B.

    re: .3
    
    Small aside (probably a nit):  I understand your resentment of
    the stereotyping of "GB" bands, but, having played semi-pro
    and full-pro since 1962 I'd have to say the the stereotype
    is *in general* fair and accurate.  I dare say you all are the
    exception - as you indicated, many GB bands barely practice
    and often play from "fake" books.  I also understand how
    it feels to working against the stereotype.  My rock band
    doesn't fit the usual stereotypes either.
    
    The only reason I'm mentioning this at all is that it underscores
    the desirability of the previously mentioned tactic of hearing the 
    prospective entertainment before signing on the dotted line.
    
    Steve
    

    
    Another possibility -consider calling your local folk dancing club
    and hire a folk dance or square dance band.  Most are willing to
    give mini-lessons on the spot.  I've been to a couple of weddings
    where this was done and it was _fun_.
    
    Rita
    

    
    Playing at weddings definitely presents some difficulties as previously
    mentioned.  The key issues being the audience ages, volume levels,
    and material played.  We always try to understand the audience that
    we're playing for.  If there's more older folks, then we try to
    gear more material towards them, and vice versa.  If it appears
    that people want to dance to more rock and roll, then we give to
    them (no wimpiness included).  If it appears that they would prefer
    slower, mellower music, we change our format to reflect this.
    
    A lot of the volume problems could be resolved ahead of time by
    proper planning between the wedding planner and the function hall.
    
    I've seen more than my share of weddings where elder people are
    seated right in front of the band where the volume is certainly
    going to be loud.  Recently I played at a wedding where the head
    table was setup about 10 feet parallel to the stage.  The groom's
    father had a serious hearing problem and could only tolerate the
    *lowest* volume levels.  These things should be considered upfront
    before the event ever even begins.   We make it a point to inform
    people that it may be loud when they sit directly in front of the
    band's PA system, and suggest that they may want to move.  It's
    difficult to please all people's taste all of the time.  What may
    seem loud to an elder may not seem loud to the younger people. We
    usually watch people to see if they need to shout to talk to their
    friends, and if this is the case, we turn down.  Unfortunately,
    as the night progresses and people start to dance, the music may
    tend to get louder, but people generally seem to prefer this from
    my own experience. 

    Unfortunately, the music business is cluttered with bands who generally
    only play clubs, and are attracted by the money to be had playing
    GB gigs.  They learn a few of the so called "standards" so they
    can say they play weddings, but the customer usually ends up getting
    the same material that they would play in a club, and this is generally
    where the older/younger people become alienated over volume, tunes,
    etc ...
    
    We concentrated on being able to play all types of music for GB
    work, and then concentrated on updating our repertoire so we could
    also play clubs & lounges; just the opposite of what most bands
    tend to do.
                
    Bear in mind also that a DJ is not immune to these peccadilloes.
    They can also be obnoxious, loud, and annoying.  My feelings are
    that if you're going to have more old folks at the wedding then
    young, you're probably better off having a DJ who can gear all of
    his material towards the older folks.  If money isn't the issue,
    then I would say hire a band if you want more energy and spontaneity
    then a DJ.   Good bands are available, but because of the number
    of poor bands making a decent buck, they're expensive.
    
    As noted in a previous note, find out what the band/DJ's material
    is *before* hiring them, it'll save lots of aggravation in the end.
    Also, you should always make sure that you sign a contract with
    the band/DJ that binds both parties.  Things such as length of the
    bands sets/breaks, cost, additional cost per hour (should you decide
    to have them play for additional time),  whether the band will be
    served a meal, should all be documented in the contract.  Also,
    there should be an information sheet that specifies the names of
    the people in the wedding party, whether or not the band should
    perform so called "traditional" routines such as tossing the garter,
    dance with the groom and mother, dance with the bride and father,
    the cutting of the cake, the song for the first dance,and any
    additional special items that should be mentioned, i.e. 40th
    anniversary of grandparents.  This way, everyone knows in advance what 
    to expect, and the band knows what they're contractual obligations
    are.  The contract should also specify the time at which the band
    will arrive at the hall.  Our contract specifically requires us
    to be at a function two (2) hours before we're actually scheduled
    to begin playing.  This provides a two fold benefit; the band doesn't
    have to inconvenience guests by dragging equipment in and setting
    up while guests arrive, and it also provides a window for the band
    should they encounter difficulty in transit, or unexpected problems
    with the equipment that need to be resolved.  
    
    Hope this provides some insight - Lv

    I vote for the DJ.  We hired one for my sister's wedding.  He had
    everything for all ages and made the party a great success.  He
    was very professional and kept the party going strong much longer
    than we anticipated.  He even had the old wedding standby's. (Daddy's
    Little Girl, Boy of Mine, etc -- if you like that sort of thing).
    
    My sister was married right in the reception hall.  An aisle was
    created between the tables and the front of the hall was set up
    for the ceremony.  The DJ had the recording for "here comes the
    bride" which sounded like church music.
    
    Get a DJ - I don't think you'll be disappointed if you check him/her
    out first!

   This is so important...A band/DJ can make or break your wedding/function.
   No matter which you select, band or DJ, the most important thing
   to do is to check them out.  Get recommendations from friends/relatives
   that recently hired some one.  Call them far in advance so you may schedule
   some time to see them perform.

   I recently got married in June.  A band was recommended to me by several
   people...I called them a year and a half in advance and they were
   already booked.  However, one of the members of the band had started
   an entertainment agency with 60 bands as members ( and some DJs I think).
   We made an appointment to meet with him and to view 6 of the best bands
   available on our wedding day.  This was done via videotape and a big
   screen TV.  It was great - most bands will just give you and audio -
   with video you may select them on professional looks as well as sound.
  
   We were not disappointed.  Everyone, old and young, loved the band.
   They were spontaneous with the music...If someone was doing a wild and
   crazy dance, they kept playing the song.  They played the music to
   the crowds mood.  They were professionals and they were great.
   I have since used the band again for my parents 25th anniversary party
   and again they were a big success ( and this was strictly and older 
   crowd, where as my wedding was half and half).  And one of the wedding/
   anniversary guests used them for a work Christmas party.  Again rave
   reviews.  I have been to many weddings (8 in the past year including
   my own).  6 with bands and 2 with DJs.  Some of the bands were
   good, some weren't.  The same goes for the DJs.  It all depends on
   personality/professionalism of the person(s) involved.  Both of them
   can work but you have to be selective.  Often times you do get what
   you pay for.  The band did not come cheap but they were well worth
   it.  The only problem I had with them is that people wanted them to
   play all night!

   The agency: D&S Entertainment Agency, Dracut MA
   The band:   Reflections.

   If you can't find the number and would like it, let me know and I will
   dig it up for you.  Best of luck with your plans!  All the hard work
   pays off in the end.

   Suzanne
    
    

    P.S.  I forgot to mention this bands lead singer is a woman and
    the gentlemen who plays keyboards also sings.  This great for all
    those romantic duets so popular for first dances/last dances etc.
    And may I also say their renditions of music were great, not flat
    and artificial like previous notes may imply.

    Suzanne, do they play at any clubs in Massachusetts?  Come to think
    of it, I think my cousin had them at her wedding and they ARE very
    good, very personable, they talk "to" you not "at" you.
    
    Cathy

    For those of you who would like the phone number of the agency:
    
       D & S Entertainment Agency
       157 Saw Mill Drive
       Dracut, MA 01826
       (617)453-3337
    
    The band I used was Reflections:
    
       Mitchell Cooper
       2 Acton Street
       Lawrence, MA 01845
       (617)688-6530

    If you're interested in a good DJ, try Dave Parker.  You can contact
    his wife, Dianne, at GRAMPS::PARKER.