I know it's been done in various ways, but just want to revisit set list issues. We recently had an argument running in my cover band over song choices. Basically, we just played a successful gig (our first) and were talking about what new tunes to add. The set list is eclectic, with Deep Purple and Jimi Hendrix at one end and recent radio pop at the other, but we have a cohesive style that seems to make it all work together and people complimented us on the mix of tunes. Anyway, I suggested playing an Arctic Monkeys tune, and the reaction was "I've never heard of them" and "We shouldn't play anything that hasn't had a lot of radio exposure," and "NO MORE OBSCURE SONGS!" Now, my take on all this was that it's an up-and-coming band that's well-known to the younger crowd we say we want to expand our appeal to, and that the younger crowd doesn't listen to the radio any more, they get their music via social networking and youtube, and the radio is not the only guide to what will appeal to the under-30 set. Even if a song IS obscure, in my opinion it's healthy for a band to allow 5-10% or so of its set list to be obscure tunes, as long as they have a great groove and you can "sell" them to the crowd in the midst of better-known sure-fire material. It helps keep you from getting stale. So my question is not just on the Arctic Monkeys specifically, but set list choices generally - what criteria are everybody's cover bands using to choose songs? Is the radio an important criterion to you? Chart positions? Media buzz? Do you think bands can take chances on more obscure material, and if so, how much?