I guess it belongs here. I've been in a band doing mainly originals. Bass, drummer, singer, and acoustic guitar. Pretty jazzy/funky. We've sort of become the "house band' for a local club and have a small but loyal following. We also get a crowd going and keep more folks coming in every night. The owner has asked if we would consider playing more covers. Gung-gung!!! It's a tough situation. His rationale is that he doesn't want to lose people who come in and don't recognize the music and would therefore leave. He's also only owned the place a few months. We are also the CHEAPEST band he could ever imagine booking. He has repeated his request and now approaches us with this "I thought you guys were going to do more covers." We've got about 15 original tunes that we play. We are limited in our ability to cover due to the instruments we have, the guitarist's style, and our singer's voice. We've been working on the originals in order to get them to studio and cut several mini CD's (3-4 tracks per). Working on covers will take away from our time focusing on the originals. If we don't, we may lose the gigs. We were counting on the money to put toward studio time. So it's a bit of a catch-22. Learn covers , keep gigs and studio money, but originals will suffer, or Stay with originals, get them tighter, probably lose our steady gig and studio money. I also am fond of being in an original band. I've done the cover thing, and wasn't that happy. Same story as the drummer. We are not going to sound as good as other cover bands anyway. Just an acoustic guitar - he's totally awesome, but can't play an electric to save his ass for some reason. Also, I'm the only guy with any money. Singer and guitarist don't even have transportation.