Well, for a cover band, personally (PERSONALLY!!!) I prefer to see the people on the bandstand making the music. No drummer? Do the songs in a way that doesn't require a drummer. This comes from my personal history in a cover band where we had one guitar, no keys, sax, drums, bass, male singer, and we played songs that were originally recorded with keyboards, two guitars, female singers, synthesizers, etc., etc., simply by making arrangements for our instrumentation. For an electronic-music project, if the electronics are part of the musical effects, then that's what they are. Two different things, two different preferences. I understand that the average audience member prefers performances of well known pop songs to sound as close to the recorded version as possible, and it better be 120 beats per minute - not 118 or 122, nope, can't dance to that, gotta be exactly 120 beats - now I'm dancing! Woo! But being an old fart from a time when there was at least a tiny bit more individuality in band performances of well known songs, I would rather hear something that isn't an exact copy of the record. Otherwise, why don't I just go home, have a drink, and listen to the record? I mean, people here complain constantly about being replaced by DJs and then they insist that their own performances be exact replications of records. Heck, if all you're going to get with live musicians is the record, only sloppier, why would you want to put up with a bunch fo musicians?