MVT pilot study shows only 21 per cent of live music from grassroots venues is registered repertoire amidst battle for fairer PRS payments
A Music Venue Trust pilot study found that only 21 per cent of live performance audio recorded at grassroots venues matched songs registered with PRS For Music. The findings raise questions about whether royalty payments based on current licensing methods accurately reflect what is played, and could inform efforts to make payments fairer for songwriters and venues.
Conducted with music-monitoring company Audoo across 64 venues between August and September 2026, the pilot covered 623 hours of audio and recognised 2,238 performances. MVT cautioned that the remaining 79 per cent does not necessarily mean unregistered music, as it includes speech and audio the technology could not identify. A larger study involving 108 UK grassroots venues is planned for October to December.
- Just 21 per cent of sampled live audio matched PRS-registered songs.
- Unmatched audio also included speech and tracks the system could not identify.
- A larger UK study will examine music use and royalty distribution.
New here? Start with this
PRS For Music collects licence fees and distributes royalties to songwriters and publishers when their music is performed in public. Grassroots music venues, such as small clubs and pubs, pay for licences that cover live music, while songwriters rely on performance records to help determine how royalties are shared.
Music Venue Trust represents grassroots venues and campaigns on issues affecting them. Its work with music-monitoring company Audoo reflects a wider challenge: records used to allocate royalties may not capture every song played, while audio monitoring also has limits and may not identify speech or some performances. How those records are made can affect whether payments reflect what songwriters’ music is performed and the costs venues face.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The findings suggest that current royalty allocation methods may not reflect the music actually performed in grassroots venues, so better monitoring could help direct payments more accurately to songwriters whose work is played. Fairer allocation could also strengthen trust in the licensing system and give venues a clearer account of how their fees are used.
The case against
A pilot covering 64 venues and using automated recognition may not be representative or reliably identify all performances; the study itself says the unmatched audio includes speech and material the technology could not recognise, not just unregistered songs. Changing payment methods on this evidence could add monitoring costs or shift royalties unfairly, so broader research and careful assessment of accuracy and impact would be prudent.