Grassroots Music’s Royalty Problem: Are the Right Artists Getting Paid?

Every night across Britain, small venues give new bands somewhere to play, audiences somewhere to discover music and songwriters a chance to be heard. But when the music stops, how confidently can anyone say that the right people are receiving the royalties?

New research from Music Venue Trust (MVT) and audio recognition company Audoo has put that question back in the spotlight. During a pilot in August and September 2026, researchers monitored 623 hours of live performance audio in grassroots venues. Their technology matched 134 hours — around 21% — to known songs or compositions.

It’s an eye-catching number. It is also one that needs careful handling. The other 79% cannot simply be described as unregistered music: it includes speech, material the system could not identify, and potentially registered compositions performed in ways the technology did not recognise.

Why a song played once still matters

Grassroots stages are not miniature versions of the charts. They are where artists try unreleased songs, play unusual arrangements and build audiences one room at a time. In September’s pilot data, 1,190 different songs were recognised during live performances; 87% were heard only once. That diversity matters when systems try to estimate which writers should be paid.

MVT argues that licensing arrangements need to reflect the repertoire actually performed in smaller venues, rather than relying on assumptions or patterns drawn from radio and larger concerts. The stakes are real for both sides: independent venues face substantial operating pressures, while songwriters deserve accurate payment when their compositions are used.

What PRS for Music says

PRS for Music has challenged any interpretation that the unmatched audio proves music is outside its repertoire. Its response points to the difficulty of recognising live, new and unreleased songs, and the distinction between recognising a recording and identifying the underlying composition. PRS says it shares the goal of accurately identifying music and fairly rewarding writers.

That is an important distinction. This pilot does not establish that 79% of royalties are being misdirected, nor does it demonstrate that 79% of performances fall outside copyright licensing. It shows that automated identification, in these conditions, matched only part of the monitored audio.

It’s not the only challenge facing small venues. Manchester’s new grassroots venue map shows how transport and access can shape the live-music ecosystem, while our report on inequality in London’s live music licensing explores another barrier facing artists and promoters.

What the figures reveal — and what they don’t

The pilot recognised 2,238 live performances, including 23 tribute-band sets covering more than 380 songs. It also identified 10,943 recorded tracks by 6,248 artists. That is not a typical radio playlist. It is a snapshot of just how varied the music heard in grassroots venues can be.

That variety matters because an accurate royalty system must account for the obscure as well as the obvious. If a songwriter’s work is played only once in a small room, that performance should not become invisible simply because it is harder to measure. Equally, a recognition tool missing a performance does not prove the composition is unregistered or that a payment went astray.

A bigger test is coming

MVT and Audoo are expanding the research to more than 100 UK grassroots venues between October and December 2026. Audoo’s technology receives audio from venue mixing desks and attempts to identify live and recorded music without requiring extra setlist paperwork. The findings are expected in January 2027.

The bigger sample should help answer whether the pilot reflects a widespread gap in available data, a limitation of recognition technology, or some combination of the two. Until then, certainty would be premature.

Three questions the next study must answer

First, how much of the unmatched audio is actually music? Speech between songs, technical limitations and unreleased material need to be separated before anyone can estimate the scale of the licensing problem.

Second, can the technology identify compositions rather than just recordings? A cover performed at a different tempo or in a completely different style still involves songwriting rights. PRS is right to press this distinction.

Third, will better data change who gets paid and what venues are charged? Counting songs is only the beginning. Any reform should show how evidence improves distributions to writers without placing disproportionate costs or administration on already stretched venues.

The view from Imminent Infinity

Britain’s grassroots venues are already fighting to remain viable. As we’ve explored in our coverage of the grassroots ticket levy and VAT, supporting the foundations of live music requires more than celebrating the artists who eventually break through.

A fair system should neither overcharge struggling venues on the basis of questionable assumptions nor overlook songwriters whose work fills those rooms. Better evidence is worth pursuing. The real test will be whether January’s findings lead to a clearer, more trusted way of recognising what is played and paying the people who wrote it.

Sources: MVT/Audoo study announcement; Music Week, including PRS for Music response.