Written evidence submitted by Sneaky Pete’s (Edinburgh)
About Sneaky Pete's
Sneaky Pete's is a Grassroots Music Venue (GMV) and Nightclub in Edinburgh, established in 2008. Although the venue is small, we have gained a national reputation for our ability to host high quality live shows in an intimate setting. Known as 'the home of new and exciting music in Edinburgh', we take our role of hosting and developing emerging talent seriously. We host around 275 concerts per year, as well as high quality clubnights every night.
We are a member of the Music Venues Alliance (MVA) and the Night Time Industries Association (NTIA). We are also part of Edinburgh's Music Is Audible (MIA) group which successfully lobbied for change in Edinburgh's local licensing conditions around noise from venues, and we have recently successfully engaged with the Scottish Government to bring the Agent of Change principle into planning policy. We were also recently brought into PRS Foundation's Talent Development Partner Network, which will help us to continue to feature the best emerging UK musicians.
Response to the DCMS Inquiry
We warmly welcome the DCMS Inquiry and we are pleased that the department has taken an interest in small music venues. We are aware that Music Venue Trust has given a response which contains many facts and statistics, and we will not duplicate those here, but rather give an overview from a venue's perspective.
How has the live music sector been affected from the closures of small music venues across the country?
We are keenly aware of the decline in the number of dedicated live music venues in the UK.
Edinburgh alone has had two significant venues closures in the past year: Studio 24 (500 capacity) and Electric Circus (250 capacity), and the city's 1500 capacity Picturehouse venue closed not long before that to become a Wetherspoon's pub.
Venue closures have a significant impact upon musicians and audiences. Fewer venues means fewer opportunities for musicians to play, and fewer opportunities for audiences to see performances.
Towns and cities with a only a small number of music venues can disappear from regular touring routes, and since audiences often travel to shows, the impact is may not just be upon the town or city's inhabitants, but those from neighbouring areas as well.
At a time when live music is popular, with more people than ever attending live music events in 2016 (according to UK Music), and when musicians' incomes are increasingly derived from live performance, it is worrying that GMVs find it so hard to trade.
As a small dedicated music venue, a Grassroots Music Venue in the Music Venue Trust's terminology, we exist to bring music to audiences. Across the sector there is evidence that GMVs promote music that they think is significant and worthy of attention, acting as signposts towards the presence of quality new music, regardless of whether it is in the venue's financial interests to do so. GMVs act as the Research and Development department for the UK music industry, a role for which they are unpaid.
GMVs provide the freedom to fail for emerging artists, to experiment and succeed later. Venues pick up the tab for that with no recompense. It's all in a day's work, to some extent it's why we exist, but it comes at some expense: for instance Sneaky Pete's spent £50,000 more on artists fees in 2017/18 than it received in ticket sales. We are a relatively successful organisation, but that kind of loss is hard to sustain.
How do we stay in business those kind of losses? We work very hard to keep the venue busy, and busy venues have busy bars. As a dedicated music venue we're not open to the public unless there is a show on, so we need to have entertainment to make bar sales. But, to be absolutely clear, this is not the tail wagging the dog: we exist to host excellent shows, and the way we cover our entertainment losses is through bar sales. My discussions with other bar managers and venue owners indicate that music venues get significantly lower drinks sales per head than dedicated bars. In short, running a music venue is not a good way to run profitable bar.
To be clear, running GMVs is mainly not significantly profitable, is very risky, and many venues would make more money using the space in other ways. Operators behave as though the bottom line isn't the most important thing. A GMV's raison d'être is to showcase excellence, and in order to continue to exist and fulfil that brief, they work hard to ensure they stay open.
At a time when audiences for live music are growing, it seems strange not to see more music venues opening to replace the venues that have closed. However, venue closures aren't just the workings of the market within the live music industry. It is not the case that poor quality venues are failing to be replaced by higher quality ones with better operators. Instead, there are just less venues.
Venues compete with other kinds of businesses that have better margins. Edinburgh's Picturehouse venue has become a superpub where they do not play any music because it makes better financial sense to run a business that does not create a cultural good. Your bank has become a trendy wine bar because you now do your banking online, but seeing live music online is in no way the same kind of fulfilling experience. The loss of a music venue is a significant loss to a community.
Where will the new venues come from? When so many venues are closing, it takes a very brave, very insightful and experienced, or very naive operator to open a new venue, and we don't expect the trend to reverse for some time. If something isn't done soon then not nearly enough new venues will replace the ones that are closing.
What are the factors causing venue closure?
There is not one single factor that is hampering GMVs, and there is not one happy solution to GMVs' problems.
Each venue's case is different, but here are some common themes:
- Rates have gone up dramatically for many venues, even though the recent rates review was intended to be revenue neutral.
- Rent has also increased for many venues.
- Revenues from alcohol sales are going down as millenials are drinking less.
- GMVs compete with festivals (both national and international) for trade, and these events are more and more popular, accounting for a large part of the increase in live music attendance.
- Due to lack of investment, facilities in venues are sometimes not good enough to attract large enough audiences, as they are not adding enough value, and are unable to premiumise the concert experience.
- Ticket prices in smaller venues have stagnated, and when venues are unable to invest in new facilites, it is hard to add value to the product to charge higher entry fees.
- Noise complaints frequently lead to serious expenditure on acousticians, solicitors, soundproofing, and disruption to business.
Should small music venues be classified as cultural venues?
GMVs are unquestionably cultural venues. As described before, they primarily exist for the the promotion of contemporary music, and as businesses they behave in a way that is not as profitable as running similar enterprises such as bars.
GMVs are not just the training grounds for future starts, they are also the sites of performances from world class musicians who operate in specific genres and niches that many never reach mass appeal, but can fill a GMV sized room in towns and cities across the UK. Many of the shows at Sneaky Pete's are of exactly this kind, where we are the correct venue for an established artist to play, not just a stepping stone to greater success.
There is a sense among music venue operators, whether justified or not, that we are seen to be promoting popular or low arts within a purely commercial sphere, far removed from high arts such as opera, classical, ballet or even jazz, and that the music we promote isn't seen as being as significant as other musical art forms.
Music in GMVs is not seen as being as culturally prestigious as the music in the funded sphere, or other art forms that receive significant funding. Because GMVs so rarely seek subsidy, and more rarely receive it, we are not present at discussions about the cultural agenda, and until recently rarely had conversations with relevant public bodies.
It is not possible to make a clear argument that venues that specialise in 'popular' music promote music that is less significant that 'higher' art forms. The level of enjoyment, of emotional engagement, philosophical or moral investigation in popular music is not necessarily 'higher' or 'lower' than in other art forms.
Nonetheless, funding to to GMVs in Arts Council England's National Portfolio Organisation distribution 2018-22 equates to only 0.06% of the total fund, 0.3% of the distribution to music, and 3.5% of the distribution to contemporary music.
GMVs need to start looking more concertedly for funding from funding bodies, and a classification as cultural venues would be a strong signifier that they would be contenders for such funds. Applying for grants is not very rock'n'roll, but if the rock'n'roll venues close down then nothing is very rock'n'roll.
GMVs across the EU receive significant funding, with an average subsidy of 35% of total turnover. This has resulted in better facilities in venues, and higher performance fees for musicians. GMVs need to seek parity with our European neighbours.
What initiatives can be put in place to help grassroots artists and bands?
An improved consistency in funding's approach between parts of live music is needed. GMVs need to be seen a prestigious part of the UK's cultural offering and as centres of excellence. 86% of ACE's Portfolio Funding in 2018-22 will go to Opera and Classical. It is not clear that these forms of music should be seen as more prestigious, nor do they command more soft power, nor are they better cultural exports (in the main they are cultural imports), nor do they create better social betterment, improve morality or social cohesion better than 'lower' music forms.
Opera and Classical are harder and more expensive to stage, and were the first arts to be funded by ACE when it was set up in 1940. Their extraordinary financial needs have led them to be first in the queue for funding.
In 1956, WE Williams, then Arts Council Secretary General, wrote in his report that "the first claim upon [The Arts Council's] attention and assistance is that of maintaining in London and the larger cities effective power-houses of opera, music and drama; for unless these quality institutions are maintained, the arts are bound to decline into mediocrity". Whilst the Arts Council's role has changed greatly in that time, the funding priorities in music seem to be the same.
We argue that GMVs are in fact 'power-houses' of music, and that GMVs are centres of excellence which prevent popular music declining into mediocrity. However, with the underfunding of venues, many of which are falling into decline due to underinvestment, this role can no longer be taken for granted, and venues can no longer exist purely in the commercial sphere, especially if they are to continue to promote the best in new and exciting music.
The following initiatives can be put in place to help GMVs, which in turn will help musicians, and are described in detail by MVT:
- Full funding for MVT's Sound + Vision proposal to improve the performance infrastructure of 101 GMVs in five years.
- Reform business rates in the sector to establish a sector-specific framework for use by the Valuation Office Agency.
- Enact the Agent of Change principle bringing it into statute not just policy throughout the UK.
- Remove VAT from ticket sales at GMVs. The increased net turnover from this would dramatically increase artist fees in a swoop as musicians are typically paid 80% of the profit after costs for a headline show.
- Recognise the value of GMVs as cultural venues on a par with theatres, galleries and concert halls. This can be done through the establishment of a register of cultural assets, but also through the actual funding of GMVs through the appropriate bodies such as ACE and Creative Scotland.
April 2018