The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/2044-2084.htm

Student music
Student music
Paul Long
Birmingham Centre for Media and Cultural Research,
Birmingham City University, Birmingham, UK
Abstract 121
Purpose – This research aims to explore in detail aspects of the role and character of student unions
as venues for live music in post-war Britain. Guiding questions ask: what part have student unions,
entertainment officers and the wider body of students – in their role as consumers – played in the
economics of the live music business? What is specific to the business of live music in student unions?
How is this sector of activity related to national and local scenes, promoters, non-student audiences
and the wider popular music culture and economy?
Design/methodology/approach – The research draws upon formal and informally archived
sources to formulate definitions and scope for research, tracing the historical emergence and fortunes
of popular music programming in universities.
Findings – The research traces a history of professionalization of music provision by students, a
result of co-ordination efforts by the National Union of Students. It outlines the specific character of
live music business in student unions as determined by its subsidized nature.
Research limitations/implications – Sources for research are unevenly preserved and the scope of
activity – historical and contemporary is considerable. Further empirical research is required in order
to fully explore this important, if neglected area of cultural and economic activity.
Originality/value – The role and character of student unions in the economy of the music industry is
rarely considered and this paper offers set of concepts for further research and detailed historical
insights into this sector of business.
Keywords Live music, Music, Students, Universities, Popular music, Economy, United Kingdom
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
“Rock Goes to College” was a BBC TV series broadcast across four series from 1978 to
1981. Echoing an earlier experiment, “Jazz Goes to College” (1966), the series recorded
live concerts specially arranged at venues in UK institutions of higher education.
Bands and venues included Rich Kids (Reading), AC/DC (Essex), The Police (Hatfield
Polytechnic) and The Cars (Sussex). Despite the “rock” label, the inclusion of
performances by bands such as The Crusaders (Colchester Institute), Spyro Gyra
(Leeds), Average White Band (Surrey), UB40 (Keele) and The Specials (Colchester
again), indicates a broad menu of music. Across genres, it encompassed ingénues of
the post-punk new wave and established and sometimes challenging virtuosi such
Robin Trower (ULU) and Bill Bruford (Oxford Poly)[1]. Nonetheless, a recognizable
albeit elastic label that might serve for this motley, formulated independently of
the TV series yet implicitly sanctioned by it, is “student music”.
While the meaning and implications of “student music” are dealt with in the
discussion that follows, the term, in tandem with the scope of the TV series, prompts
reflections on a particular sector in the business of live music. The logic behind “Rock
Goes to College” was one that took advantage of an established culture and infrastructure
of audiences, venues and indeed a touring circuit for professional (and semi-professional)
bands across the HE sector that invites investigation. What part have student unions, Arts Marketing: An International
Journal
Vol. 1 No. 2, 2011
Thanks are due to those who aided the research for this paper, notably: Mike Day, NUS Scotland; pp. 121-135
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Jez Collins, Birmingham Music Archive; Stephen Homer, Frances Pond, Paul Chapman and 2044-2084
Rob Horrocks at BCU. DOI 10.1108/20442081111180340
AM entertainment officers and the wider body of students – in their role as consumers –
1,2 played in the economics of the live music business? When and where did this touring
circuit emerge? Furthermore, what is specific to the business of live music in student
unions? How is this sector of activity related to national and local scenes, promoters, non-
student audiences and the wider popular music culture and economy?
This paper is an attempt to open up some ways of thinking about these questions,
122 which have barely registered in popular music scholarship. What is offered here then
is a snapshot of incident and contexts that illuminate the character of a broad and
important sphere of live music programmed by and for students in UK universities.
In proceeding, I will first consider issues of definition and scope. Second, I will consider
the emergence of popular music programming in universities, framed by a
consideration of sources and the relationship of local and national bodies. In the
third section, I will outline some of the specific character of the business of student
music, which has, hitherto, been determined by its subsidized nature. As questions
concerning historical development inform this paper, the concluding section considers
the fortunes of live music in, if not “of” the university.

Defining the business of student music

It is useful to clarify a number of terms directing the scope of this study as the growth
of the UK education sector in the post-war period has been marked by considerable
shifts in policy and practice. The definition and understanding of the role of the
traditional university, its relationship with vocational and professional training and the
very conceptualization of the student have all been subject to challenge and change
(see Chitty, 2009). In the last 20 years for instance, the number of HE students has
reached nearly two million, a considerable expansion on the elite who were taught
by the handful of universities in existence in 1945 (Allinson, 2006)[2]. It is beyond the
remit of this paper to explore this history although any examination of live music for
students requires an engagement with shifts in political and pedagogical terms and
expectations, as well as with the cultural assumptions underpinning education and the
extracurricular activities of students. For the purposes of this paper meanwhile the
term “university” will encompass all areas of post-secondary education, inclusive of
HE colleges, polytechnics and FE colleges, or any site in which live music has been
programmed for the benefit of students.
While music has long been programmed as part of official university activities – the
hosting of classical concerts allied to schools of music for instance, the focus here is on the
activities of students that takes place outside of their classes and the formal domain of the
institution in which they study. The site of this activity is focused in particular on the
“student union”: “a self-governing community with a committee and officers elected by
the student body to represent their views and concerns to the University authorities and
the outside world” (Mathers, 2007, p. 1). Many individual unions pre-date the National
Union of Students (NUS), which was established in 1922 and to which are affiliated most,
although not all unions. Disaffiliated unions include those at Aston and Imperial College
London. In addition, there are also sub-bodies with devolved powers: NUS Scotland, NUS
Wales and NUS-USI in Northern Ireland (the latter being co-administered by the Union of
Students in the Republic of Ireland). In spite of the gravitational pull and cohesive
intentions of the national body, the nature and concerns of local unions can prove to be
highly individual and idiosyncratic.
Universities have a statutory obligation to support unions and do so with the
granting of financial support and provision of campus space. One important aspect
of this support has been the provision of social and cultural facilities, which have been Student music
understood as necessary provisions for student life (e.g. Jacks, 1975). Here then,
“student union” refers to both the organizational body and on-campus sites where,
amongst other activities, live music is programmed. Within the union body, the
“Entertainments Officer” or “Social Secretary” is the individual tasked with this
responsibility. This role in individual unions is often a non-sabbatical one, balanced
against the individual’s study commitments. Any individual officer usually faces 123
re-election every year and so the expertise gained and embodied in any one person
rarely endures beyond the duration of their degree. The key point to note here is that in
the relationship between NUS, local union and individual, there are possible tensions
between a desire for continuity and an inevitable impermanence.
Finally, the longevity of student union organizations draws attention to further
questions of definition: when and what kind of live music has been programmed
by and for students? While there is a pre- and post-war history of tea dances, swing
concerts, arts balls and classical recitals to explore, the focus here is on the sounds
and practices of popular music that emerged in the context of the post-war consumer
boom, in parallel with the growth in the provision of higher educational in the UK.
Established genres such as jazz, blues and folk, emergent forms labelled “rock”, as well
as styles and practice associated with black cultures – soul, reggae, etc., became an
integral aspect of the youth culture of the post-war “bulge” in the population that
reached maturity in the 1960s (see Marwick, 1998, pp. 59-60). Furthermore, in terms of
defining “live” music, union promotions have distinguished between the provision
of music by bands and individual performers, as concerts, gigs and so on, and the
“disco”, where a DJ sequences popular hits or particular genres. This presents issues of
categorization for any historical survey in respect of the emergence from rave culture
in the 1980s of the DJ as performer (see Thornton, 1995).
Currently, NUS offers advice, coordination and organizational weight to 600
constituent member unions, representing approximately five million UK students,
which equates to approximately 98 per cent of all students in the UK[3]. We should note
that, while holding student identity cards, individuals also inhabit other cultural,
political and economic identities and of course, it is only a fraction of this number of
institutions that have programmed live music and which have facilities to do so.
Nonetheless, the breadth of the student population and union organization underlines
the economic potential of this sector as an object of music industry interest. This can
be illustrated in detail with reference to the operations of individual unions. In
Birmingham, for instance, the three main institutions – University of Birmingham
(UoB), Aston and Birmingham City University (BCU) have a constituency of over
50,000 individuals. The University of Birmingham’s Guild of Students alone has an
annual gross income from all sources of over £4 million. A significant portion of that
money is an annual block grant from the University, which in 2009/2010 was £1.75
million, equivalent to approximately £50 per student. The majority of turnover
derives from its trading which produces a surplus of £400,000 that is reinvested in the
union. With over 10,000 square feet of space and serving 28,000 students this is a
considerable community and potential audience for music or any other form of
entertainment, commercial or otherwise (University of Birmingham Guild of Students,
2010). This audience is addressed by flyers, posters, a radio station, direct mailing
and the distribution of the free student newspaper “Redbrick” which has a print run of
6,000. Whether focused on events within or without of the Guild – or indeed received
by students or non-students (anyone might obtain the newspaper, flyer or hear the
AM radio station), this is typically extensive promotional circuit which works in support of
1,2 live music, amongst other activities. At Aston and BCU, a similar system is at work for
the benefit of the student body and, to some degree, in inevitable competition with
these nearby institutions and the wider live music economy.
The detail of when and where live music takes place in student unions must be
related to seasonal and academic cycles. For the unions of Birmingham’s main
124 institutions, the most significant moments occur at the commencement and close of the
academic year. The now traditional Fresher’s Fayre welcomes new and returning
students while graduation balls in summer mark the completion of examinations.
UoB’s 2011 Graduation Ball, for example, was headlined by Example and Labrinth,
both scheduling their appearance alongside commitments to other festivals such
as Glastonbury. Of course, live music at such events takes place amongst other
activities – dinners, funfairs, screenings and product promotions for instance. Periods
in which bookings are avoided are during examination periods, the end of term when
student funds are low or exhausted and, clearly, holidays.
For UoB and Aston unions the most significant musical moment outside of the term
schedule now takes place during the summer as, over recent years, both have organized
large-scale events in the form of “ValeFest” and “Astonbury”, respectively. ValeFest has
taken place at UoB since 2005, organized around a lake at the centre of student campus
accommodation. Alongside bands (students and local performers are invited to take part),
it is described as: “a unique summer event held annually [y]. Organised entirely by
student volunteers, it attracts 5,000 students and local residents and raises upwards of
£30,000 each year for a chosen charitable cause”[4]. Astonbury, inaugurated in 2009 is
more obviously commercial and profit-oriented – charging 3,000 attendees £20 per head
(tickets for “after show” parties are sold separately). The line-up in 2010 included: Guru
Josh Project, Taio Cruz, The Futureheads and Chipmunk[5].
Ventures such as Valefest and Astonbury are paralleled at other universities and
unions with greater ambition. For instance, in partnership with the university, the
University of Sheffield’s student union co-owns the Octagon Centre. The University of
Lancaster’s union has invested in the town centre nightclub Sugarhouse while the
University of Bristol student union owns the Anson Rooms; both venues feature in
the local and national live circuit. Student union activity in Bristol has been the
particular object of research by geographer Paul Chatterton as part of a contribution to
wider debates about the relationship of the university and community (Chatterton,
1999, 2000). Chatterton notes that much attention has been given to the economic
impact of universities, suggesting that: “Although it is clear that universities have a
major cultural, as well as teaching and research, role in the community, few attempts
have been made to specify these in detail” (Chatterton, 2000, p. 169). In exploring
the cultural role of universities, he explores how the student union is one place in
which this role has been pronounced. Investments such as the Anson Rooms are
evidence of how unions are restructuring in order to increase provision – for students
and, increasingly for non-students. Unions are staking a claim for a part of the wider
leisure economy, in particular amidst the nighttime culture of theatre, comedy, and
nightclubs and of course, live music.
Chatterton summarizes a variety of histories detailing the ways in which
universities have been culturally distanced from the locality – in, rather than of a
place. Reaching for universal significance, the university has played a historical role in
building national identity: an institution that, alongside museums, orchestras, theatre
companies and professional associations, built, validated and sustained cultural
hierarchies and values. The traditional role of the university was to nurture the high Student music
cultural capital of both graduates and the institution itself, which was deliberately
distanced from the kinds of popular culture successfully and professionally serviced by
most unions. Thus, while Chatterton suggests that developments such as Bristol’s
investment in the Anson Rooms constitute a new kind of commercialization for student
unions, some historical perspective is required for an understanding of when and why
this activity emerged and developed in this manner. 125
Looking for the historical development of student music
Where archives for individual student unions exist at all, their variety, state and status is
uneven. A signal example is the archive of the NUS itself, which is incomplete; the
curators of material held at Warwick comment that it: “had been moved several times
and suffered from fire damage before its [sic] arrived at the Modern Records Centre and
was very disordered and confused. It has been roughly arranged according to subject”[6].
Methodologically then, historical research for this paper has of necessity involved
looking to a variety of sources with imagination and caution regarding the extent to
which they offer insights into a sizeable and mutable sector. Given the amount of
individuals who have passed through UK universities (not least potential readers and
critics of this paper), there must be a wealth of ephemera held in private hands as well as
a rich potential for an oral history, which this research has begun to explore.
Helpfully, some university libraries have preserved full runs of union newspapers,
and unions themselves at Birmingham and Imperial College have digitized all or part
of their back catalogue[7]. In order to illustrate potential inconsistencies, and by way of
comparison, at BCU – formerly Birmingham Polytechnic, then University of Central
England, the student newspaper has passed through several guises with intermittent
publication schedules. It has been, variously, Polygon, Deuce and Spaghetti Junction –
and no full collection of material exists. Nonetheless, even this incomplete resource
offers materials through which one can track periods of activity as well as aspects of
the economy and politics behind student music.
The table below lists bands that played across the various campuses of Birmingham
Polytechnic in 1978-1979. It is compiled from advertisements in the student magazine
while reviews of the gigs and new releases, letters and other features offer some glimpses
of the capacity of venues, ticket sales and the reception of bands (Table I).
Historical evidence of the relationship of students and the live music business is also
provided by music industry products themselves. For instance, Davey Graham’s
After Hours album is subtitled “at the University of Hull, 4 Feb 1967”, which was also
the site of a 1970 gig by The Who, the recording of which was recently added to the
set of the most famous performance from that tour, documented on the Live at Leeds
album. In addition, if one is prepared to scout memorabilia fairs and web sites, it is
possible to locate ephemera for such concerts in the form of promotional posters and
ticket stubs.
Further evidence is preserved in the output of the music press, which is partially
summarized by a search of the database “Rock’s Back Pages”. At the time of writing,
the search term “university” generates over 1,070 individual returns, “polytechnic” a
mere 67 and “college” 1,772[8]. Of course, looking for evidence of student music in this
way is to use a very blunt tool. This search allows for no distinction between reports
from US and UK, nor the context in which any of these terms are used – which might
appear in biographical detail about the education of artists as well as in the label for the
site of the concert in a review. Nonetheless, it is the last usage that dominates in the
AM Polygon
1,2 Date Band/artist Source issue no. Venue

19 May 1978 Misty in Roots Advertisement 62 Edgbaston

30 June 1978 Colin Philips Combo Advertisement 64 Bordesley
4 October 1978 Ruby Turner; Cousin Joe Advertisement 66 Edgbaston
126 Freshers’ Week 1978-1979 Late Show Review 68 Edgbaston
29 September 1978 Supercharge Advertisement 68 North Centre
(Perry Barr)
25 October 1978 Rich Kids Advertisement 67 Edgbaston
Autumn 1978 The Adverts Review 68 North Centre
(Perry Barr)
1 November 1978a Climax Blues Band Review 68 Edgbaston
12 December 1978 Chas and Dave Advertisement 71 Edgbaston
February 1979 Raw Deal Review 74 Edgbaston
2 March 1979 Freddie “Fingers” Lee Advertisement 74 Edgbaston
31 October 1979 The Tourists Review 84 Edgbaston
Christmas 1979 John Cooper Clarke Advertisement 84 North Centre
(Perry Barr)
January-February 1980 Ferrari Advertisement 88 Edgbaston
29 February 1980 The Photos Advertisement 88 Edgbaston
Table I.
Popular music artists Notes: Table compiled by Jez Collins of “Birmingham Popular Music Archive”
appearing at Birmingham (birminghammusicarchive.co.uk). aFilmed for BBC Rock goes to College and broadcast 3 November
Polytechnic Students’ 1978, BBC2, 11 p.m.; repeated 5 November 1978, BBC2, 4.15 p.m.
Union Source: Polygon, student union magazine

material that proliferates from the early 1970s. This may be due to the qualities of this
particular archive as well as the context for the emergence of journalism devoted to
taking popular music seriously (Forde, 2001; Jones, 2002). But it might also suggest
that this was the decade in which live music promoting in student unions cohered as a
business.
Historical hints and traces of the role of student unions in the business of live music
can be found throughout the secondary literature on the history of popular music in
the UK. An indicative example is Roberta Freund Schwartz’s How Britain Got the Blues
(2007), which explores the British transmission and reception of American blues styles.
Schwartz shows how tours by figures such as Howlin’ Wolf took in, alongside small
clubs, venues like the London Polytechnic (Schwartz, 2007; p. 219). She maps the
development of a network of blues aficionados whose industry sustained a circuit of
live performances after the rhythm and blues boom of the early 1960s dissipated.
Important to this network were sites in HE that nurtured blues societies such as
Southampton Arts College as well as colleges and universities in Norwich, Leeds,
Manchester, Bath, Lancaster and Sussex (Schwartz, 2007, pp. 200-1). One of the most
active blues scenes in the country was in Birmingham where the country blues club at
Aston University played an important role in the national and local circuit alongside
the more celebrated Mothers or Henry’s Blues House (see Duffy, 1997; Hornsby, 2003).
In the scholarly and biographical literature and, indeed, on albums and in music
press reviews, the university or student union (the distinction is not always clearly
demarcated) usually appears as little more than a taken-for-granted mise-en-scene. At
best, these records (in all senses) mark moments of significance rather than the abiding
importance of this sector of live music activity. Rarely, if at all, is attention given to how Student music
such sites became important, why popular music was performed in such places, or
when rock, or any other contemporary popular genre, began to go to college.
While it has proven difficult to access the ideas of the NUS or the detail of individual
union entertainments provision in the 1950s or 1960s, activities in subsequent decades
do become clearer. In reviews, recollections and memories of the 1970s, the common
impression is that music programming in student unions was unevenly organized 127
and experienced – by both artists and audiences. This is usefully illustrated by the
Wings UK tour of 1972, which took in 11 universities including Hull, Birmingham,
Nottingham and Oxford. Uncertain of his appeal after the break-up of The Beatles but
eager to play live, Paul McCartney took his new band on an impromptu trek. Student
unions offered venues in which Wings could turn up unannounced, playing where a
slot was available – at any point in the day, for cash in hand, which was split equally
with between band and host. For McCartney, university unions represented sites
outside of the glare of the main touring routes, where expectations and risk – both
economic and artistic – were low. As he commented shortly after of the experience:
[y] they didn’t believe it at first. We had to book a hotel because we hadn’t booked any hotels
or anything [y] The man had a table by the door and he just charged 50p entrance, the
normal kind of dance fee. We went on and did the thing and they all sat down on the floor and
they all dug it, all the university students, and that was why it was good. We surprised them
(quoted in Rosen, 2007).
Alongside such examples, student publications confirm the impression of union
entertainments as a rather informal, often amateurish and sometime chaotic area of
business throughout the 1970s. Certainly, Birmingham Polytechnic’s Polygon was a
regular forum for complaints from columnists and correspondents directed at
entertainments officers for their sloppy housekeeping, poorly scheduled show times,
not to mention the conduct and management of audiences and the variety and value
of bands on offer. Nonetheless, the role was one involving a great deal of responsibility,
as one entertainment officer pointed out to his detractors:
I’ll make no bones about it, being Entertainments and Recreation Officer is not a glamorous
year off meeting gorgeous lead singers and being followed around by adoring groupies, it is,
in fact probably one of the most demanding year’s work you’ll ever do. It involves a
considerable amount of late work and worry, let alone the responsibility of being in charge,
at least nominally of some of the Union’s large budgets, Entertainment, Sport and Societies
(Woolley, 1979, p. 5)
During the 1970s, this responsibility was recognized and supported by individual
unions and the NUS in its coordinating role. The period marked a determined period of
rationalization of the role of entertainments in unions in response to the demand for
live music amongst students and indeed as a response to concerted attention from the
music industry for union venues and the markets they accessed. As evidence of where
and how this approach was formulated, the figure of Barry Lucas at Lancaster
University presents a role model for the student entrepreneur. In 1970, Lucas took on
the role of Social Secretary at Lonsdale College, one of several in the university with
independent student management. With a friend who had a similar role in another of
the university colleges, they pooled resources in order to book The Who, who came and
played to an audience of 1,300 people for a £1 ticket price. This initiative was
successful enough to support further bookings of artists such as Pink Floyd, Black
Sabbath and Led Zeppelin. The author of a biographical sketch of Lucas states that
AM when he started in his role, “it was possible to entice big name bands to the University
1,2 as there were no arenas or large scale venues; bands wanted to sell albums and
students were keen to both go to gigs and buy their music” (Steps, 2009, p. 6). Lucas
was subsequently engaged to take on the role of “Social Manager” for the union, a
position claimed as a first for an English University. Lucas’ success in comparison to
his peers was to treat the programming of music as a commercial business, charging
128 ticket prices warranted by the position and appeal of visiting artists, employing
good ticket agencies and attracting audiences from the locality as well as students
(Steps, 2009, p. 7).
However, while the music business had much to offer students eager for live music,
it presented some pitfalls to those who would do business with it. This was a situation
that the NUS sought to address from the early 1970s. In one briefing (circa 1974),
developed for the benefit of social secretaries, Pete Ashby of the NUS Executive
offered The Cautionary Tale of Hairy Arthur in order to illustrate potential dangers of
dealing with the music business. These included rapacious agencies and managers
who approached unions with high-pressure sales tactics that, when things went wrong,
could lead to overspending budgets or even breach of contract litigation. As Ashby
warned, the social secretary often worked in isolation, with little help or interest from
the union executive in dealing with bad and inflated deals. The individual responsible
for entertainment was likely to be inexperienced, with little time to monitor finances
or for evaluating audience taste and demand. Even more dangerously, it was
suggested, the entertainments officer might be tempted to compete for acts with
other unions:
Competition costs, in terms of subsidies – and in the long run subsidies don’t bring down
ticket prices, they just push up bands’ fees. A good social sec will cope with these difficulties
and provide a good year’s entertainment without losing money. But he should be able to
expect the advice he needs for his Union and the NUS (Ashby, n.d., p. 2).

As part of a broader and much needed institutional history of the NUS (as yet
unpublished), Mike Day gives some sense of the context in which Ashby’s comments
were made. They came during a period in which the NUS was making a concerted
effort to guide union entertainment provision, galvanized by the appointment in 1973
of Bob Deffee. The work of Deffee’s development group led to the production of a
variety of aids such as a draft model contact for the use of student officers. This would
translate into the production of standard manuals comprising advice on contracts,
budgeting, programming policy, event logistics and health and safety matters. There
was pressure too to develop a warning list of agents who had taken advantage of
social secretaries, but this was never developed (at least formally) for fear of libel action
(Day, 2011, unpublished manuscript).
Taking the provision of entertainment seriously in this way at a national level
was further consolidated in the establishment in 1975 of an Entertainments
Working Party, chaired by Ken Spencer, which urged more cooperation between
unions. In 1976 a full-time NUS staff member was appointed in to advise local unions
on entertainment. Some of these, like Lancaster, had already begun to employ their own
full-time staff to deal with the demand for entertainments and the exigencies of live
music programming, which took up the greater part of their efforts. An annual
conference for social secretaries was also established by the NUS, with training courses
introduced in 1979. The NUS sought to advise on and coordinate dealings with the
Performing Rights Society and Musicians Union, aspiring also to bargain with music
industry agents for nationally organized tours and events. This aspiration was a Student music
perennial one, manifest in ambitions for a NUS entertainment agency, which failed to
materialize, in part, as Day suggests, because of political in-fighting and a lack of
collective discipline across unions and delegates, evinced at national conference (Day,
2011, unpublished manuscript). Nonetheless, the NUS was successful in developing
and nurturing a professional approach to the business of live music in student unions,
sharing experience and insight for the support of student entrepreneurs. Indeed, many 129
of these individuals consolidated their experience and went on to roles in the music
industries (Day, interview with the author).

A specifically student business?

While historical questions concerning how and when student unions began to organize
their music programming deserve closer attention, we should also ask: in what ways
has this business been different from and similar to the rest of the live music sector?
The first thing to note is that the primary character of live music by and for students
is that it is subsidized and from this fact stem the salient qualities of student union
promotions. As evidenced in the case of Birmingham’s Guild of Students, financial
support comes directly or in kind from the university, whether from endowments or
on behalf of government. As Simon Frith has pointed out, this subsidy is on a par with
that of the financial support given to the BBC. Together, broadcaster and HE sector
represent a history of indirect state support for culture, a fact that has served to shape
popular music in the UK. As Frith suggests:
The post-punk development of British independent music would have been quite different
without John Peel’s determinedly non-commercial Radio 1 show; the very emergence of a
specific British rock music would have been impossible without the subsidized spaces,
resources and audiences provided by art schools and the college circuit (Frith, 1993, p. 14).
We should note that the NUS itself was wary of the use of subsidies for rock/pop
concerts. Pete Ashby in the briefing quoted above, for instance, complained of nearly
£1/2 m that had been spent in subsidizing gigs in the previous year. In fact, the NUS
executive made this an issue in its policy declaration from the early 1970s, ruling that:
(1) No subsidization of entertainments within colleges. Over the academic year the
college should try and enforce the practice of break even.
(2) The college entertainments office should endeavour to negotiate net percentage
deals on all bands over £100.
(3) Subsidization will be allowed for arts festivals.
(4) College committees must understand that subsidization is inflationary and
gives rise to price increases. (NUS Entertainments, n.d., p. 3)
Setting aside the lack of discipline amongst the various local unions in abiding by
such rulings, we should recall that it was accompanied by advice that sought to curtail
competition – at least between unions. This factor, as well as the advice to “break even”
suggests that the notion of subsidy at this time was a relative one and that unions
had, and continue to have, an advantageous position in the live music economy. While
there have been occasional individual misjudgments and crises in individual unions,
the majority of business has involved a limited degree of financial risk. Risks are thus
spread across additional income ticket price, bar take and all the other trading
activities in any union, not to mention the fixed costs of union venues and – where
AM applicable – of house PA and lighting. This situation means that the sustainability
1,2 of union business and income activities, as well as the personal funds or status of
entertainments officers themselves, are rarely exposed in the same way that
entrepreneurs in the private sector might be.
This subsidized, low-risk business has meant that union space can support an
artist like Paul McCartney whether playing for a negotiated flat fee or in a more casual
130 arrangement, semi-busking for cash-in-hand, or for a “whip-round” gig. In addition,
subsidized activity (directly financed or supported in kind through access to facilities)
can be tracked in the various musical societies that emerge as part of a broader set
of organized student enthusiasms, be they skydiving or rock climbing. Thus, while
often no more than social networks defined by shared tastes in death metal or disco,
such groups can prove to be quite active in the economy of live music and in particular
with regards to music that has, to some extent, dwindled in popularity to a point where
it might be described as conditioned by market failure. The role of university blues
clubs identified by Schwartz would be a case in point, as would groups like
Birmingham’s current Jazz and Blues Club:
We do our best to provide exciting and new events every year, and are constantly working to
provide members with an easy way to discover and engage in the jazz scene, as well as
develop their skills as musicians if they feel inclined. Last year we put on 21 events for our
members, and this year we intend to do even more![9].
An important aspect of the situation in student unions is that entertainment officers
have been able to experiment with their programming policy. While ostensibly obliged
to serve the tastes and expectations of the wider student body (to whom they may have
made promises in order to gain office), officers could also follow their muse and
preferences when their own capital is not at risk. Of course, no one individual can be
completely ignorant of the demands of the audience but the social secretary in this role
of cultural entrepreneur has been aided by the assumption that the student body is
likely to be enlightened or sophisticated enough in its tastes to expect or allow
experiment in the music programmed for its consumption.
Here is where we can comprehend the utility of the label “student music” as a
descriptive term for the eclectic menu of material historically available in student
unions and preferred by students. The term has a formalized mirror in the US in the
label of college rock and the programming of college radio (Wall, 2007). Both labels are
predicated upon the shifting boundaries of ideas of mainstream/commercial and
alternative/art in musical style and discourses about the distinctions between major
and independent labels. Whatever the utility of these labels, the student union has
served the music industry as testing grounds for new bands as well as sustaining
whole genres with uncertain commercial appeal. As Sarah Thornton observed in the
1980s: “college students now make up the bulk of the audience for live popular music
and the live circuit is heavily dominated by a few subgenres, like alternative rock and
indie music [y] the largest share of middle-sized gigs [y] are hosted by university
student unions” (Thornton, 1995, p. 48).
The liberal union environment for band and audience has been sustained in part by
the gate-keeping nature of the entry policy of many unions. The “quality” of audiences
has been maintained primarily by the kinds of bands programmed – many already
liable to appeal to the culturally adventurous and informed but, constituted as private
members clubs, unions have also been able to restrict entry to those already holding
NUS cards or via a system by which visitors were signed in by “friends”, often found
and cultivated in the queue for entry or the walk up to the union. In some instances, Student music
such policies have been a response to the overt hostility exhibited towards students.
Those, like Mike Day, who were at Lancaster in the early 1970s, certainly recall public
houses in the town with notices with the injunctive “No Students”. In Chatterton’s
historical summary of the social position of the university, he quotes Dennis Hardy
who notes of the traditional of ceremony and cultural role, that “nor did these functions
do much to assuage the prejudices of a citizenry who have continued to see it all as a 131
case of us and them” (quoted in Chatterton, 2000, p. 167).
Interestingly, many artists have also expressed antipathy towards the student
audience over the years, biting the hand that fed them. For instance, in one interview
with Imperial College’s Felix newspaper, “Fruitbat”, a member of the band Carter USM,
90s indie stars, commented that: “ ‘Students [y] no I don’t hate them, used to but
I realised it was pointless’. What about those who tiddly-wink [Rag-Week activity]
down Oxford Street?” Oh yeah, that sort [y] yeah, they’re wankers’ (quoted in Graeme,
1990, p. 7). In a notorious edition of the aforementioned “Rock Goes to College”
(tx 20 October 1978), The Stranglers walked off stage at Guildford University in a
pantomime refusal to play for privileged audience.
To return to the issue of gate keeping, the degree to which individual unions have
managed entry to concerts draws attention too to some of the variables affecting
their business. The make-up of the student audience and interlopers, its size and
attractiveness to touring bands in promoting their material, relates to whether the
university is rural or urban. Although within the city, UoB is enclosed in its own
sizeable campus while a place like the University of Warwick sits out in the
countryside, a cultural republic that at times (and certainly as its title attests) has little
reference to the proximity of the nearest city, Coventry. Likewise, we can ponder the
degree to which the status of a university itself has an impact on bookings. Whether
or not an institution is a “Redbrick” or constituted in pre- or post-1992 legislation
is not an issue of prestige here but might indicate something about the nature of its
resources and student provision. BCU, for instance, has eight campuses and no
centralized union space.
While the object of this paper is to explore the business of live music for students we
should also consider briefly the various ways in which this economy interacts with the
wider locale. As mentioned, the union is a subsidized venue that acts in competition
with “outside” commercial ventures, affecting the choices available to booking agents
and audiences. Likewise, students form an important part of the audience for live
music in any locale. Indeed, it is not uncommon to find that in fresher’s week, unions
will provide a guide to local venues. In turn, local entrepreneurs, venues and those
programming national tours must themselves take account of the academic cycle and
the value of student audiences for them – offering discount entry for NUS holders for
instance. Furthermore, the value of a well-established and effective union has proven
valuable to university recruitment – as demonstrated by Lancaster University
since the heyday of Barry Lucas. Likewise, university recruitment has benefitted
from the vibrancy of strong local music scenes – as witnessed in Liverpool, Sheffield
and Manchester.

Periodizing the business of live student music: a rise and fall?

There is an interesting footnote to this examination of the character of student music
that underlines its value in the wider music business economy. Mike Day relates how,
in 1993, the then Conservative government renewed its attempt to reform the NUS.
AM For that administration, the vocal political interventions and practices of the NUS
1,2 accorded broadly with those of trades unions and other left wing organizations
identified as the “enemy within” during the 1980s. At the Department of Education,
Minister John Patten aimed to reform the constitution and finances of NUS and
student unions affiliated to it. In charters on further and higher education launched
for consultation, he proposed the separation of union activities into a financed core and
132 unfinanced non-core. This would ensure that public funds would not be used for
purposes of NUS affiliation and support for the national body or for other campaigning
organizations such as CND.
Day offers an anecdote concerning the NUS response to the subsequent government
consultation that began in July 1993. Entertainment officers produced their own
analysis of Government proposals and their likely impact, identifying risks for
continued cultural activities, particularly the funding base for live music
programming. Day’s source suggests that officers then lobbied key industry figures,
including one record company executive who was also a major Tory party donor. This
figure complained to Michael Heseltine (Minister for Trade) that the mooted proposals
would jeopardize a lot of jobs in the British music industry. The end result was that
Heseltine interceded on the consultation and amended Patten’s proposals in subsequent
legislation (Day, 2011, unpublished manuscript).
The suggestion of an alliance of NUS and music industry at this moment is further
coloured by contemporary reports of a downturn in income across the sector. In
advance of the 1993 Brit Awards ceremony for instance, The Independent published
a broad analysis of problems across the industry. While teenagers were increasingly
engaged with new distractions such as computer games, record companies identified
an increasing conservatism in older music buyers, who preferred to buy compilations
by “trusted talent” in the face of a bewildering array of new, albeit unmemorable
music. For the British Phonographic Association, Geoff Clark-Meades suggested that
with sales down, companies were increasingly wary of taking risks on new talent and
the live circuit in which such talent was tested and where it gained audiences was
dying. This analysis was supported by Ed Bicknell, the manager of Dire Straits
who commented that: “If I look at the Dire Straits datesheets for 1978 and 1979 it is
evenly split between colleges and the pubs and clubs. There are still some clubs,
but college and pub gigs have all but disappeared. The artists have priced themselves
out of student buying, and the vast majority of colleges have turned to discos or raves”
(quoted in Lister, 1993). The identification of a downturn in the student circuit was
confirmed by Bill Marshall, entertainments manager at Leeds University, symbolic site
of the Who’s seminal concert recording: “Five years ago students were far more willing
to take a punt on a gig. Now they are happier to go to discos unless it’s a big name”
(quoted in Lister, 1993).
The sense of decline in live music provision in universities in recent decades is
suggestive. For instance, one of the prompts for this research was a series of
conversations with music business insiders – labels, promoters, etc. – in which, in
passing, they bemoaned the declining role of students and student unions in
supporting live music[10]. Nonetheless, such complaints need to be qualified
by consideration of what constitutes “live music” and what evidence is marshalled
in support of such claims. For instance, as these comments suggest, the emergence of
the “rave” is identified as one cause of decline, linked to the dismissive term “disco” as
a trifling experience without consideration the ways in which the DJ might also be part
of a live performance circuit.
 As yet we have no figures with which to evaluate the historical economy of live Student music
music in student unions, but there is some current data available. A variety of research
was prompted by the introduction in the UK of a new Licensing Act in 2003 and
concerns over its likely impact on live music expressed by organizations such as Live
Music Forum[11]. For instance, BMRB research for the Department of Culture Media
and Sport (DCMS) examined overall attendance at live music events, distinguishing
between primary and secondary sites – venues where music was not the core business 133
statistically, the role of student unions was revealed to be rather low, accounting for
5 per cent of total audience experience of live music in the survey period (Hanson et al.,
2007, p. 6). In addition, this proportion was slightly down on figures in a previous
survey for 2004. This data can be set alongside further research into individual sites
and their provision of live music. For instance, outside of the major events that take
place in Birmingham universities described above, there is little evidence of any
significant and regular live music promotion in the unions at all apart from the niche
activities of clubs such as those devoted to jazz and blues. Elsewhere, this lack of
sustained activity is positively balanced by the kinds of entrepreneurial initiatives
in Bristol, described in the work of Chatterton and the wider evidence of student union
investment in clubs and venues which suggests a measure of continued success in
promoting live music.
What such examples suggest is that our knowledge and understanding of the
business of live music in student unions is partial. There is enough in this paper to
suggest that the fortunes of this sector in relation to the music industries have been and
continue to be important, culturally and economically, and that this merits further
investigation. Any further investigation would need to account for the perspectives of
the music industries on union business and the industry role of graduates who earned
their spurs as social secretaries. We would also need to pay closer attention to the
historical changes in educational policy and the current shifts in funding support
available to individuals, which impact on the union and its ambitions. Likewise, the
relationship of university and union is worthy of consideration in terms of the changed
status of popular music and popular culture in general. This can be illustrated by
the appearance of courses dedicated to popular music student production in places
like Salford, UWE, BCU and elsewhere. The establishment of WERL Records at the
University of Warwick and Interim Records at City College, Norwich testifies to the
introduction of the enterprise agenda into university curricula as well as a continued
interest in popular music, which translates into student activities in the live sector of a
different order and identity to that overseen by the student union.
Overall, this initial survey indicates a rich vein of contemporary and historical
activity in and around the provision of live music. Still largely unexamined, this
sector merits examination in greater detail at a national and local level. The role of
students in the business of live music can be thought of as one that extends to our
conceptualization of the culture and industries of popular music. As business
models of production, circulation and consumption in the music business continue to
be challenged by the advent of “digital”, we will need to be attuned to endings,
continuities and innovations in periodizing aspects of student involvement in live
music.

Notes
1. Series schedule at British Film Institute (BFI) Film and TV database, available at: http://
ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/series/16502 (accessed 1 June 2011).
AM 2. Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), available at: www.hesa.ac.uk/ (accessed 1 June 2011).
1,2 3. Available at: www.nus.org.uk/en/About-NUS/ (accessed 1 June 2011).
4. Valefest, available at: www.valefest.org.uk/about.html0 (accessed 1 June 2011).
5. Astonbury, available at: www.astonguild.org.uk/astonbury (accessed 1 June 2011).
6. Modern Records Centre, available at: www.warwick.ac.uk/services/library/mrc/ead/
134 280col.htm (accessed 1 June 2011).
7. Redbrick (University of Birmingham Guild of Students), available at: www.
redbrickpaper.co.uk/; Felix (Imperial College Union), available at: http://felixonline.co.uk
8. “Rock’s back pages”, available at: www.rocksbackpages.com/ (accessed 1 June 2011).
9. University of Birmingham Jazz & Blues Society ( jabsoc), available at: www.jabsoc.com/v2/
(accessed 1 June 2011).
10. As part of AHRC-funded Knowledge Transfer Fellowship, “New strategies for radio and
music organisations” (2007-2009), reference: AH/E006825/1.
11. Available at: www.livemusicforum.co.uk/

References
Allinson, J. (2006), “Over-educated, over-exuberant and over here? The impact of students on
cities”, Planning Practice and Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 79-94.
Ashby, P. (n.d.), “The cautionary tale of Hairy Arthur”, in College Promotions: A Briefing for
Social Secretaries, NUS Entertainments, London, pp. 2-3.
Chatterton, P. (1999), “University students and city centres – the formation of exclusive
geographies: the case of Bristol, UK”, Geoforum, Vol. 2 No. 30, pp. 117-33.
Chatterton, P. (2000), “The cultural role of universities in the community: revisiting the
university-community debate”, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 165-81.
Chitty, C. (2009), Education Policy in Britain, 2nd ed., Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Day, M. (2011), “Respected not respectable a history of the National Union of Students,
1922-1997”, unpublished manuscript.
Duffy, K. (1997), Mothers, the Home of Good Sounds 1968-1971, Birmingham Library Services,
Birmingham.
Forde, E. (2001), “From polyglottism to branding: on the decline of personality journalism in the
British music press”, Journalism, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 23-43.
Frith, S. (1993), “Popular music and the local state”, in Bennett, T., Frith, S., Grossberg, L.,
Shepherd, J., and Turner, G. (Eds), Rock and Popular Music: Politics, Policies, Institutions,
Routledge, London, pp. 14-24.
Graeme (1990), “Carter USM interview”, Felix, 2 November, p. 7.
Hanson, T., Hayward, B. and Phelps, A. (2007), A Survey of Live Music in England and Wales in
2007, BMRB Social Research/Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), London.
Hornsby, L. (2003), Brum Rocked On, TGM, Birmingham.
Jacks, D. (1975), Student Politics and Higher Education, Lawrence and Wishart, London.
Jones, S. (Ed.) (2002), Pop Music and the Press, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Lister, D. (1993), “Wanted: band aid for British pop scene”, Independent on Sunday, 14 February,
available at: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/wanted-band-aid-for-british-pop-scene-
ahead-of-the-1993-brit-awards-david-lister-asks-where-our-talent-has-gone-1472955.html
(accessed 1 June 2011).
Long, P. (2008), Only in the Common People: The Aesthetics of Class in Post-War Britain, Student music
Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne.
Long, P. and Wall, T. (2009), Media Studies: Texts, Production and Context, Pearson, Harlow.
Marwick, A. (1998), The Sixties: Cultural Revolution in Britain, France, Italy, and the United
States, c.1958-c.1974, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, NY.
Mathers, H. (2007), Standing up for Students: One Hundred Years of the University of Sheffield
Union of Students, University of Sheffield Union of Students, Sheffield. 135
National Union of Students Entertainments (NUS) (n.d.), College Promotions: A Briefing for
Social Secretaries, NUS Entertainments, London, pp. 2-3.
Polygon (various dates), “Student union magazine”, Birmingham Polytechnic, Birmingham.
Rosen, S. (2007), “The time I was not invisible in front of Paul McCartney”, Player ( Japan),
available at: www.rocksbackpages.com/article.html?ArticleID ¼ 13668 (accessed 1 June
2011).
Schwartz, R. F. (2007), How Britain Got the Blues: The Transmission and Reception of American
Blues Style in the United Kingdom, Ashgate, Aldershot.
Steps (2009), “Let him entertain you: profiling Barry Lucas”, Lancaster University Alumni
Magazine, Winter, pp. 6-7.
Thornton, S. (1995), Club Cultures: Music, Media, and Subcultural Capital, Polity Press,
Cambridge.
University of Birmingham Guild of Students (2010), Impact Report 2009-10, University of
Birmingham Guild of Students, Birmingham.
Wall, T. (2007), “Finding an alternative: music programming in US college radio”, The Radio
Journal – International Studies in Broadcast and Audio Media, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 35-54.
Woolley, M. (1979), “Entertainments and recreation”, Polygon, 20 February, p. 5.

About the author

Paul Long is the author of “Only in the Common People”: The Aesthetics of Class in Post-War
Britain (Long, 2008) and (with Tim Wall, BCU), Media Studies: Texts, Production and Context
(Long and Wall, 2009). Recent publications have concerned representations of popular music
history on TV, popular music heritage and the radio work of Louis MacNeice. His current
research concerns issues of expertise and creativity in the cultural industries. Paul Long can be
contacted at: Paul.long@bcu.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints