Attitudes Towards Environm Ental Noise from Concerts (NANR 292) a Survey of Concert and Music Event Attendees and Residents Local to Those Events

Attitudes towards environm ental noise from concerts (NANR 292) A survey of concert and music event attendees and residents local to those events

Legal notice

The contents of this report constitute the sole and exclusive property of Ipsos MORI.

Ipsos MORI retains all right, title and interest, including without limitation copyright, in or to any Ipsos MORI trademarks, technologies, methodologies, products, analyses, software and know-how included or arising out of this report or used in connection with the preparation of this report. No license under any copyright is hereby granted or implied.

The contents of this report are of a commercially sensitive and confidential nature and intended solely for the review and consideration of the person or entity to which it is addressed. No other use is permitted and the addressee undertakes not to disclose all or part of this report to any third party (including but not limited, where applicable, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 2000) without the prior written consent of the Company Secretary of Ipsos MORI.

Contents

Summary ...... 2 Local residents...... 2 Concert attendees...... 5 Background ...... 9 Policy / research context ...... 9 An updated evidence base...... 10 Research objectives...... 11 Methodology...... 13 Local residents...... 14 Sampling ...... 15 Attendees of music events ...... 16 Piloting of the questionnaire...... 18 Comparison with recorded noise data...... 18 Limitations of the survey data...... 19 Local residents...... 22 Profile of respondents ...... 22 Awareness of music events...... 24 Concerns held before music events take place...... 30 Impact of music events – hearing the music ...... 34 Impact of music events – being annoyed by the concert noise ...... 37 Positive and negative effects of concerts ...... 48 Support for music events ...... 53 Expressing views about concerts...... 59 Views of concert attendees ...... 67 Sample profile ...... 67 Event attendance and music preference...... 70 Unprompted likes and dislikes of music events...... 71

Importance of sound level and quality...... 76 Satisfaction with sound level and quality...... 79 Sound quality – Importance versus Rating...... 87

Sum m ary

Presented below is a summary of the key findings of this research project into views of concert noise. The overall aim of the research was to prepare and conduct face-to-face social surveys of nearby residents, in order to understand the attitudes to environmental noise from these concerts. Concert attendees were also included within the scope of the research to establish that the sound levels within the event were sufficient to not hamper concert-goers’ enjoyment of music events.

The results from the surveys will be used to inform the revision of the Noise Council’s code of practice.

Local residents

Awareness of concerts

° There was a great deal of variation between concerts in the level of prior awareness local residents had of the event taking place; while the majority of all residents surveyed (61%) knew the concert was going to happen, this ranged from 99% among local residents to the Pride festival (an annual and high profile event in Brighton) to just 16% around the Wembley Arena concert (an indoor event where concerts take place most regularly of the surveyed venues).

° Prior awareness of the event also fell the further away people are from the venue, perhaps suggesting that some concert organisers proactively try to pre-warn those residents most likely to be affected. However, the single most common way of finding out about these concerts was via friends and/or neighbours (26% found out this way). Receiving a leaflet or flyer through the door was most common for those living within 250 metres of the venue, however (40%, compared to 7% further away).

° Being made aware of the events was relatively important to local residents as more than half of those who were not aware (53%) said they would have liked to have been informed of the concert before it took place, while a greater proportion closer to the venue felt this way (63% within 500 metres). Furthermore, almost half (43%) disagreed that there was enough publicity about their local event. When asked what more could have been done to help publicise concerts such as these, two in five (38%) believed letters or leaflets should be handed out to local households, while three in ten (29%) said nothing more could have been done.

Impact of concerts

° Of the local residents who knew their local concert was going to happen, a slight majority (54%) had no concerns about it taking place. The most commonly mentioned issues were about parking (16%) and traffic (14%), while just 13% had a concern about the possible noise levels (although this rises to 22% within 500 metres of the venue).

° Just under half (45%) of all people surveyed could hear the concert music inside their home, although this ranged from three quarters (75%) at the Green Day, Manchester concert to one in seven (14%) around the Kiss gig at Wembley Arena – the only indoor venue.

° Likelihood of hearing the music also decreased as the distance to the venue increased; 62% of people living within 500 metres heard the music, compared to 44% within 501- 1,000 metres and 24% beyond 1,000 metres. It is important to note, however, that there are a variety of other local factors which will influence how audible concert music is, such as the venue type, wind direction, local topography, background noise, urbanity, the type of music being played and factors related to the individual responding to the survey (for example their age, the direction the house faces and whether windows are double-glazed).

° The majority of residents surveyed were not annoyed by the concert noise; 55% of people did not hear the music, while 36% heard it but were not annoyed by it and 9% heard it and were very or fairly annoyed as a result. However, there is variation between different events; just 2% of all residents surveyed around the Proms concert were annoyed, while 29% of people living around the Green Day concert in Manchester expressed annoyance. Moreover, a relatively small proportion of those who heard the music were annoyed by it; one in five (20%) said they were annoyed, a quarter (23%) were not very annoyed, but the majority (56%) were not at all annoyed.

° It should be noted, however, that certain subgroups (of those who heard the music) showed higher levels of annoyance, including:

‹ People within 500 metres of the music venue (24%, compared to 18% further away);

‹ Men (23% compared to 17% of women), irrespective of their distance from the venue;

‹ Households with children aged under 9 (26% compared to 20% overall);

‹ People who are deaf, deafened or hard of hearing (35% compared with 19% of people without any hearing impairment);

‹ Owner occupiers (22% compared to 16% of people renting);

‹ Those who could hear the music even with their windows closed (33% compared to 13% who could hear it only with windows open);

‹ Households with double-glazed windows (22% compared to 11% of households with single-glazing); and

‹ Those unaware of the event before it began (35% compared to 14% of those who had prior warning).

° This last point is key; prior awareness of the concert appears to be important to managing residents’ expectations and allaying concerns. As prior awareness of the concert increases, the likelihood of being annoyed by the noise falls. As currently suggested in the Code of Practice, public relations are therefore crucial and concert organisers should continue to be encouraged to advertise these events to local residents, wherever possible.

° Being able to hear the music even with windows closed seems to be a key point at which antagonism increases. This group were more likely to want to be pre-warned of the concert and to give their views about future events, and they were more likely to object to the venue being used for concerts.

° While there are certain groups more likely to be adversely affected by these concerts, a greater proportion felt the concert impacted on them positively (31%) than negatively (12%). Moreover, the largest proportion are those who felt the concert did not affect them, either at all (21%) or positively or negatively (36%). Even of those who could hear the music, a greater proportion felt it impacted on them positively (33%) than negatively (19%). It is only among those who could hear the music even with their windows closed, for whom the impact of the concert was more likely to be negative (32%) than positive (25%).

° The findings show that there is no clear relationship between the likelihood of hearing concert music and the views towards how negatively or positively it is thought to have impacted residents. This is because factors other than music noise influence residents’ views towards the concerts; when those who feel they were affected negatively were asked what the main problem was, over half (53%) mentioned something about noise but traffic/parking (36% and 33% respectively) were as commonly mentioned problems as music noise (33%).

Expressing views about concerts

° The majority of residents (70%) living locally to music venues were not aware of the conditions of the license of that venue, although this varies considerably between concerts, ranging from 54% around Kenwood House to 85% around Lancashire Cricket Ground in Manchester.

° While it may be accepted that residents are unlikely to know much about the details of music licence conditions, just one in six (16%) were aware of a number to ring with a complaint about concert noise. Furthermore, only 1% had made a complaint about the concert. However, a lack of knowledge of who to complain to does not appear to be a common barrier to communicating such a grievance (just 4% of those who did not complain say this prevented them). Instead, for the majority, it is because they feel it did not warrant an official objection; most said they did not complain because they had nothing to complain about (53%) or because the impact was not sufficient for them to do so (33%). However, it appears that the guidance in the current Code of Practice to “advertise and operate an attended complaint telephone number” has not been entirely successful in increasing residents’ awareness of such outlets for complaints.

° A significant proportion (40%) of local residents would like to give their views about future music events to be held at the venue local to them, but very few want to have anything changed about the noise; just 6% would want the volume level changed, while 69% say they would not want anything related to noise changed, or fail to give an answer.

Concert attendees

The vast majority of attendees were happy with the sound levels at the concerts surveyed. When asked to list the aspects of the concert which they liked most, music or sound issues tended to dominate but, at some concerts (Evolution, Motown, Pride and Proms), other things not related to the sound/music (such as the atmosphere and the venue) were as important or more so. The quality of the sound system was mentioned as one of the most liked factors by one in eight (13%). Just 3% proactively mentioned the quality of the sound system as something they did not like about the concert, although specific subgroups, including people who are deaf, deafened or hard of hearing (9%), those who worked or studied in the music industry (8%) and people at the Wembley Stadium concert were more likely to be critical.

Being able to hear the music over the crowd and hearing the words were the two most important aspects of sound quality (95% and 94% of attendees rate them as important respectively). After hearing the music and words, high volume levels were the next most important aspect (87%), followed by bass levels (82%). Age is relevant with younger attendees the most likely to feel that a high volume level is important.

Overall, sound issues were not a major concern for attendees – being able to hear the music over the crowd, the music volume and bass level were all rated as very or fairly good by the vast majority (91%, 90% and 86% respectively).

People with a particular interest in the subject were more critical, however; those who work/study in a related industry were more likely than those not working in a related industry to rate all aspects, except the volume level and their ability to hold conversations, as poor. People who are deaf, deafened or hard of hearing were more likely to rate the volume level as poor (21% compared to 8% of people without a hearing impairment).

However, most attendees thought the volume level was just right, although a slightly larger proportion thought it was too quiet (16%) than the proportion feeling it was too loud (6%). This is reflected by the fact that just 2% used hearing protection at the event they attended and 4% did not, but had considered doing so. There is a degree of variation between concerts however; the proportion who felt the music was too quiet ranged from 4% at the Coventry Pink concert to 34% at the Evolution Weekender in Newcastle.

Men and younger people aged 16-24 were more likely to feel the volume level was too quiet (21% and 25% respectively).

When comparing how highly concert attendees rate different aspects of sound quality with how important they consider them to be, they are broadly in line suggesting that attendees are, predominantly, satisfied with most areas of sound quality at the events surveyed. There is one exception, however; being able to hear the words was considered important by over nine in ten (94%) but only three quarters (77%) rated it as very or fairly good, while 19% said it is very or fairly poor. There is also variation between concerts, with the most significant gaps at Evolution, Kiss and Pink (Coventry); the ability to hear the words was considered important by attendees at all three events but ratings were far lower.

Attendees of Evolution in Newcastle and Pride in Brighton were more likely to rate their ability to hear the words as poor (36% and 38% respectively, compared to 19% overall), which may be related to the acoustics of these events, given that they took place in open-air venues in urban areas.

Findings are positive overall, with only a minority unhappy with aspects of sound quality. There are, however, some groups that are more likely to feel improvements could be made to sound quality - mainly people who have hearing difficulties, people working or studying in a related industry, and those who attend concerts more regularly. The majority at the surveyed events, however, did not appear to have their enjoyment of music events hampered by noise restrictions.

Conclusions

Generally, local residents want to know in advance that these kinds of concerts are going to happen and they see leaflets as an appropriate way of informing people. As the more aware residents are of the event, the less likely they are to be annoyed by the noise (in the majority of cases), it would be prudent for concert organisers to advertise the event locally as it is likely to manage expectations and possibly allay concerns. This may particularly help those groups who are generally more likely to feel they are negatively affected by these concerts - households with young children, those living closer to the venue, and people with hearing difficulties – to manage the way that it affects themselves and their families.

Leaflets or letters posted to local households may also be a suitable way to advertise the opportunity to offer a view about the concert. A significant proportion of local residents want a say about these kinds of events, although, for the majority, it is not an issue of noise. Awareness of ways to make complaints is limited and increasing this knowledge may help the perception of empowerment that residents have. However, the purpose of any such telephone number or email address should be clearly explained as a significant proportion of complaints are likely to be about other aspects apart from concert noise.

Overall, the results suggest that the current Code of Practice has been successful in providing a framework allowing concerts to operate while minimising the impact the music noise has on local people. However, given the limitations of the coverage of concerts included in this research (none took place throughout the night, none were large-scale multi day festivals and all actively engaged an acoustic consultant to set and monitor noise levels), further research would help confirm whether this is also the case at other types of events.

Background

Policy / research context

“Noise is an inevitable consequence of a m ature and vibrant society. For som e, the noise of city life provides a desirable sense of excitem ent and exhilaration, but for others, noise is an unwanted intrusion that adversely im pacts on their quality of life, affecting their health and well being”. Noise Policy Statem ent for England (explanatory note 2.1)

“Large m usic events involving high powered am plification give pleasure to thousands of people each year”. Chartered Institute of Environm ental Health

The juxtaposition of these two statements forms the basis of the need for research to ensure the right balance is achieved in the control of noise from concerts.

The UK Noise Council Code of Practice on Environmental Noise at Concerts (1995) has, over the last 17 years, been widely adopted and utilised by local authorities and concert promoters. It has provided a framework to achieve a workable balance between the local authorities’ obligation to protect noise-sensitive premises, and the local authorities’ obligation to facilitate and licence public entertainment events.

Over the 17 years since its publication, there have been a number of changes which together now warrant the updating of the code of practice. These include:

1. A significant increase in the number of concerts. This has principally been driven by the shift in the music sales market from recorded to live sales.

2. A significant increase in the variety of venues being used to hold concerts and music events. For example, inner-city parks, commons and gardens.

3. Residents’ awareness and tolerance of environmental noise may have changed.

4. Sound system capabilities have increased.

5. Advances in noise mapping now allow for more accurate prediction and assessment of potential variables such as wind direction/strength.

6. It is likely that initiatives such as RNID’s ‘Don’t lose the music’ campaign1 have influenced awareness levels (among concert attendees) of the impact music levels can have on hearing.

An updated evidence base

The 1995 guidance was prepared on the basis of research findings over the preceding ten years and the experiences of the working party membership. It did not, however, have a large-scale attitudinal survey to inform the guidance.

There has been very little research to-date into the attitudes to environmental noise from concerts.

The key guidance given in Table 1 of the 1995 code was principally established using evidence from monitored events to establish the point at which the balance is struck between the rights of people to enjoy themselves at music events and the rights of others not to be unreasonably disturbed.

The key guidance from the code, which is reproduced below, provides a framework for setting limits on the Music Noise Level based on the type of venue and number of events to be held each year.

The Music Noise Levels (MNL) when assessed at the prediction stage or measured during sound checks or concerts should not exceed the guidelines shown in Table 1 at 1 metre from the facade any noise sensitive premises for events held between the hours of 0900 and 2300.

Concert days per calendar year, Venue Category Guideline per venue

1 to 3 Urban Stadia or The MNL should not exceed Arenas 75dB(A) over a 15 minute period

1 to 3 Other Urban and Rural Venues The MNL should not exceed 65dB(A) over a 15 minute period 4 to 12 All Venues The MNL should not exceed the background noise level' by more than 15 dB(A) over a 15 minute period

1 http://www.dontlosethemusic.com/home/

Research objectives

The overall aim of this research is to prepare and conduct face-to-face social surveys of attendees of concerts, and nearby residents, in order to understand the attitudes to environmental noise from these concerts. The results from the surveys will be used to inform the revision of the Noise Council’s code of practice.

The survey investigates what detrimental impacts this noise might be having on local residents. Attendees at events were surveyed in order to check that results from local residents were not distorted by there being low sound levels at the event.

The research addresses the following main tasks:

° Design a questionnaire suitable for conducting face-to-face interviews with attendees of events and local residents at specified events.

° Conduct a social survey utilising the approved questionnaire at the specified events using an approved sampling strategy.

° Analyse the results of the social survey utilising a method suitable for providing an evidence base regarding the attitudes to environmental noise from concerts.

° Prepare a report detailing the results and analysis of the social survey.

° Produce any suggestions for future guidance on the management of environmental noise control at concerts based on the results of the social survey.

M ethodology

There were two main audiences to be surveyed as part of this research – attendees of music events and residents living locally to them. The latter were then further divided into those surveyed during the event and those interviewed after the event had finished (for reasons we will explain below).

The methodology and surveys were prepared by Ipsos MORI, with the assistance of Edinburgh Napier University’s Building Performance Centre, and were approved by Defra. The selection of the events to be included was undertaken by Defra with the assistance of the acoustic consultants in the parallel project (NANR 297) responsible for sound level monitoring inside and outside the venue.

Details of the events surveyed are presented below:

Concert / Event, Location Date Time

Kiss, Wembley Arena 12 May 2010 19:30 – 23:00

Evolution, Baltic Square, Newcastle 30-31 May 2010 12:00 – 23:00

Green Day, Manchester 16 June 2010 17:30 - 22:30

Green Day, Wembley Stadium 19 June 2010 18:00 – 23:00

Pink, Coventry 24 June 2010 17:00 – 23:00

Pink, Hampden Park 26 June 2010 18:00 – 23:00

Motown, Kenwood House 31 July 2010 17:30 – 21:50

Pride, Brighton 7 August 2010 12:00 – 20:00

Proms, Swansea 11 September 2010 19:45 – 22:30

Help for Heroes, Twickenham 12 September 2010 17:00 - 22:00

Local residents

Interviews with local residents were conducted face-to-face, via CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing), and using our trained and experienced interviewer team.

For interviews during the concert, interviewing commenced only after the music had been underway for at least 30 minutes, to give residents a chance to have heard the music.

The MRS Code of Conduct2 stipulates that we can only approach potential respondents for in-home interviews up until 9 p.m. Therefore, half of the interviews were conducted during the event and the other half the day after the event. The aim of this was to ensure that the findings are representative of the local population (allowing both working and non-working people to take part) and to capture the full range of responses (for instance, giving people more of a chance to, for example, make a complaint).

Interviewing on the day after the concert also allowed us to record views in relation to music that may have gone on beyond 9 p.m. Attitudes towards noise are likely to become less tolerant after 9 p.m. so the interviews conducted after the events included questions on the impact of noise at different times and how this might affect attitudes towards the event.

Quotas were set on gender and age. Again, we avoided setting more complex quotas given the short window of time available to interview, and the limited number of people living within some of the areas immediately adjacent to the concert venue. Some of the events were in semi-industrial areas while others were in parks which bordered areas of low-density housing (for example, around Hampstead Heath for the Motown concert and, in the case of Swansea Proms, the venue was bordered on one side by the sea). Full details of the number of interviews conducted at each event are as follows:

2 Section B20 of the guidance stipulates that “for telephone and face to face interviews, calls must not be made to a household (local time) before 9am weekdays and Saturdays, 10am Sundays or after 9pm any day, unless by appointment”

Concert / Event, Location Interviews with Interviews with Total number of residents during residents the day interviews the concert after the concert

Kiss, Wembley Arena 57 87 144

Evolution, Newcastle 152 123 275

Green Day, Manchester 79 95 174

Green Day, Wembley 87 81 168 Stadium

Pink, Coventry 97 123 220

Pink, Hampden Park 90 91 181

Motown, Kenwood House 56 67 123

Pride, Brighton 31 94 125

Proms, Swansea 64 106 170

Help for Heroes, 39 106 145 Twickenham

TOTAL 752 973 1,725

Sampling

The distance from the event within which we interviewed local residents varied, depending on the number of residential properties in the area and whether the venue was open-air or enclosed. For inner city stadia/parks, previous studies have shown noise disturbance up to 1km away and we therefore sampled properties within this distance and, where possible, prioritised the properties closest to the venue (i.e. interviewers would aim to start their interviews at the addresses closest to the venue).

The table below shows the distance from the centre-point of the venue within which we sampled residential properties to approach:

Concert / Event, Location Venue type Distance sampled

Kiss, Wembley Arena Enclosed music venue Within 1,000 metres

Evolution, Newcastle Open-air city square Within 1,500 metres

Green Day, Manchester Open-air sports stadium Within 1,000 metres

Green Day, Wembley Open-air sports stadium Within 1,000 metres Stadium

Pink, Coventry Open-air sports stadium Within 1,000 metres

Pink, Hampden Park Open-air sports stadium Within 1,000 metres

Motown, Kenwood House Open-air, park Within 1,500 metres

Pride, Brighton Open-air, park Within 750 metres

Proms, Swansea Open-air, park Within 1,250 metres

Help for Heroes, Open-air sports stadium Within 1,000 metres Twickenham

The differences, in terms of proximity to the music venue of the survey sample, should be borne in mind when comparing the results of one event to another. We have, therefore, analysed survey responses based on distance from the venue, to increase comparability from event to event.

Wembley Arena was the only enclosed venue, and noise breakout is likely to be within a more restricted area when compared to other venues.

Attendees of music events

Ipsos MORI interviewers conducted face-to-face interviews with people attending concerts and festivals. All interviews were with paying attendees only and did not include staff working at the events.

Interviews were conducted at a range of times throughout each event to ensure that any variations in noise levels throughout the day or evening would be captured. Interviewers positioned themselves in high footfall locations, such as entrances to bars and to the main music areas, in order to achieve a sufficient number of interviews. Interviewing started 30 minutes after the start of the event in order to ensure that it had begun and the music was fully underway.

In order to ensure that responses were representative of the audience overall, interviewers were instructed to obtain interviews from a mix of genders and age groups. No strict quotas were set (for instance, on demographic variables such as working status or ethnicity) as (a) we did not have information about the profile of event attendees in order to set representative quotas and (b) it would have compromised our ability to reach the required minimum number of interviews.

A target of 100 interviews was set at each event to provide a sample size sufficient to allow comparison between events. However, at some of the events the music only lasted for a limited period in the evening, therefore restricting the amount of time available to interview. Some samples sizes are therefore below 100 - full details are given in the following table:

Concert / Event, Location Number of attendees interviewed

Kiss, Wembley Arena 92

Evolution, Newcastle 98

Green Day, Manchester 101

Green Day, Wembley Stadium 102

Pink, Coventry 95

Pink, Hampden Park 111

Motown, Kenwood House 87

Pride, Brighton 78

Proms, Swansea 114

Help for Heroes, Twickenham 111

TOTAL 989

Piloting of the questionnaire

The questionnaire was piloted internally within Ipsos MORI in order to ensure that it would be understood in the correct way, that routing worked, that the language was appropriate and that it was within the required length. The first event at Wembley Arena was also treated as a pilot event so that edits could be made to the sampling strategy, questionnaire content or logistical requirements, if necessary. No changes were needed to be made to any of these aspects of the survey design, so results of the ‘pilot’ event are also included here in the analysis.

Comparison with recorded noise data

Previous studies have indicated that attitude to noise, including annoyance and likelihood to complain, is directly correlated with the level of noise to which the respondent is exposed (subject to average human auditory variance). While it would have been beneficial to

correlate the survey responses against actual noise readings taken at each resident’s property during each face-to-face interview, the cost was prohibitive.

However, as part of a separate study, noise levels were recorded at each of the events by the external acoustics consultant who was already involved in managing the noise from the event. Before each event, Ipsos MORI’s sample locations were sent to the acoustics consultant so that they could, where possible, select sound measurement locations broadly in line with the survey locations. It should be noted that this is only a broad match as it was impossible for us to predict where, exactly, we would receive responses to the social survey.

Where possible, the responses to the social survey have been analysed against the noise levels recorded while the concerts were underway to explore any patterns. These two sets of data are brought together in a separate report prepared by Edinburgh Napier University’s, Building Performance Centre, working in conjunction with Ipsos MORI.

Limitations of the survey data

It is important to note that the concerts and music events included in this research are limited to those at which permission was granted from the event organisers. These events all had noise management plans in place and employed acoustic consultants to monitor noise level during sound checking and the event. For the future, inclusion of unmanaged events would help add context to these findings.

Two types of event in particular are not included as permission was not granted to undertake surveys at them – large-scale multi-day music festivals (such as Glastonbury and V Festival) and all-night dance events (such as Global Gathering or Creamfields). These events, where the music is over a longer period of time and at later hours, may receive higher levels of adverse reaction and further research would be useful in order to fully explore resident reactions to these types of events.

This research does, however, provide one of the largest-scale surveys of concert attendees and concert-goers in recent years and is therefore a valuable piece of insight for any revision of the Code of Practice.

Local residents

Profile of respondents

As outlined in the methodology section, local residents were interviewed to represent, as best as possible, the population in close proximity to each music venue. As indicated by the charts below, there was a certain degree of variation in the profile from event to event. For instance, a higher proportion of the residents interviewed around Wembley Arena, Newcastle city centre and Wembley Stadium were aged 16-34 and, consequently, were less likely to own their property.

Age – by concert

16-24 35-44 55-64 25-34 45-54 65+

Total 15 19 19 17 13 17

Kiss, Wembley Arena 19 30 19 12 6 15 Evolution, Newcastle 20 19 12 13 15 13 Green Day, Wembley Stadium 16 26 21 13 8 17 Green Day, Manchester 16 19 26 13 11 15 Pink, Coventry 15 17 15 24 14 15 Pink, Hampden Park 9 20 19 22 15 14 Help for Heroes, Twickenham 11 15 19 21 14 19 Pride Brighton 9 14 23 26 14 14 Mowtown, Kenwood House 7 16 21 21 15 20 Proms, Swansea 12 9 16 15 18 29

Base: 1,725 All respondents, fieldwork dates: May-September 2010

Owner-occupancy

Q32 Which of the following best describes your home?

Owner occupier (outright or on mortgage) Total (1,725) 59%

Pride Brighton (125) 84% Pink, Hampden Park (181) 75% Pink, Coventry (220) 74% Green Day, Manchester (174) 73% Proms, Swansea (170) 72% Mowtown, Kenwood House (123) 63% Help for Heroes, Twickenham (145) 59% Green Day, Wembley Stadium (168) 52% Kiss, Wembley Arena (144) 47% Evolution, Newcastle (275) 19% Base: 1,725 All respondents, fieldwork dates: May-September 2010

The location of where residents were interviewed was dictated by the locality of the concert venue and proximity of local housing. The chart overleaf shows the distance that respondents lived from the centre-point of the music venue, based on their postcode. As illustrated by the chart, venues like Hampden Park, Pride in Brighton and Wembley Arena were all in urban areas and in close proximity to housing, and a significant proportion of respondents therefore lived within 500 metres of the venue.

At the Proms event in Swansea and Motown at Kenwood House, on the other hand, only a very small proportion of respondents lived within 500 metres (3% and 1% respectively) due to the location of the concert; in Swansea one side of the Park is bordered by the sea and another is predominantly student accommodation (which was largely empty in early September), while Kenwood House is on Hampstead Heath and, therefore, in a sparsely populated area.

This is one of many factors which should be borne in mind when considering the views of local residents towards each concert.

Distance of respondents from venue

0-250 251-500 501-1,000 1,001+ metres (%) metres (%) metres (%) metres (%)

Total 4 22 60 14

Pink, Hampden Park 11 36 53 Pride Brighton 7 38 55 Kiss, Wembley Arena 14 28 55 Help for Heroes, Twickenham 6 23 72 Green Day, Wembley Stadium 3 24 72 Evolution, Newcastle 25 39 36 Green Day, Manchester 20 80 Pink, Coventry 20 80 Proms, Swansea 3 80 17 Mowtown, Kenwood House 01 13 86

Base: 1,725 All respondents, fieldwork dates: May-September 2010

Awareness of music events

Three in five residents (61%) knew in advance that the concert going on near to where they lived was going to take place. However, there is considerable variation between events, ranging from almost 100% awareness of the Pride festival – one of only two annual events surveyed (the other being Evolution) - to less than one in four for concerts held at Wembley Stadium (24%) and Wembley Arena (16%) – where concerts are held more frequently than the other venues included in the study.

Awareness of the Pink concerts in Coventry and Hampden Park, and Proms in Swansea was also high (86%, 81% and 83% respectively), possibly indicating greater publicity of these

events. It is worth noting, however, that the latter was one of five national BBC-affiliated classical music events taking place around the country over the summer, and was likely to have had higher media coverage as a result. Help for Heroes at Twickenham was also a high-profile charity event and also had high awareness (74%).

Awareness of concert before it began

Q1/Q1a Before this interview, did you know that the concert was going to take place? / And did you know it was going to happen before it started? Yes (%) Total 61

Pride, Brighton (125) 99 Pink, Coventry (220) 86 Proms, Swansea (170) 83 Pink, Hampden Park (181) 81 Help for Heroes, Twickenham (145) 74 Evolution, Newcastle (275) 61 Green Day, Manchester (174) 39 Mowtown, Kenwood House (123) 35 Green Day, Wembley Stadium (168) 24 Kiss, Wembley Arena (144) 16

Base: 1,725 residents living locally to music events (individual bases in brackets), May-September 2010

As well as variation by event, there were differing levels of awareness depending on how far away people live from the venue; prior awareness of the event falls the farther away people are. Seventy per cent of those living within 500 metres were aware, compared to three in five (60%) between 501 and 1,000 metres away, and just over half (51%) beyond a kilometre away. This may be a result of concert organisers proactively trying to pre-warn those residents most likely to be affected.

Awareness that concert would take place – by distance from venue Q1 Before this interview, did you know that the concert had taken/ was going to take place? / And did you know it was going to happen before it started? Yes

Total (1,725) 61%

Distance from Venue

0-500 metres (443) 70%

501-1,000 metres (1,041) 60%

1,001 metres + (233) 51%

Base: 1,725 residents living locally to music events, May-September 2010

The most common ways of being made aware of the event was through word of mouth, such as via friends and neighbours (26%), followed by seeing it advertised on a poster (21%) or in a newspaper/magazine (20%). Around one in seven (14%) said they knew because the event usually takes place at that time of year. Unsurprisingly, residents around the Brighton Pride festival were most likely to say this (the Brighton Pride in the Park event dates back to 1992), mentioned by over half (56%), followed by a quarter (25%) in Newcastle for the Evolution Weekender (the only other annual event surveyed, although dating back more recently from 2005).

How residents are inform ed about the event

Q2 How were you made aware that the event was going to be held?

Top 10 responses Someone (friend, neighbour etc) told me about it 26% Posters 21% Magazine/newspaper 20% It always takes place there at about this time 14% Letter/flyer through my door 9% TV 8% Radio 8% I saw the event taking place 7% I heard the event taking place 6% Other publicity 6%

Base: 1,146 residents living locally to music events who knew the event was taking place, May- September 2010

While only one in eleven (9%) said they knew because they received a flyer through their door, this was more likely for residents closest to the venue; two in five (40%) residents living within 250 metres found out this way, compared to 10% between 251 and 500 metres, seven per cent between 501 and 1,000 metres and just 4 per cent more than 1,000 metres away. There is also variation between concerts, however; organisers of the Pink concert at Hampden Park appear to have targeted those closest to the venue as 95% of people living within 250 metres received a leaflet through their door, compared to just 4% further away.

People living near the Ricoh Stadium in Coventry were most likely to have seen the concert advertised by poster (52%) but this was not the case for the other Pink concert at Hampden Park, where around one in ten (11%) had done so, suggesting that this kind of publicity may depend on the venue management or local authority involved.

Being made aware of the events does seem to be important to local residents as more than half of those who were not aware (53%) said they would have liked to have been informed of the concert before it took place. One in five (20%) said they disagreed that they would like to have been made aware. The desire to be pre-warned was significantly higher amongst those who lived within 500 metres of the venue, with 63% saying they would like to have been made aware, compared to 53% living 501-1,000 metres away and 38% of people more than one kilometre away.

Being m ade aware – by distance

Q3 To what extent would you agree or disagree with the following statement? I would have liked to have been aware of the event before it took place

Yes Total (579) 53%

Distance from Venue 0-500 metres (113) 63%

501-1,000 metres (357) 53%

1,000 metres or more (104) 38%

Base: 579 Residents who were not aware the event took place, May-September 2010

Residents were divided as to whether there had been sufficient publicity for the event local to them. Around four in ten (38%) agreed that the level of publicity was sufficient, while a similar proportion (43%) disagreed.

Sub-groups more likely to disagree included:

• People aged 25-34 (51%);

• Those with children under the age of nine (50%);

• Those not aware of the event until it took place (58%); and

• People living near the Green Day concerts in Manchester (63%) and Wembley (56%), and the Evolution festival in Newcastle (50%).

Conversely, residents living around the Pride concert in Brighton, Help for Heroes in Twickenham and Pink in Coventry, were all more likely than average to feel there was sufficient publicity about the event (62%, 59% and 58% respectively).

Sufficient publicity for local residents

Q4 To what extent do you agree or disagree that there was sufficient publicity about the event for you as a local resident?

Agree Disagree Total 38% 43%

Pride Brighton 62% 25% Help for Heroes, Twickenham 59% 32% Pink, Coventry 58% 31% Proms, Swansea 48% 34% Mowtown, Kenwood House 43% 32% Pink, Hampden Park 30% 49% Evolution, Newcastle 26% 50% Green Day, Wembley Stadium 24% 56% Green Day, Manchester 22% 63% Kiss, Wembley Arena 19% 48%

Base: 1,725 residents living locally to music events, May-September 2010

When asked what more could have been done to help publicise concerts such as these, around four in ten (38%) felt letters or leaflets delivered to households in the area would have helped. Around a quarter (24%) mentioned posters, while one in nine (11%) thought advertising in local papers or magazines would have been appropriate. Three in ten (29%) thought nothing more could have been done, while eight per cent could not suggest anything.

Further publicity required

Q5 What else, if anything, do you think could have been done to publicise the event?

Top 10 responses Letters/leaflets to households 38% Local posters 24% Local newspapers/magazines/ notice boards 11% Advertise list of events at beginning of year 6% Local media – online only 4% Local media – via TV/Radio 2% Resident’s association should be made aware 2% Community meetings 1% Nothing 29% Don’t know 8%

Base: 1,725 residents living locally to music events, May-September 2010

Older residents were most likely to feel nothing more could have been done, with two in five (40%) stating this, compared to 21% of those aged 25-34 and 16% of people aged 16-24. As expected, those not aware that the event was going to take place were more likely to suggest additional publicity; 46% believed that letters or leaflets could have been sent to local households (compared to 32% of those who were aware of the concert before it began).

Residents living near the venues of the Green Day concerts in Manchester and Wembley Stadium were most likely to think more leaflets could have been delivered to homes (50% and 48% respectively, compared to 38% overall).

Concerns held before music events take place

Of residents who had prior knowledge of the event before it happened, just over half (54%) had no concerns about it taking place. Of the 46% who did have some kind of concern, the most commonly mentioned issues were about parking (16%) and traffic (14%). Thirteen per cent had a concern about the possible noise levels, either generally (6%), from music or vocals (4%), or from crowds (3%).

General concerns held before the event

Q9 What concerns, if any, did you have about the event taking place?

Top 10 Concerned about parking 16% Concerned about traffic impact 14% Concerned about litter 11% Concerned about antisocial behaviour from concert attendees 10% Noise (general) 6% Any mention of Noise from music/vocals 4% noise: 13% Noise from crowds outside the event 3% Noise from crowds in the event 3% Concerned about safety of property 2% Concerned about personal safety 2% None 54%

Base: 1,050 residents living locally to music events who were aware the event was going to take place, May-September 2010

People living closer to the venue however, were significantly more likely to have a concern relating to noise; more than two in five (22%) residents living within 500 metres of the venue thought this might be a problem, compared to 10% further away.

Across the events, residents living around the Green Day concerts were most concerned about noise; around a third (32%) of residents near Wembley Stadium mentioned noise as a concern and around a quarter (26%) did so at the event in Manchester.

All residents who were opposed to the event going ahead were asked if they expressed their opposition in any way and the vast majority (85%) said they did not. One in eight (12%) made their objections known to someone, while 3% of people refused to answer. One in twenty (5%) said they expressed their concerns to their neighbours and a slightly smaller proportion (4%) contacted their local council. This could indicate that, although there may be some (albeit limited) opposition, residents either do not feel empowered to express their concern, or it is not such a strong issue for them, that they feel the need to express their concerns.

Expressing opposition to the event

Q10 How, if at all, did you express your opposition to the event going ahead?

I didn’t express my opposition 85% Expressed concern to: Neighbours 5% Expressed concern to: Local Council 4% Expressed concern to: Local Councillor 2% Expressed concern to: MP 2% Expressed concern to: Residents Association 1% Formal objection to the licence 1% application Contacted the promoter directly 1% Expressed concern to: Other 2%

Base: 128 residents living locally to music events who say they were opposed to it going ahead, May – September 2010

As well as asking about concerns generally, residents were asked specifically if they held any concerns, before the concert started, about the noise they may experience from the event. One in nine (11%) said they were very or fairly concerned about the expected noise levels, while the vast majority expressed no concern (89%). In line with findings, above, levels of concern tend to increase the closer in to the venue, with over a quarter (28%) of those living within 250 metres being either very or fairly concerned.

Noise concerns prior to the event – by distance Q16 Before it started, how concerned, if at all, were you about the expected noise level of the event? Very/fairly concerned

Total 11%

Distance from Venue

0-250 metres (47) 28%

251-500 metres (261) 15%

501-1,000 metres (621) 10%

1,000 metres + (118) 3%

Base: 1,050 residents living locally to music events who were aware the event would take place, May-September 2010

As would be expected, residents who were generally opposed to events taking place at the venues were more likely to be concerned about noise levels. Nearly half (48%) of those stating that they opposed the venue being used for similar concerts were concerned about noise, compared to just 6% of those who support these events.

Residents who felt that there was insufficient publicity for the event were also more likely to be concerned about noise (15% compared to 10% of those who felt publicity was sufficient). This indicates that managing residents’ expectations and keeping them informed are key aspects of minimising their concerns.

Green Day in Manchester generated the highest levels of concern about noise, with nearly three in ten (29%) expressing this worry. Proms in Swansea and Evolution in Newcastle had the lowest levels of concern with just two per cent and five per cent of residents concerned respectively.

Noise concerns prior to the event

Q16 Before it started, how concerned, if at all, were you about the expected noise level of the event? Very/fairly concerned Total 11%

Green Day, Manchester 29% Green Day, Wembley Stadium 17% Pink, Coventry 15% Pride Brighton 15% Kiss, Wembley Arena 13% Pink, Hampden Park 10% Help for Heroes, Twickenham 10% Mowtown, Kenwood House 9% Evolution, Newcastle 5% Proms, Swansea 2%

Base: 1,050 residents living locally to music events who were aware the event would take place, May-September 2010

Impact of music events – hearing the music

Just under half (45%) of all people surveyed could hear the music from the event inside their home, although this ranges from three quarters (75%) at the Green Day concert to one in seven (14%) around the Kiss gig at Wembley Arena – the only indoor venue.

Proportion hearing m usic inside their hom e – by event Q17 Did you hear music from the event, inside your home?

Yes – with windows open (%) Yes – even with windows closed (%) Yes Total 28 17 45

Green Day, Manchester 36 39 75 Pride Brighton 32 38 70 Pink, Hampden Park 37 23 60 Help for Heroes, Twickenham 32 16 48 Pink, Coventry 41 6 47 Proms, Swansea 33 10 43 Evolution, Newcastle 19 17 36 Green Day, Wembley Stadium 19 13 32 Mowtown, Kenwood House 23 8 31 Kiss, Wembley Arena 11 3 14

Base: 1,725 residents living locally to music events, May-September 2010

There is also considerable variation, as would be expected, depending on proximity to the venue; around six in ten could hear the music if they lived within 250 metres (59%) or 251- 500 metres of the venue (62%), while this fell to 44% within 501-1,000 metres and 24% beyond 1,000 metres.

Proportion hearing m usic inside their hom e – by proxim ity to venue Q17 Did you hear music from the event, inside your home?

Yes – with windows open (%) Yes – even with windows closed (%) Yes 45 Total (1,725) 28 17

Distance from Venue 0-250 metres (64) 22 38 59

251-500 metres (379) 32 30 62

501-1,000 metres (1,041) 30 14 44

1,000 metres + (233) 19 5 24

Base: 1,725 Residents living locally to music events, May-September 2010

However, it should be noted that this overall trend cannot necessarily be applied across all events. There is not necessarily a clear correlation for all concerts between distance from the venue and likelihood of hearing the music; those living nearest the Kiss concert (within 500 metres) were not necessarily more likely to hear the music (just 18% did, compared to 11% further away), while at the Coventry Pink concert, 38% within 500 metres heard it, compared to 49% further away. Moreover, the music travelled further for some concerts; 71% of people living between 501 and 1,000 metres of the Manchester Green Day concert heard the music, compared to 36% of people living within this distance from the other events. The report written by Napier University explores the dispersal of concert noise in more detail.

Other factors will undoubtedly have an impact, such as the wind direction, local topography, how built up the area is, the type of music being played and factors related to the individual responding to the survey (for example their age, the direction the house faces and whether windows are double-glazed). While the type of music being played will be important, there are also differences between similar events, indicating the complexity of these relationships (as well as likely impact of the venue type). Nine in ten (91%) living within 500 metres of the Manchester Green Day concert heard the music, compared with 37% around the same distance of the Green Day concert at Wembley Stadium. Similar differences are also seen between the Hampden Park Pink concert (79% heard the music) and the same act playing in Coventry (38%).

The report prepared by Edinburgh Napier University’s Building Performance Centre provides further analysis of the subjective responses analysed against the recorded Music noise Levels.

Some demographic subgroups that were more likely to have heard the music included:

° Households with children under the age of nine (51%, compared to 45% overall)

° People living in owner occupied households (50% compared to 39% of those renting)

People who were interviewed the day after the event were asked whether they had their windows open during the concert. Those who did have them open were more likely to have heard the music (52% compared to 27% who had them closed).

Impact of music events – being annoyed by the concert noise

Of those who could hear the music being played, one in five (20%) said they were annoyed by it to some extent, with 5% saying they were very annoyed. The majority (56%) of those who heard the music, however, say they were not at all annoyed. The proportion of those hearing the music who felt annoyed by it was highest at the Kiss (45% annoyed) and Green Day concerts (38% at Manchester and 33% at Wembley Stadium), which may in part be a result of the type of music being played. Furthermore, these three events recorded the highest mixing desk noise levels; these were the only three events where levels at the mixing desk reached or exceeded 100dB (104dB at Kiss, 100dB at Green Day Manchester and 102dB at Green Day Wembley).

Annoyance by concert noise

Q18 To what extent, if at all, were you annoyed by noise from the event?

Very Annoyed % Fairly annoyed % Not very annoyed % Not at all annoyed % Total (784) 5 15 23 56

Kiss, Wembley Arena (20) 10 35 25 30 Green Day, Manchester (130) 8 30 20 42 Green Day, Wembley Stadium (54) 9 24 33 33 Pink, Hampden Park (109) 5 13 30 52 Pink, Coventry (103) 4 14 22 60 Pride Brighton (88) 6 10 27 57 Mowtown, Kenwood House (38) 3 13 16 68 Evolution, Newcastle (99) 3 11 21 65 Help for Heroes, Twickenham (70) 9 24 67 Proms, Swansea (713) 4 15 79 Base: 784 Residents living locally to music events who heard music from the event, May-September 2010

When taken as a proportion of the entire sample surveyed, regardless of whether they heard the music, this represents one in eleven (9%) who were very or fairly annoyed by noise from the event. However, as illustrated by the chart overleaf, this is relatively consistent between each event, other than at the Manchester Green Day concert, where 29% of local residents surveyed were very or fairly annoyed. Less than half (39%) of residents in Manchester knew the concert was going to take place before it started, whereas 75% could hear the music in their home, which may help to explain this level of antagonism.

What is interesting, is that a similar proportion of local residents were annoyed by the Wembley Green Day concert as were annoyed by the Pride and Hampden Park Pink concerts (11%, 11% and 10% respectively) even though a far smaller proportion could hear the Wembley music (32% compared to 60% at Hampden Park and 70% at Pride). It may be that the lower level of awareness of the Wembley event (24% knew it was going to happen, compared to 99% and 81% at Pride and Hampden Park) contributed to this relatively high level of annoyance. Furthermore, Wembley stadium hosts a greater number of music and entertainment events than either the Pride venue (Preston Park in Brighton) or Hampden Park, which may affect the views of local residents.

Annoyance by concert noise – Base: All

Q18 To what extent, if at all, were you annoyed by noise from the event? Didn’t hear it % Heard it and not very/not Heard it and at all annoyed % fairly/very annoyed % Total 55 36 9

Green Day, Manchester 25 46 29 Pride Brighton 30 59 11 Pink, Hampden Park 40 50 10 Help for Heroes, Twickenham 52 44 4 Pink, Coventry 53 39 8 Proms, Swansea 57 41 2 Evolution, Newcastle 64 31 5 Green Day, Wembley Stadium 68 21 11 Mowtown, Kenwood House 69 26 5 Kiss, Wembley Arena 86 8 6

Base: 1,725 Residents living locally to music events who heard music from the event, May-September 2010

It is worth noting that there is no difference in the proportion of residents who were annoyed when comparing those who were interviewed as the concert was underway, and those interviewed the day after it finished. Given that some of the concerts went on until 11 p.m., and that we could only interview in-home until 9 p.m. (due to MRS guidelines), one may expect a higher level of annoyance among residents interviewed the day after. By the following day they would have had the chance to hear the music between 9 p.m. and 11 p.m.

Of those who could hear the music, certain subgroups were more likely to be annoyed as a result, including:

° Men (23% compared to 17% of women), irrespective of their distance from the venue;

° Households with children aged under 9 (26% compared to 20% overall);

° People who are deaf, deafened or hard of hearing (35% compared with 19% of people without any hearing impairment);

° Owner occupiers (22% compared to 16% of people renting);

° Those who could hear the music even with their windows closed (33% compared to 13% who could hear it only with windows open);

° Households with double-glazed windows (22% compared to 11% of households with single-glazing); and

° Those unaware of the event before it began (35% compared to 14% of those who had prior warning).

The last two points indicate that peoples’ expectations may be relevant; for instance people are less inclined to expect, and therefore to an extent accept, some disturbance from noise if they are protected by double glazing and if not warned in advance that the event may take place.

By plotting the proportion of local residents aware of the concert before it began, against the proportion of people hearing the music who were annoyed by it, one can see that there is a general relationship between the two; the less aware residents were, the greater the level of annoyance from the noise. There are some cases where this relationship is not as strong, for instance at Motown where annoyance was relatively low considering the low level of awareness of the concert, and Pride where the opposite is true. It should be noted that the sample for the Motown concert was the furthest from the venue when compared with the other events, so it is perhaps unsurprising that annoyance was so low given that the majority were more than 1,000 metres from the concert.

Relationship between prior awareness and annoyance by noise

% Aware 100 Pride

90 Pink, Coventry 80 Proms Pink, Hampden Park

70 Help for Heroes 60 Evolution

50 Green Day, Manchester 40

30 Motown Green Day, Wembley 20 Kiss 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 (Least annoyed) % Annoyed by noise (Most annoyed)

As illustrated by the chart below, while the proportion who could hear the music falls as distance from the venue increases, the overall proportion that was annoyed by the music also falls. Three in ten (29%) people living within 250 metres from the venue (of those who could hear it) were annoyed, compared to just one in nine (11%) living more than 1,000 metres away. This is likely to be a result of the noise level falling as distance from the venue increases so that, while a proportion can still hear the music, it is not as loud (and therefore annoying) as is the case closer to the venue.

Relationship between hearing m usic and annoyance – by distance

Q17 Did you hear music from the event, inside your home? Yes Q18 To what extent, if at all, were you annoyed by noise Very/fairly from the event? annoyed

45% Total (1,725, 784) 20%

Distance from Venue 0-250 metres (64, 38) 59% 29%

251-500 metres (379, 235) 62% 23%

501-1,000 metres (1,041, 454) 44% 19%

1,000 metres + (233, 55) 24% 11%

Base: Residents living locally to music events, (individual bases to Q17 and Q18 in brackets) May-September 2010

Taken as a proportion of all residents interviewed, one in six people living within 250 metres (17%) and between 251 and 1,000 metres (15%) were annoyed by the music, while this falls to just 3% more than 1,000 metres away.

Annoyance by concert noise – Base: All

Q18 To what extent, if at all, were you annoyed by noise from the event? Didn’t hear it % Heard it and not very/not Heard it and at all annoyed % fairly/very annoyed %

Total (1,725) 55 36 9

0-250 metres (64) 41 42 17

251-500 metres (379) 38 47 15

501-1,000 metres (1,041) 56 35 8

1,000 metres + (233) 76 21 3

Base: 1,725 Residents living locally to music events who heard music from the event, May-September 2010

It is worth noting that, for some concerts, residents’ fears before the event were worse than the reality they actually experience; at Pink in Coventry, Pride in Brighton and Help for Heroes at Twickenham a smaller proportion were annoyed by the noise than were concerned about it before it began.

Prior concerns versus annoyance

Q16 Before it started, how concerned, if at all, were you about the expected noise level of the event? Q18 To what extent, if at all, were you annoyed by noise from the event? Q16 Very/fairly concerned Q18 Very/fairly annoyed

7 Total (1,725) 9

15 Pride, Brighton (125) 11 13 Pink, Coventry (220) 8 11 Green Day, Manchester (174) 29 8 Pink, Hampden Park (181) 10 8 Help for Heroes, Twickenham (145) 4 4 Green Day, Wembley Stadium (168) 11 3 Mowtown, Kenwood House (123) 5 3 Evolution, Newcastle (275) 5 2 Kiss, Wembley Arena (144) 6 2 Proms, Swansea (170) 2

Base: 1,725 residents living locally to music events (individual bases in brackets), May-September 2010

While the chart above may suggest that, for some concerts, a far greater proportion were annoyed by the concert noise than had concerns prior to the event, it is important to note that the question about prior concerns was only asked of those who said they knew the event was going to take place. A relatively small number of people had prior warning of the Green Day concerts in Manchester (39% knew it was going to happen) and Wembley Stadium (24%). This is by no means a perfect comparison as the question on concerns held before the event was asked retrospectively after it had already started, relying on accurate recollection. It is, however, a useful indication that publicity may help to dispel these fears.

When asked which type of noise most affected them, residents who were annoyed by the noise most commonly cited the music being played (mentioned by 33%), followed by bass noise (12%), people leaving or arriving (12%) and crowd noise (10%). One in ten could not name one aspect which affected them the most.

Types of noise m ost felt

Q20 What type of noise would you say affected you the most?

Top nine mentions Noise from music 33% Bass noise 12% Noise from people arriving and leaving the event 12% Noise from the crowd 10% Noise from fireworks 6% Noise from setting up of event 4% Noise from traffic 4% Noise from PA systems/ announcements 4% Noise from setting up/rehearsals 2% None 10%

Base: 342 residents living locally to music events who were annoyed by the noise, May – September 2010

N.B. It is worth noting that the above chart presents results for all concerts/events combined. Not all of the responses listed would necessarily have been relevant for each event. For instance, not all concerts had fireworks and, while all had an element of setting up, not all would have involved rehearsals. All of the events, however, involved music and crowds getting to and from the event.

Residents who were not pre-aware of the event were more likely to say the music noise most affected them (41% versus 28% of those who knew it was going to happen).

Closing windows to minimise impact of noise

Residents interviewed after the event were asked whether they closed their windows as a result of the concert noise, with one in nine (11%) saying they did. Of those who could hear the music, this represents a quarter (23%), compared to just two percent of those who did not hear the music, suggesting that annoyance from other sources of noise (other than music) is far less common a problem.

Proportion closing windows

Q17 Did you hear music from the event, inside your home? Yes Q18b Did you, or someone in your household, close your windows to reduce the noise level at your property during the event? Yes

45% Total 11%

75% Green Day, Manchester 27% 70% Pride Brighton 14% 60% Pink, Hampden Park 18% 48% Help for Heroes, Twickenham 8% 47% Pink, Coventry 12% 43% Proms, Swansea 4% 36% Evolution, Newcastle 9% 32% Green Day, Wembley Stadium 2% 31% Mowtown, Kenwood House 3% 14% Kiss, Wembley Arena 6% Base: (Q17) 1,725 residents living locally to music events, May-September 2010. (Q18b) 973 residents living locally to music events interviewed after the concert finished

In line with other findings, those living closest to the venue were most likely to be affected; a third (36%) of all people living within 250 metres closed their windows (over a half - 56% - of all people who could hear the music). This falls to just two per cent over one kilometre away, as illustrated by the chart overleaf.

Proportion closing windows – by proxim ity to venue

Q18b Did you, or someone in your household, close your windows to reduce the noise level at your property during the event?

Yes (Base: all) Yes (Base: Those who heard the music) Distance from venue (25) 36% 0-250 metres (16) 56%

(199) 19% 251-500 metres (123) 27%

(619) 9% 501-1,000 metres (227) 22%

(125) 2% 1,000 metres + (34) 3%

Base: 973 residents living locally to the even who were interviewed after the event (401 who heard the music), May-September 2010

In line with previous findings, those with children under the age of nine (15% compared to 11% overall) and owner occupied households (13% compared to 8% of rented properties) were more likely to have taken this action.

All respondents were asked whether they thought it was acceptable to have to close their windows to avoid being disturbed by the noise from the concert. The majority (58%) said they thought it was acceptable, while over one third (37%) disagreed. One in seven (13%) said it is not at all acceptable to have to do this. As can be seen by the chart below, as distance from the venue increased, acceptance also increased.

Acceptability of closing windows - by proxim ity to venue Q19 How acceptable, or not, do you think it is to have to close your windows during this type of event if you are disturbed by noise? Acceptable Not acceptable

Total (1,725) 58% 37%

0-250 metres (64) 42% 45%

251-500 metres (379) 52% 44%

501-1,000 metres (1,041) 59% 36%

1,000 metres + (233) 64% 29%

Base: 1,725 Residents living locally to music events, May-September 2010

The type of music being played at the concert, as well as the type of venue, is also likely to be relevant, as indicated by the chart overleaf. Objection was lowest to the Proms event in Swansea, at which classical music was played, and Help for Heroes at Twickenham, which was a charity event (24% said it is unacceptable for both). Objection to having to close the windows was highest, on the other hand, for the Kiss concert. This was the only event held indoors, perhaps suggesting local residents are less willing to be disturbed by it (and less likely to be expecting to be disturbed by it, as found in question 16). As an indoor venue specifically designed for concerts, it is also licensed for a greater number of events per year than any of the other events so residents would be more regularly affected.

Acceptability of closing windows - by concert

Q19 How acceptable, or not, do you think it is to have to close your windows during this type of event if you are disturbed by noise? Acceptable Not acceptable

Total (1,725) 58% 37%

Proms, Swansea (170) 72% 24% Help for Heroes, Twickenham (145) 69% 24% Pride, Brighton (125) 66% 33% Pink, Coventry (220) 65% 30% Evolution, Newcastle (275) 63% 32% Mowtown, Kenwood House (123) 58% 37% Green Day, Manchester (174) 54% 44% Pink, Hampden Park (181) 47% 48% Green Day, Wembley Stadium (168) 43% 50% Kiss, Wembley Arena (144) 34% 56%

Base: 1,725 Residents living locally to music events, May-September 2010

Whether or not people are happy to close their windows in order not to be disturbed by concert noise, clearly depends on whether they feel this action would actually reduce the impact on them; a quarter (24%) of those who could hear the music even with their windows closed felt it was not at all acceptable to have to close their windows, compared to 11% who could only hear it when their windows were open.

Results for the two Pink concerts support this premise; although the same music was played at each, residents near the Hampden Park venue were more likely to object to having to close their windows than those in Coventry (48% compared to 30%). This is likely to be partly a result of a greater number of residents local to Hampden Park hearing the music even with their windows closed (23%, compared to 6% at Coventry).

Acceptance was higher among those who knew the event was going to take place before it started (63% compared to 49% who did not have this prior knowledge), again supporting the hypothesis that greater publicity can help to manage expectations and reduce antagonism.

Positive and negative effects of concerts

At nine of the ten concerts, a greater proportion of local residents felt the event impacted on them positively than the proportion which thought it had had a negative impact. The

exception to this rule was the Manchester Green Day concert where 28% felt it had a negative impact on them, compared to just 22% who thought it affected them positively.

At six of the events (Motown, Help for Heroes, Pink at Hampden Park, Evolution, Kiss and Green Day at Wembley) the largest proportion were those who felt the concert did not affect them, either at all or positively or negatively.

How positively or negatively m usic events are perceived to affect local residents Q13 To what extent, if at all, do you feel this event affected you in a positive or negative way?

Very positively % Neither positively nor negatively % Fairly negatively % Fairly positively % It did not affect me % Very negatively % Total 12 19 36 21 9 3

Proms, Swansea 26 24 30 16 31 Pink, Coventry 19 24 36 11 8 2 Mowtown, Kenwood House 14 27 38 19 2 Help for Heroes, Twickenham 14 26 47 8 51 Pride Brighton 14 24 27 11 18 6 Pink, Hampden Park 10 12 40 23 9 7 Evolution, Newcastle 8 16 27 40 6 4 Kiss, Wembley Arena 8 8 51 27 41 Green Day, Manchester 5 18 21 26 19 9 Green Day, Wembley Stadium 2 16 51 15 13 2

Base: 1,725 residents living locally to music events, May-September 2010

One in five (19%) people who could hear the music during the concert felt the event impacted on them negatively, compared to 6% of those who had not heard the music. However, it is worth noticing that one in three (33%) of those hearing the music said they were only affected positively. It is only among those who could hear the music even with their windows closed for whom more felt it affected them negatively (32%) than positively (25%).

As the chart overleaf shows, there is no clear relationship between the likelihood of hearing the music and the views towards how negatively or positively the concert is thought to have impacted residents. One may expect that the higher the proportion hearing the music, the lower the net score (the proportion believing it to have had a positive effect, minus the proportion who felt it had a negative impact). This was the case for events such as Green Day’s Manchester concert, but is not reflected in other cases such as Kiss, where few heard the music but the net score was similarly low.

Hearing m usic vs. positive/negative effect

Net effect (positive % - negative %) Proms 45 Help for Motown Heroes 35

Pink, Coventry 25

Pride 15 Evolution Kiss

5 Green Day, Pink, Hampden Wembley Park Green Day, Manchester

-5 5 25 45 65 Proportion heard music (%)

What this indicates is that there are other factors that also influence resident’s views to the concert, and this is corroborated by the chart overleaf. The single most commonly cited concern about the concert was the impact it has on local traffic, mentioned by over a third (36%) of people who thought it had a negative impact on them. The second most mentioned issue is also traffic related, with one in three (33%) concerned about parking. One in three (33%) of those who were impacted negatively said they were affected by the concert music, while over half (53%) made reference to something noise related (including music noise, crowd noise, rehearsals, setting up/dismantling, PA systems and general noise).

Perceived negative effects of m usic events

Q14 In what ways would you say this event had a negative effect on you?

Top ten Concerned about traffic impact 36% Concerned about parking 33% Noise from music/vocals 33% Concerned about antisocial behaviour from concert attendees 25% Concerned about litter 19% Noise from crowds outside the event 15% Noise from crowds in the event 13% Any mention of Noise (general) 11% noise: 53% Impact from Fireworks 7% Time of day/night the event is being held 7%

Base: 203 residents living locally to music events who feel they were affected negatively, May-September 2010

When asked which of these was felt the most, the largest proportion (19%) said it was the music noise which had the most negative impact. However, this was followed by a similar proportion whose biggest issue was the parking (18%), as shown in the following chart.

M ost significant negative effect

Q15 And, of these, which do you think had the greatest negative effect? Top ten Noise from music/vocals 19% Concerned about parking 18% Concerned about traffic impact 12% Concerned about antisocial behaviour from concert attendees 11% Noise (general) 6% Concerned about litter 5% Noise from crowds outside the event 4% Noise from crowds in the event 3% Day of the week the event is being held 3% Impact from Fireworks 2%

Base: 203 residents living locally to music events who feel they were affected negatively, May-September 2010

Groups that were particularly more likely to believe the music noise was the biggest problem included people aged 55 or over (28%) and those who could hear the music with their windows closed (31% compared to 17% who could only hear it when their windows were open).

Of those who were annoyed by the music they heard, a quarter said they had to close the windows (26%) or that it disturbed their sleep (24%). One in six (16%) said it was a general nuisance, while, for one in eight (12%), it disturbed their children or their entertainment (not being able to hear the television, radio etc).

To put this into context, five per cent of all residents surveyed had to close their windows and five per cent had their sleep disturbed. One in six (17%) people near the Manchester concert said their sleep was disturbed by the noise.

Effects of concert noise

Q22 In what ways, if any, would you say the noise from this event has affected you? Top 11 mentions I had to close the windows 26% It disturbed my sleep 24% General nuisance 16% It disturbed my children 12% I had to turn up the TV/Radio/ music to be able to hear it properly 12% It made me feel annoyed/stressed 10% I was not able to use my garden properly 8% I couldn’t concentrate on what I am doing in my home 8% It gave me a headache 4% Crowds/noise 4% General noise 4% Don’t know 15%

Base: 342 residents living locally to music events who were annoyed by the noise, May-September 2010

Support for music events

Residents were asked whether they attended the event in question, or if they had wanted to attend, in order to assess whether this affected views towards the concerts and their music. Around half (49%) of residents interviewed said they did not attend the event near them and they had not wanted to. Only six per cent said they had attended the event, while nearly three in ten (29%) across all events said they did not attend the event in question but would have liked to. However, it is worth noting that over a quarter (28%) of local residents surveyed around the Pride concert had attended the event which is likely to influence responses towards it. Again, this was the only free event and does not solely focus on music. Attendance of the concert was relatively consistent across other events (ranging from 1% to 8%).

Support for events being held at the relative venues was, overall, fairly high with three- quarters (74%) saying they supported the venues being used for music, and only around one in ten (9%) opposed. As indicated by the chart overleaf, however, opposition was higher amongst those who lived closer to the venues, ranging from 19% within 250 metres to just one per cent living more than 1,000 metres away.

Support for m usic events at the venues – by proxim ity

Q7 Generally, to what extent do you support or oppose music events being held at this venue?

Support Oppose

Total 74% 9%

Distance from Venue 0-250 metres (64) 61% 19%

251-500 metres (379) 69% 14%

501-1,000 metres (1,041) 74% 8%

1,000 metres + (233) 83% 1%

Base: 1,725 residents living locally to music events, May-September 2010

Across the different events, opposition was highest for the Green Day concert at Old Trafford Cricket Ground in Manchester, with nearly one in five (18%) residents being opposed (see the chart overleaf). It is important to note that the concerts at Kenwood House, Newcastle and Swansea were the only events at which residents more than 1,000 metres from the venue were interviewed. These are also the events with some of the lowest recorded levels of opposition (3%, 4% and 8% respectively).

Support for m usic events at the venues

Q7 Generally, to what extent do you support or oppose music events being held at this venue?

Support Oppose Total 74% 9%

Mowtown, Kenwood House 85% 3% Proms, Swansea 81% 8% Evolution, Newcastle 80% 4%% Pink, Coventry 78% 5% Pride Brighton 78% 10% Help for Heroes, Twickenham 77% 8% Pink, Hampden Park 69% 11% Green Day, Manchester 64% 18% Green Day, Wembley Stadium 63% 11% Kiss, Wembley Arena 62% 10%

Base: 1,725 residents living locally to music events, May-September 2010

As can be seen in the chart overleaf, residents who heard the music even with their windows closed were most likely to oppose their local venue being used for music events (23% opposed it compared to 9% overall), although people who could only hear it when their windows were open were no more likely to be opposed than people who did not hear it at all (7% compared to 5% respectively).

Support for m usic events at the venues

Q7 Generally, to what extent do you support or oppose music events being held at this venue?

Support Oppose

Total 74% 9%

Heard music with windows closed (295) 60% 23% Heard music only with windows open (489) 76% 7%

Did not hear the music (914) 77% 5%

Base: 1,725 residents living locally to music events, May-September 2010

People aged 55 or over (13% opposed) and owner-occupiers (11% compared to 5% of those renting) and those who are deaf, deafened or hard of hearing (15%) were also more likely to be opposed.

When asked specifically about the event taking place at the time of the interview, support was still fairly high with around two-thirds (67%) saying they supported it. Opposition was relatively low with seven per cent opposed. Similar to support and opposition levels generally, residents living closer to the venues were more likely to be opposed (11% compared to 7% between 501 and 1,000 metres and 3% more than 1,000 metres away).

Support for the specific m usic events – by distance Q8 To what extent do you support or oppose this event in particular going ahead?

Support Oppose

Total 67% 7%

Distance from Venue 0-500 metres (443) 62% 11%

501-1,000 metres (1,041) 67% 7%

1,000 metres or more (233) 78% 3%

Base: 1,725 residents living locally to music events, May-September 2010

Support and opposition across the events did vary in some instances. Support was highest for Proms in Swansea, Help for Heroes in Twickenham and Evolution in Newcastle (91%, 88% and 76% respectively compared to 67% overall). For Proms in Swansea, however, there were very few residents interviewed who lived within 500 metres and it has been seen that distance from venues does impact on levels of support and opposition. The Help for Heroes event was for charity which is likely to have influenced views towards it.

Opposition levels were highest for Green Day in Manchester and Pride in Brighton (21% and 14% respectively, compared to 7% overall), as seen in the following chart.

Support for the specific m usic events

Q8 To what extent do you support or oppose this event in particular going ahead?

Support Oppose Total 67% 7%

Proms, Swansea 91% 3% Help for Heroes, Twickenham 88% 3% Evolution, Newcastle 76% 4% Pink, Coventry 73% 5% Mowtown, Kenwood House 73% 6% Pride Brighton 69% 14% Pink, Hampden Park 55% 9% Green Day, Manchester 53% 21% Kiss, Wembley Arena 45% 5% Green Day, Wembley Stadium 44% 8%

Base: 1,725 residents living locally to music events, May-September 2010

The chart overleaf suggests that residents’ willingness to have music events taking place near them very much depends on the type of event in question and the venue used. The two venues at which residents were least willing to have regular events taking place were in Manchester, normally a cricket ground and which had the highest level of opposition to music concerts being held there, and Pride, which has traditionally been an annual event.

Conversely, the majority of local residents were willing to have music events taking place at least six times a year at Wembley Arena (59%), Wembley Stadium (50%), the Ricoh Arena in Coventry (62%) and Kenwood House (55%). Wembley Arena and Stadium are more regularly used for music events and so residents are probably more likely to be used to the occurrence.

Views on regularity of venue use for concerts

Q27 How many times a year, if at all, would you be happy for this venue to be used for this type of event? % None % 2-3 times a year % 6-12 times a year % Don’t know % Once a year % 4-5 times a year % More than 12 times a year

Total (1,725) 4 7 22 19 17 26 7

Pride Brighton (125) 6 15 36 17 15 7 4 Green Day, Manchester (174) 12 10 32 16 9 16 6 Proms, Swansea (170) 1 8 32 28 18 10 2 Evolution, Newcastle (275) 1 11 28 13 12 27 7 Help for Heroes, Twickenham (145) 3 6 24 31 22 12 2 Mowtown, Kenwood House (123) 2 7 14 17 18 37 4 Pink, Hampden Park (181) 8 3 12 27 25 20 6 Pink, Coventry (220) 22 15 16 22 40 2 Green Day, Wembley Stadium (168) 23 11 14 17 33 20 Kiss, Wembley Arena (144) 31 11 13 12 47 13

Base: 1,725 All respondents, fieldwork dates: May-September 2010

Expressing views about concerts

The majority of residents (70%) living locally to music venues were not aware of the conditions of the license of that venue. Just under a quarter (23%) said they had some knowledge of them but not in detail, while seven per cent believed they were fully aware of them. Residents near Kenwood House were most likely to say they knew something about the license conditions (46%), followed by Twickenham (45%) and Singleton Park in Swansea (44%). Conversely, residents near Newcastle city centre (19%), Wembley Stadium (18%) and Lancashire Cricket Ground in Manchester (15%) were least likely to be aware of the conditions.

Awareness of licensing conditions

Q12 Which of the following best describes your awareness of any conditions that are attached to the premises licence for this event? I am fully aware of the conditions/controls I am aware of the conditions/controls but not in detail I am not aware of any conditions/controls Total 7% 23% 70%

Mowtown, Kenwood House 14% 33% 54% Help for Heroes, Twickenham 17% 28% 55% Proms, Swansea 7% 36% 56% Pink, Hampden Park 9% 27% 64% Pride Brighton 2% 31% 67% Kiss, Wembley Arena 8% 21% 72% Pink, Coventry 7% 21% 72% Evolution, Newcastle 4% 15% 81% Green Day, Wembley Stadium 2% 15% 82% Green Day, Manchester 3%12% 85%

Base: 1,725 residents living locally to music events, May-September 2010

The following groups were all more likely to have had some knowledge of the conditions of the license:

° People aged 35 or over (33% compared to 23% of people aged under 35)

° Owner occupiers (34% compared to 24% of rented households)

° People working, or studying for a qualification, in an associated industry (43%)

° People who were aware of the event before it began (35% compared to 21% of people who did not know it was going to happen)

One in six (16%) local residents were aware of a telephone number which they could ring if they had any concerns about noise from the music event. People living around Twickenham (26%), Wembley Arena (22%) and Newcastle City centre (18%) were most likely to be aware of such a number.

When asked who provides the number they would use, most people would call their local authority - either Environmental Health (39%) or another department (31%). One in ten would call the local police while just one in twenty (5%) would contact the event organiser directly.

Awareness of concert noise help-lines

Q23 Are you aware of any telephone Q24 And which organisation or number you can use if you need individual provides this to contact somebody about number? problems to do with noise that you experience during the event? Local council – environmental health 39% Don’t know Local council – other department 31% 1% Yes Local police 10% 5% 16% Event organiser Residents’ association 4% Environmental protection UK 2% 999 1% Defra 1% Local Councillor 1% 82% Other 5% No Not sure/can’t remember 5% Don’t know 5%

Base: 1,725 residents living locally to Base: 278 residents living locally to music events music events, May-September 2010 aware of a noise help-line, May-September 2010

While almost half (45%) of people surveyed had heard the music from the concert near them, (and as much as 75% for Manchester), and one in eleven (9%) were fairly or very annoyed by it (as many as 29% in Manchester), and five per cent said it disturbed their sleep, just one per cent of all people surveyed the day after the concert had finished had made a complaint. The proportion was slightly higher of those who heard the music with their windows closed (3% complained) and those who were fairly or very annoyed with the concert noise (6%).

While it appears that only a minority (16%) know who to contact if they had a concern about concert noise, this lack of knowledge was not given as a common reason for not making a complaint about the concert. Just one in 25 (4%) people cited this reason, while the same proportion could not see the point of complaining or could not be bothered.

In fact, the main reasons for not complaining were that residents did not feel the concert warranted one; over half (53%) said it was because they had nothing to complain about, while one in three (33%) felt the impact was not sufficient for them to complain.

Reasons for not m aking a com plaint

Q24D You said you didn’t make a complaint, why was that?

Top 8 mentions I have nothing to complain about 53% The event didn’t impact on me sufficiently to make a complaint 33% I’m not sure who to complain to 4%

I don’t see the point 4%

I couldn’t be bothered 4% The event brings some business into the area 2% I’ve complained before and it made no difference 1% I don’t want to be seen as a trouble maker 1%

Base: 956 residents living locally to music events interviewed after the event and who did not make a complaint, XXX 2010

These patterns do not differ markedly based on the distance people are from the venue; although people living beyond 500 metres from the venue were more likely to say they had nothing to complain about (56% compared to 41% within 500 metres), there is very little difference for other responses given.

There is a small group, however, for whom a lack of knowledge about who to complain to does prevent them from making an objection; of those who said they were affected negatively by the event, a quarter (24%) did not complain for this reason (a total of 2% of the entire sample).

Two in five (40%) said they would like to have the opportunity to give their view towards any similar events taking place at the venue local to them. However, just one in six (16%) said they definitely would, while a quarter (24%) said they probably would. Residents local to the venue for Pride in Brighton were most likely to say they would definitely have liked this opportunity (28%).

Opportunity to express views on future events

Q25 If a similar event was to be held again at this venue, would you like to have the opportunity to express your view regarding any aspect of it? Yes - definitely Yes - probably Yes Total (1,725) 16% 24% 40

Pride Brighton (125) 28% 22% 50 Green Day, Manchester (174) 18% 29% 47 Green Day, Wembley Stadium (168) 14% 30% 44 Help for Heroes, Twickenham (145) 11% 32% 43 Proms, Swansea (170) 12% 27% 39 Kiss, Wembley Arena (144) 17% 19% 37 Evolution, Newcastle (275) 13% 23% 37 Pink, Coventry (220) 18% 18% 37 Pink, Hampden Park (181) 18% 18% 37 Mowtown, Kenwood House (123) 11% 20% 30

Base: 1,725 residents living locally to music events, May-September 2010

As expected, those who said they were negatively affected by the event were more likely to say they would definitely have liked a say (42%), although there was no difference between those living closer to the venue and those further away. Interestingly, while people who could hear the music with their windows closed were more likely to have wanted to air their views (27%), there is little difference between those who could only hear the music with windows open and people who could not hear it at all (16% and 12% respectively).

While it would appear that a significant proportion of local residents would like to have an input into any similar future events, few seemed to want to have anything changed in relation to the noise from the concert; seven in ten (69%) said they would not want anything changed or failed to give an answer, while just six per cent would want the noise level or volume changed.

Changes to future events

Q26 Which features, if any, of the event relating to noise would you want to see changed?

Top 8 mentions

Volume/noise level of music 6% Noise was not an issue/didn’t hear it/doesn’t bother me 4% Crowd control/anti-social behaviour 3% Time restrictions/not too late/not after midnight 3% Restrict the use of fireworks 2% Nothing/no answer 69% Other 8% Don’t know 5%

Base: 1,725 All respondents, fieldwork dates: May-September 2010

A greater proportion of people living within 500 metres of the venue said they would want the noise/volume level changed (9% compared to 5% within 501 and 1,000 metres and 3% more than 1,000 metres away). Moreover, in line with previous findings, people who were not aware of the concert before it began were also more likely to want to change the noise (9% compared to 4% of people who had prior knowledge). Of those who felt they were affected negatively by noise from the event, 29% would have liked to see the noise or volume levels revised.

Concert attendees

Views of concert attendees

Sample profile

As discussed in the methodology section, interviewers were instructed to interview concert attendees from a mix of different ages and genders, but to aim to recruit a sample broadly representative of the audience attending. The charts below illustrate the differences in age and gender at each of the music events.

Gender – by concert

Male Female Total 47% 52%

Kiss, Wembley Arena 68% 32% Evolution, Newcastle 48% 52% Green Day, Manchester 62% 36% Green Day, Wembley Stadium 60% 40% Pink, Coventry 24% 76% Pink, Hampden Park 23% 77% Motown, Kenwood House 39% 61% Pride, Brighton 51% 49% Proms, Swansea 49% 45% Help for Heroes, Twickenham 47% 50%

Base: 989 attendees at all events, May-September 2010

Age – by concert

16-18 25-34 45-54 Refused 19-24 35-44 55+

Total 8 15 28 24 15 5 5

Kiss, Wembley Arena 2 14 27 27 29 Evolution, Newcastle 41 24 14 7 12 1 Green Day, Manchester 4 14 31 29 19 22 Green Day, Wembley Stadium 6 25 36 23 8 1 Pink, Coventry 12 16 25 32 13 21 Pink, Hampden Park 5 17 44 26 6 2 Mowtown, Kenwood House 3 9 23 20 17 14 14 Pride Brighton 4 9 38 24 21 3 1 Proms, Swansea 4 11 11 20 19 22 11 Help for Heroes, Twickenham 4 11 27 31 9 2 17

Base: 989 attendees at all events, May-September 2010, for individual event base sizes please see table at start of report.

Respondents were asked whether they used any form of hearing protection at the concert, or had considered doing so. This was to measure prevalence of this behaviour, but also to explore whether there was any relationship between this and views towards sound quality.

Only 2% of those interviewed said they had used hearing protection at the event they were attending, while one in twenty five (4%) said they had not used any protection but had considered doing so. The overwhelming majority (94%) said they had not and did not consider the use of such protection (seen in the chart overleaf).

Use of hearing protection Q9 Have you used hearing protection, such as ear plugs or ear defenders, at this event?

Don’t know/can’t Yes remember No, but I considered it 1% 2% 4%

No, and I did not consider it 94%

Base: 989 music event attendees, May – September 2010

Those working in the music industry or studying for qualifications in it, however, were more likely to have considered using hearing protection (10% compared to 4% overall). There are also indications that the type of music being played is relevant; attendees of the Kiss concert (the loudest event surveyed playing exclusively rock music) were more likely to have used protection (8%) or to have considered it (11%).

For similar reasons to asking about hearing protection, a question was included on hearing loss. One in twenty (5%) said they were deaf, deafened or hard of hearing. There is a sharp rise in hearing problems from the age of 55 (likely due to presbycusis3), however; one in five (19%) over 55s reported having some kind of problem with their hearing, compared to 4% of attendees aged 16-54. This is broadly in line with national figures on deafness, which state that “only about 2% of young adults are deaf or hard of hearing”, as reported by RNID4.

While we ensured that no one who worked at the venue was interviewed and only paying customers formed our sample, we did ask whether they worked in a related industry or were studying for a relevant qualification. This was asked so we could explore whether views differed among people who had a professional or more detailed interest in the subject matter.

3 Age-related hearing loss 4 http://www.rnid.org.uk/VirtualContent/101697/Facts_and_figures_on_deafness_and_tinnitus_March_2 006.pdf

Fewer than one in ten (8%) said they did, although this was higher among younger people (15% of 16-24 year olds) and people at the Evolution festival in Newcastle (33%) – which had a younger audience than all other events.

Event attendance and music preference

The majority of people (85%) said they did normally listen to the kind of music that was being played at the event they were attending. Those who attended the Pink concert at Hampden Park and both the Green Day concerts, in Wembley and Manchester, were more likely to be regular listeners to the type of music played at the concert (95%, 94% and 94% respectively). By contrast, those who attended the Proms in Swansea and Pride in Brighton were the least likely to normally listen to the type of music being played at those events (68% and 63% agreed respectively).

Norm ally listen to m usic at the event

Q1 To what extent, do you agree or disagree with the following statement? I normally like to listen to the kind of music played at this event Agree Disagree Total 85% 8%

Pink, Hampden Park 95% 5% Green Day, Wembley Stadium 94% 3% Green Day, Manchester 94% 1% Help for Heroes, Twickenham 92% 4% Motown, Kenwood House 90% 6% Pink, Coventry 89% 5% Kiss, Wembley Arena 83% 10% Evolution, Newcastle 82% 9% Proms, Swansea 68% 14% Pride, Brighton 63% 28% Base: 989 attendees at all events, May-September 2010, for individual event base sizes please see table at start of report.

The majority of attendees surveyed were relatively experienced in attending music events; over half (57%) of attendees said they had attended indoor gigs or concerts between one and four times over the last year. This figure went up to more than eight in ten (83%) with regards to outdoor concerts lasting one day or less. Around a third (34%) said they had

attended festivals or events, which lasted more than one day, between one and four times in the last year.

People were more likely to have attended indoor gigs or concerts more than five times in a year, with around one in five (20%) saying they had. This figure fell to one in twenty (5%) for outdoor concerts lasting one day or less and to 2% for festivals or events lasting more than one day.

Attendees at the Evolution event in Newcastle and the Green Day concert at Wembley stadium (the two concerts with the youngest respondent profiles) were more likely to have attended indoor gigs more than five times in the last year than those attending any other event (43% and 33% respectively). Those who attended the Green Day concert at Wembley stadium were also more likely than attendees of other events to have gone to outdoor concerts lasting a day, with one in five (20%) saying they had, compared to 5% overall.

Unprompted likes and dislikes of music events

Attendees were asked what their main likes and dislikes were, in relation to the event they were attending. This was initially asked in an unprompted way so as not to pre-empt any issues around the sound quality. Instead this would indicate how much of an issue the sound is, both in a positive and negative way, relative to other factors such as the price and overall atmosphere.

As might be expected, the most commonly cited positive aspect was the music or band, mentioned by more than six in ten (62% - illustrated in the chart overleaf). This is followed by the people attending and/or the atmosphere at the event, mentioned by just under half (46%). Overall nearly three-quarters (73%) of attendees mentioned sound-related aspects of the event, including the music, the band, the variety of music or the sound system, while around two-thirds (64%) mentioned non sound-related aspects.

However, only around one in eight (13%) specifically cited the quality of the sound system as one of the main things they liked about the event. Interestingly, this figure was statistically significantly higher for those who said they were positioned towards the front of the venue, with one in five (20%) mentioning this.

M ain things liked about the event

Q3 What are the main things that you like about this event? Top 7 The music/the band 62%

The people attending/the atmosphere 46%

The venue/location 29%

The variety of music 26%

Size of the venue 14% Sound-related mentions: 73% The quality of the sound system 13% Non sound-related The facilities (eg food, merchandise, toilets/showers camping etc) 10% mentions: 64%

Base: 989 attendees at all events, May-September 2010, for individual event base sizes please see table at start of report.

Those aged 16-24 were more likely than average to mention non sound-related aspects, with more than seven in ten (71%) doing so, compared to two in three (64%) on average.

Attendees of the Kiss concert at Wembley Arena, Green Day in Manchester and Green Day at Wembley Stadium were more likely than average to mention sound-related aspects with well over eight in ten highlighting something about the music (85%, 83% and 87% respectively, compared to 73% overall – charted overleaf).

Sound related likes – by event

Q3 What are the main things that you like about this event?

Sound related Total 73%

Green Day, Wembley Stadium 87% Kiss, Wembley Arena 85% Green Day, Manchester 83% Evolution, Newcastle 80% Pink, Hampden Park 78% Pink, Coventry 75% Help for Heroes, Twickenham 70% Motown, Kenwood House 69% Proms, Swansea 69% Pride, Brighton 24%

Base: 989 attendees at all events, May-September 2010, for individual event base sizes please see table at start of report.

Those who attended Evolution in Newcastle, Motown at Kenwood House, Pride in Brighton and Proms in Swansea were significantly more likely to mention non-sound related aspects (81%, 82%, 95%, and 84% respectively compared to 64% overall). This reflects the fact that these events were not simply concerts, but might be considered an event or celebration.

Non sound related likes – by event

Q3 What are the main things that you like about this event?

Not sound related Total 64%

Pride, Brighton 95% Proms, Swansea 84% Motown, Kenwood House 82% Evolution, Newcastle 81% Green Day, Manchester 60% Pink, Hampden Park 56% Kiss, Wembley Arena 53% Green Day, Wembley Stadium 52% Pink, Coventry 43% Help for Heroes, Twickenham 41%

Base: 989 attendees at all events, May-September 2010, for individual event base sizes please see table at start of report.

With regards to what attendees did not like about the concert, just over four in ten (43%) mentioned non sound-related aspects of the event, while only around one in twenty (6%) mentioned anything to do with the music (including the quality of the sound system, the music/band and the variety of the music) suggesting that there were no overwhelming complaints about the sound quality.

Aspects like the facilities, such as food and merchandise (17%), the price (13%) and queues (4%) are bigger concerns than any issues to do with the quality of the sound or sound system (3%). Around two in five (42%) said there was nothing about the event they did not like.

M ain things disliked about the event

Q4 And what are the main things you dislike about this event?

Top 8 The facilities (eg food, merchandise, toilets/ showers camping etc) 17% The price 13% Queues 4% The people attending/the atmosphere 4% Sound related The quality of the sound system 3% mentions: 6% Size of the venue 3% The venue/location 3% The music/the band 3% Nothing 42%

Base: 989 attendees at all events, May-September 2010

However, attendees of the Green Day concert at Wembley stadium were more likely to mention sound-related issues (12% did so, compared to 6% overall). The quality of the sound system was the biggest sound-related concern for people at Wembley Stadium, with one in nine (11%) mentioning it, compared to just 3% overall.

As shown in the chart overleaf, those who were at Pink in Hampden Park were least likely to mention sound-related aspects with just 2% doing so.

Sound related dislikes – by event

Q4 And what are the main things you dislike about this event?

Sound related Total 6%

Green Day, Wembley Stadium 12% Kiss, Wembley Arena 10% Evolution, Newcastle 10% Pink, Coventry 7% Motown, Kenwood House 5% Pride, Brighton 5% Green Day, Manchester 4% Help for Heroes, Twickenham 4% Proms, Swansea 3% Pink, Hampden Park 2%

Base: 989 attendees at all events, May-September 2010, for individual event base sizes please see table at start of report.

People who are deaf, deafened or hard of hearing were more likely to criticise the quality of the sound system (9%) as were those who worked or studied in the music industry (8%), those who have attended a multi-day music festival in the last 12 months (5%), those who thought the music volume was too quiet (6%), and those who thought the sound quality was poor, compared to 3% overall.

Importance of sound level and quality

When asked to rate the importance of a number of different aspects of sound quality, being able to hear the music over the crowd and to hear the words come out as the two things most important to people; more than nine in ten rated these as important (95% and 94% respectively).

This was also consistent across most events, with Pride being the only exception; 76% rated hearing the words as important and 82% do the same for hearing the music over the crowd. It is worth noting that the Pride event was the only free concert at which we interviewed and is not primarily a music-based event, but is focused on promoting equality and diversity5. Therefore it is likely that the music was not as significant a factor as it might have been for attendees of the other (music-focused) events.

5 Source: http://www.brightonpride.org/

After hearing the music and words, high volume levels were the next most important aspect with just under nine in ten (87%) across all events stating this, followed by bass levels, highlighted as important by just over eight in ten (82%). Being able to hold a conversation while the event is underway was, generally, considered far less important, with just four in ten (40%) feeling it is important compared to nearly six in ten (58%) who thought it is not important.

Im portance of sound quality aspects

Q7 Thinking about when you go to music events such as this one, how important, if at all, are the following to your overall enjoyment of the music event? Important Not important

Ability to hear music over crowd 95% 3%

Ability to hear words 94% 5%

High level of volume 87% 12%

Levels of bass in music 82% 15% Ability to hold conversation 40% 58% whilst event underway

Base: 989 attendees at all events, May-September 2010

The importance people attach to the volume level increases with age; the youngest attendees surveyed (aged 16-24) were more likely to rate this as important with more than nine in ten (91%) doing so, compared to 88% of 25-24 year olds, 85% of those aged 35-54 and 77% of those aged 55 and over.

As indicated by the chart overleaf, people at the Pink concert at Hampden Park, the Help for Heroes event and Wembley stadium Green Day concert were most likely to rate the volume level as important. Conversely, attendees at the Kiss, Proms, Pink in Coventry and Pride concerts were all least likely to feel high volume is important (the net importance scores for these events are significantly below the average for events overall).

Im portance of m usic volum e

Q7 Thinking about when you go to music events such as this one, how important, if at all, are the following to your overall enjoyment of the music event? High volume level of the music Important Not important Total 87% 12%

Pink, Hampden Park 96% 4% Help for Heroes, Twickenham 95% 5% Green Day, Wembley Stadium 95% 5% Evolution, Newcastle 90% 10% Green Day, Manchester 85% 10% Motown, Kenwood House 85% 14% Kiss, Wembley Arena 83% 17% Proms, Swansea 82% 15% Pink, Coventry 80% 20% Pride, Brighton 78% 19% Base: 989 attendees at all events, May-September 2010

The only difference by gender is that women were more likely to consider the ability to hold a conversation as being important (44% compared to 36% of men). Attendees who considered themselves to be deaf, deafened or hard of hearing were also more likely to rate this aspect as important, with more than half (57%) stating this, compared to 39% of those with no hearing problems.

Other notable results include:

• Those who said they usually listened to the type of music playing at the events were more likely to think volume and bass levels were important (89% and 84% respectively, compared to 81% and 73% of those who did not normally listen to the music)

• There is no difference in the importance ratings between those working or studying in related industries, compared to those who do not.

Across the different events, those who attended Motown, Proms, Help for Heroes and Evolution were more likely to think it was important to be able to hold a conversation (75%, 56%, 54% and 53% respectively, compared to 40% overall). It is worth bearing in mind that none of these events were concerts for a specific act.

Satisfaction with sound level and quality

Volume level

The majority of all attendees (78%) felt the volume level at the events was ‘just right’, while one in six (16%) thought it was too quiet and just 6% believed it to be too loud.

However, as indicated by the chart below, there is variation between the different events. Attendees of the Kiss and Pink (Coventry) concerts were more likely to feel it was too loud (12% and 14% respectively, compared to 6% overall). Conversely, people at the Evolution festival and Green Day concert in Manchester were most likely to state that the music was too quiet (34% and 23% respectively, compared to 16% overall). Those who attended Pink at Hampden Park were most likely to feel the volume level was ‘just right’ (88% compared to 78% overall).

M usic volum e – by concert

Q5 Overall, do you think the music volume at this event is. . .?

Too quiet Just right Too loud Don’t know Total 16% 78% 6% 1% 733% Evolution, Newcastle 34% 66% Green Day, Manchester 23% 73% 3% 1% Motown, Kenwood House 21% 76% 2%1% Green Day, Wembley Stadium 18% 78% 3% 1% Proms, Swansea 17% 77% 4% 4% Help for Heroes, Twickenham 14% 79% 6% Pride, Brighton 10% 79% 9% 1% Kiss, Wembley Arena 9% 77% 12% 2% Pink, Hampden Park 7% 88% 5% Pink, Coventry4% 79% 14% 3% Base: 989 attendees at all events, May-September 2010, for individual event base sizes please see table at start of report.

There are also differences in some demographic subgroups which may go some way to explaining the differences between the concerts:

° At all concerts, other than Evolution, men were more likely to think the volume was too quiet, with more than one in five (21%) stating this, compared to 11% of women (62% of people at Green Day in Manchester were male).

° Younger attendees (those aged 16-24) were also more likely to think the volume was too quiet, 25% compared to 12% of older age groups (65% of people at Evolution were aged 16-24), while those aged 35-54 were more likely to say it was just right (82%).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, those who said they were positioned at the back of the venue were more likely to think the volume was too quiet (20% compared to 16% overall). Those who said they were in the middle of the venue were more likely to think the volume was ‘just right’ (81% compared to 78% overall). However, there was no further correlation between those who said it was too loud and those who said they were at the front.

Views towards music volume compared to recorded levels

The Music Noise Level at the mixing desk in each event is presented, alongside the responses to question 5, in the chart below. The LAeq data are taken from average levels recorded during the main hours of the performance. Note that data was not available for two events.

M usic volum e – by concert

Q5 Overall, do you think the music volume at this event is. . .?

Too quiet Just right Too loud Don’t know dB Total 16% 78% 6% 1% LAeq 733% Evolution, Newcastle 34% 66% 88 Green Day, Manchester 23% 73% 3%1% 100 Motown, Kenwood House 21% 76% 2%1% 88 Green Day, Wembley Stadium 18% 78% 3%1% 102 Proms, Swansea 17% 77% 4% 4% - Help for Heroes, Twickenham 14% 79% 6% 88 Pride, Brighton 10% 79% 9% 1% 96 Kiss, Wembley Arena 9% 77% 12% 2% 104 Pink, Hampden Park 7% 88% 5% - Pink, Coventry4% 79% 14% 3% 97

Base: 989 attendees at all events, May-September 2010, for individual event base sizes please see table at start of report.

Sound Quality

Overall, the vast majority of attendees were happy with the volume and bass of the music, as well as the ability to hear it over the crowd, with around nine in ten rating them as fairly or very good (90%, 86% and 91% respectively).

However, while views were predominantly favourable about the music and its attributes, people were more critical about the ability to hear the words and to hold a conversation while the music is playing (rated as poor by 19% and 25% respectively).

Sound quality ratings

Q6 Overall, how would you rate the following aspects of sound quality at this event?

Good Poor

Ability to hear music over 91% 6% crowd

Volume level 90% 8%

Bass level 86% 11%

Ability to hear words 77% 19%

Ability to hold conversation 25% whilst event underway 69%

Base: 989 attendees at all events, May-September 2010

However, while the majority were satisfied with these sound qualities, certain subgroups were more likely to be dissatisfied. For instance, those who work/study in a related industry were more likely than those not working in a related industry to rate all aspects, except the volume level and their ability to hold conversations, as poor (see chart overleaf).

Sound quality ratings – by those working in industry Q6 Overall, how would you rate the following aspects of sound quality at this event? Good – working Poor – working Good – not in Poor – not in in industry in industry industry industry Ability to hear music over 84% 13% crowd 93% 5%

88% 10% Volume level 91% 8%

77% 19% Bass level 87% 10%

Ability to hear words 64% 34% 79% 18% Ability to hold conversation 69% 25% whilst event underway 63% 30%

Base: 989 attendees at all events, May-September 2010, 83 working in a related industry

People who are deaf, deafened or hard of hearing were more likely to rate the volume level as poor (21% compared to 8% of people without a hearing impairment). There are also indications that people with a hearing impairment were also more dissatisfied with the ease with which they can hear the words; 28% rated it as poor, compared to 19% without an impairment (although it should be noted that the low base size - 47 - means we cannot say that this is a statistically significant difference).

Those who said that high volume of the music is fairly or very important to their overall enjoyment of the event were no more or less likely to be favourable of the volume level than those for whom it is not important (91% and 88% respectively).

Satisfaction with the sound quality was generally higher among people who said they normally listened to the type of music being played at the event they were attending:

° 92% of those who normally listened to the type of music played felt the volume level was good, compared to 72% of those who did not normally listen to that kind of music;

° 88% were satisfied with the bass level, compared to 73%;

° Ratings were also higher for the ability to hear the words (81% compared to 53%); and

° More considered their ability to hear the music over the crowd as very or fairly good (92% compared to 85%).

As might be expected, given that they were most likely to say the volume level was just right (88% did so), those who were at Pink in Hampden Park were more likely than average to think the volume level was good, with 96% stating this, compared to 90% overall. Attendees at Evolution, on the other hand, were more likely to say the volume level was poor, with around one in seven (14%) saying this, compared to 8% overall. Again, this is in line with the findings to question 5, at which Evolution attendees were most likely to say the music was too quiet. Whilst the comment ‘poor’ was not further defined in question 6 (i.e. it could refer either to being too loud or too quiet), reference to question 5 clearly indicates that, at Evolution, the 14% stating ‘poor’ is in relation to a low music level.

Volum e level rating – by event

Q6 Overall, how would you rate the following aspects of sound quality at this event? Volume level Good Poor Total 90% 8%

Pink, Hampden Park 96% 4% Green Day, Wembley Stadium 94% 4% Pink, Coventry 94% 4% Help for Heroes, Twickenham 92% 8% Green Day, Manchester 92% 5% Kiss, Wembley Arena 88% 10% Proms, Swansea 86% 11% Pride, Brighton 85% 12% Motown, Kenwood House 85% 13% Evolution, Newcastle 85% 14%

Base: 989 attendees at all events, May-September 2010, for individual event base sizes please see table at start of report.

There appears to be a relationship between regularity with which people attend music events and their views towards the sound level; the likelihood of saying the sound level is too quiet increases with recent attendance of music events (9% among those who haven’t been to an indoor concert in the last 12 months, 15% among those who have been to between one and four, and 26% of those who have been to five or more).

In line with their higher ratings for volume level, attendees at Pink in Hampden Park were also more likely to think the bass level was good (95% compared to 86% overall). Those

who attended Pride in Brighton were significantly more likely than average to rate the bass level as poor with almost one in five (18%) stating this, compared to 11% overall.

Bass level rating – by event

Q6 Overall, how would you rate the following aspects of sound quality at this event? Bass level Good Poor Total 86% 11%

Pink, Hampden Park 95% 5% Green Day, Manchester 91% 7% Pink, Coventry 89% 8% Green Day, Wembley Stadium 87% 11% Help for Heroes, Twickenham 84% 14% Motown, Kenwood House 84% 13% Kiss, Wembley Arena 84% 12% Evolution, Newcastle 83% 15% Proms, Swansea 78% 8% Pride, Brighton 78% 18%

Base: 989 attendees at all events, May-September 2010, for individual event base sizes please see table at start of report.

Just under eight in ten (77%) rated their ability to hear the words as fairly or very good, while nearly one in five (19%) said it was poor. Those who attended Pink at Hampden Park, Motown at Kenwood House and Green Day in Manchester were more likely to rate their ability to hear the words as good (93%, 93% and 86% compared to 77% overall). Attendees at Evolution in Newcastle and Pride in Brighton, on the other hand, were more likely to rate this as poor (36% and 38% respectively, compared to 19% overall).

Ability to hear words – by event

Q6 Overall, how would you rate the following aspects of sound quality at this event? Ability to hear the words Good Poor Total 77% 19%

Pink, Hampden Park 93% 7% Motown, Kenwood House 93% 5% Green Day, Manchester 86% 10% Help for Heroes, Twickenham 81% 15% Proms, Swansea 75% 19% Pink, Coventry 75% 19% Green Day, Wembley Stadium 74% 25% Kiss, Wembley Arena 73% 25% Evolution, Newcastle 63% 36% Pride, Brighton 54% 38%

Base: 989 attendees at all events, May-September 2010, for individual event base sizes please see table at start of report.

People aged 55 or over were more likely to rate this as poor (31% compared to 19% overall).

Nine in ten (91%) attendees rated their ability to hear the music over the crowd as good, while around one in twenty (6%) felt this was poor. Those who attended Evolution in Newcastle were significantly more likely to rate their ability to hear the music over the crowd as poor (17% compared to 6% overall). This may be due to the lower music levels at this event.

Ability to hear m usic over crowd – by event

Q6 Overall, how would you rate the following aspects of sound quality at this event? Ability to hear the music over the crowd Good Poor Total 91% 6%

Pink, Hampden Park 96% 4% Kiss, Wembley Arena 96% 1% Green Day, Manchester 94% 3% Motown, Kenwood House 94% 2% Green Day, Wembley Stadium 93% 5% Pink, Coventry 92% 3% Help for Heroes, Twickenham 91% 8% Proms, Swansea 89% 5% Pride, Brighton 86% 9% Evolution, Newcastle 81% 17%

Base: 989 attendees at all events, May-September 2010, for individual event base sizes please see table at start of report.

Overall, around seven in ten (69%) rated their ability to hold conversations whilst the event was underway as good. Conversely, a quarter (25%) of all attendees rated this as poor. Attendees at Motown at Kenwood House, Proms in Swansea and Green Day in Manchester were more likely to rate this aspect as good (90%, 87% and 87% respectively compared to 69% overall). Those at Pride in Brighton, Pink in Coventry and Kiss at Wembley Arena were significantly more likely to rate this aspect as bad (37%, 38% and 49% respectively).

Ability to hold conversation – by event

Q6 Overall, how would you rate the following aspects of sound quality at this event? Ability to hold a conversation whilst the event is underway Good Poor Total 69% 25%

Motown, Kenwood House 90% 1% Proms, Swansea 87% 7% Green Day, Manchester 87% 9% Evolution, Newcastle 74% 22% Help for Heroes, Twickenham 70% 26% Pink, Hampden Park 68% 32% Green Day, Wembley Stadium 63% 32% Pride, Brighton 56% 37% Pink, Coventry 49% 38% Kiss, Wembley Arena 45% 49%

Base: 989 attendees at all events, May-September 2010, for individual event base sizes please see table at start of report.

Sound quality – Importance versus Rating

When comparing how highly attendees rate different aspects of sound quality with how important they consider them to be, they are broadly in line suggesting that attendees were, predominantly, satisfied with most areas of sound quality at the events surveyed. However, there are two aspects where this is not the case.

° Being able to hear the words was considered important by over nine in ten (94%) but only three quarters (77%) rated it as very or fairly good.

° In contrast, the ability to hold a conversation was rated far higher than how important it was deemed to be; around seven in ten (69%) rated their ability to hold a conversation as good but only two in five (40%) felt this was an important aspect of sound quality.

Im portance vs. rating on sound aspects

Q7 Thinking about when you go to music events such as this one, how important, if at all, are the following to your overall enjoyment of the music event? Q6 Overall, how would you rate the following aspects of sound quality at this event? Fairly important/Very important Fairly good/Very good Hearing the music over the 95% crowd 91% 94% Hearing the words 77% High volume level of the 87% music 90%

Level of bass in the music 82% 86% Being able to hold a conversation 40% whilst the event is underway 69% Base: 989 attendees at all events, May-September 2010

While this may suggest that a proportion of concert attendees were dissatisfied with how easy it was to hear the words, it is worth exploring whether this differs from event to event. As indicated in the chart below, while the majority at all concerts, with the exception of Pride, said that hearing the words is important, there is considerable variation in terms of the rating at each concert.

If we look at the net scores for the importance of hearing the words compared with how highly it is rated, the latter is lower at every event other than Motown. The most significant gaps between them are at Evolution, Kiss and Pink (Coventry); this quality was rated highly by attendees at all three events but net ratings are far lower.

Im portance vs. rating – hearing the words

Pink, Net rating (%) Hampden Motown park 85

Green Day, 75 Manchester Help for Heroes 65 Pink, 55 Proms Coventry

45 Green Day, Kiss Wembley

25 Evolution Pride

15 50 60 70 80 90 100 Net importance (%)

Base: 989 attendees at all events, May-September 2010, for individual event base sizes please see table at start of report.

As illustrated by the chart overleaf, views towards high volume of the music were more diverse, however. The only events where the rating of the volume was below importance are at Evolution and Help for Heroes, although the gap is marginal in both cases. Considering these results in parallel with the question on suitability of the music volume (Q5), it would suggest that attendees of these events were, in large part, and with the exception of Evolution and a minority at other events, content with the volume of the music.

Im portance vs. rating – high volum e

Net rating (%) Pink, Hampden park

90 Green Day, Manchester Green Day, Pink, Wembley Coventry

Help for Heroes

80 Kiss

Proms Pride Motown Evolution 70 50 60 70 80 90 Net importance (%)

Base: 989 attendees at all events, May-September 2010, for individual event base sizes please see table at start of report.