Irrespective of whether I happen to agree with you on every issue, I am hoping to be able to welcome you here as a member soon Elizabeth.
The point I have been trying to make - if perhaps not very articulately - is that many new songwriters are more likely to damage a landlord's trade than they are to enhance it. In most places, if you stick up a poster of two unknown singers, which says they sing John Denver and Simon and Garfunkel songs, the likelihood is that they will outdraw a new singer/songwriter every time. Before that new singer songwriter has enough "pull" to draw people in, he or she is more likely to be a liability to the landlord than an asset. Why should the landlord take that risk?
The PRS want it both ways. On the one hand they openly admit that certain people operate on too small a level to be be of any interest to them. Otherwise, anyone, who wrote a song would be eligible for membership. However, the landlord is still obliged to pay songwriting dues on that gig. Why is that? Unless an act has enough pull to attract substantially more custom than a landlord usually has, it is thoroughly unjust to charge him more, for something, which is not an asset. It is even more unjust when there is no prospect whatsoever that any of that money will reach the songwriters, who can not even achieve membership of the PRS.
I was getting played on internet radio last year, until US publishers deliberately forced a huge hike in royalties, which closed down many stations. The aspect of it, which puts my back up the most, is that they were pretending to do it for my own good! GEMA, PRS licences etc do me no favours at all. They threaten the gigs I enjoy doing. The only advantage to me of GEMA membership is that my records can legally be played on the radio. Mind you, I have to pay for it of course!