Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Crazy, depressing and uplifting all at once.
About that bloke* having a bit of a cry because no-one bought his t-shirts but once again I don't feel guilty about not subsidising someone's hobby.
Not bog myself down in more of them.
aye it was
kept evaporating every time I read that name.
Guy comes across as pretty unlikeble really. I've seen another interview with him in which he refers to himself as an entrepreneur, which clearly he's not given the fact that he couldn't even organise a break even tour when he's selling out venues. (also looks like they double counted costs for food, as either this is covered under 'per diem' or covered as 'food'- something in his model does not stack up.)
Oh I've just googled him, waaaah he is the teenage boy voice in Sims.
He points out that they could indeed have made break even but figured that big live shows to keep venues, promoters and audience interested were worth the expense and worth absorbing as debt. They intentionally went over budget, so it'll be interesting to see what happens long term with 'em.
but it makes him the opposite of an entrepreneur, which was the point I was challenging.
That sounds silly if he's saying shit like that. But on the other hand tons of young businesses gamble by spending money off their own backs in the hope that the gains will dig them back out long term. From what I can see on that tour - with extra musicians being paid in particular when it wasn't strictly needed - it feels like they're working that way around.
And I guess loads of businesses won't hope to break even for several years either, so it's no different here, except perhaps they have a little too much faith in the crowds not moving on before they become more profitable
Semantics and cynicism. Jolly jolly
a personal financial risk in the hope of a reward. It isn't necessarily someone who makes that risk pay off every single time.
a personal calculated risk. Not a momentously stupid one.
what happened to that band that went on Dragon's Den?
Absolutely nothing, they released an album in 2011 which sunk without trace.
as being made fun of on nmtb.
if it increases the returns further down the line.
You're taking one element of their income/expenditure (this live tour) and assumed that it isn't being counted as 'investment' or something.
Obviously, in an ideal world, every element of a business or a band's career would be self-funding, but it's not an ideal world.
The article is him just highlighting that even playing to decent crowds on a 25-date tour doesn't make you pots of money, and that if you want to make a career of it you have to either work damn hard or be damn lucky, but at the end if all that, he, and they, still love what they do and would do it again.
$50,000 per person for a month's tour isn't bad going...
I just really have taken agin this guy for whatever reason, ok? :D)
He sounded like he worked in marketing.
has also made me bring up my breakfast.
I need to remember what dis is like
I have no experience of touring in a band.
Just thought that they're a pretty different 'business model' to most bands as (as Jimmy notes below) they're taking bigger risks but without asking for pity or anything else. Investing in bigger shows earlier and basically working like a lot of the startups you see in cities. A lot of bands don't do that. I have no idea if they'll end up broke or rich but it'll be pretty weird to watch.
are they not just estimating the biggest venue they can sell-out given their current "popularity" and booking the most appropriate place?
which is what pretty much all bands starting out do
i skim read that article btw so apologies if this is covered in it near the end...
They have previously toured as a duo, but dropped a lot of money (which took them over the breakeven) to put on a bigger show by hiring extra musicians.
Rope some musical mates you've made through your life of playing. Everyone I know into this could rope in at LEAST 3 people on their respective instruments if they wanted. Paying for a band is so cringeworthy.
tour for a month, for free?
S_A_D being angry at people being fairly paid. It's like we're in opposite land
I'm not angry?! Its a comment on the inorganic nature of the band you twonk.
I meant you'd pay your mates to play, not pay for some soulless session musicians to join you like a boyband.
where does it say they weren't also friends? Do you have visions of them dialling up a session musician agency on a giant 80s mobile phone?
All playing slap bass with massive ponytails.
The small dfifference is I've got mates who'd want to hang around and be in a band with me whereas you two wouln't. Glad we came to a satisfying conclusion.
so he definitely should not have been paid for his services.
Im saying they shouldnt have to outsource for musicians like friendless weirdos
The guitarist however does work as a professional backing musician, playing for Frankie Valli and the Steve Miller Band (amongst others).
He'll have to go, we can't have people in bands who actually do music as a proper day job.
Is living in London getting to you bud?
Musician does a job, and they get a decent paycheck for it. What's wrong with that?
and I haven't got time to list what everything is right now
are different, and thats cool.
was in a band that made no money, therefore no other bands should be able to as a result, and anyone who has an ambition of making a living from it is not 4REAL.
I *quit* the band because it was making no money, and when you don't have mummy and daddy behind you bailing you out, its not sustainable. Like the MSP reference though, nice one.
because you're a massive prat
before you have a massive cry :)
but personally I'd be wayyyyy too risk averse. Careers can end in the flash, so I'd personally would want to break even, especially on that income.
but at the end of the day they chose to make a loss, or indeed knew with some confidence that they'd make that money back elsewhere so it was all part of the greater good (for them).
So a bit pointless then.
If you do that then in reality you've budgeted to make a loss.
Also, presented without comment: "Eeleasing two, fully produced music videos per month is way more than a full time job".
That "E-eleasing" was some horrible internet-age term.
But dat name
With their YouTube vids though. Also they're not going to be a big successful band but they don't realise :(
which is the usual irritant in these things. Why's everyone angry with him? Apart from the name of course
of the teenage boy in sims (I don't know what sims in).
Not even the band name...
"Releasing two, fully produced music videos per month is way more than a full time job."
I keep dipping back into this article and still find this man really irksome.
having read the article, tbh.
I'd question whether they, and not the venues/promoters, should be picking up the tab for backlines and lighting, and whether paying for hotels in every city is a good idea, but on the positive side, they pay their band and technicians a really decent wage.
sure, they could easily use the house lighting rigs each night, but there'd be a fuckload more work to do for their techs each day reprogramming the show and it'd end up being an inconsistent experience from night to night at best - at worst they could busk it, but that'd be a fairly poor experience.
Which is what, the size of the Scala? and they probably played in 500cap venues maximum for the rest of the tour, it's pretty typical, in the UK at least, to use a venue's lighting and backline. A tour booker would be able to ensure, using the tech specs of the venues and the tech specs of the band, that it would be fine.
But anyway, that's just quibbling - I think it's a decent article and nothing seems outrageous in what they've budgeted for.
I just think it's not unreasonable to decide to tour with (for example) An Avolites Pearl, and a few spots/washes or some pixel-lines or something and use the house truss as-is alongside it, particularly when the aim of the tour appears to have been to do things 'right' for the fans/contractors rather than to deliberately keep costs low. The console alone could easily have been around $1.5-2k for a month.
Either way, I think we're probably agreed that it's fat that they would likely be able to trim if they were wanting to break even.
You've been watching too many rom-coms.
Usually around now I'd go full xylomoker BUT Christmas is coming you grumpy old beanpole. Let's sing around a tree.
on the Ben Folds / Nick Hornby album.
pretty well written, and not annoying. (except that name, yeah)
Has anyone heard their music? I reckon it's some horrific knees-up earnest song-wrting Courteneers/Mumfords thing. I would like to be wrong.
What I noticed - they pay themselves more a month than I get paid.
Suppose it is a fine line between paying money to themselves and investing it in the band, but not that fine. They don't need a manager as much as they need a financial advisor. They seem to be on top of organising things, they just need more money skills.
good luck to them, well done.
Would be something like the Mouldy Peaches. Quirky duo sad music? Looks it.
from any of those pictures. hard to crowd-surf to Lucky Charms or I Forgot. Little Bunny Foo Foo or NYC is Liek a Graveyard on the other hand....
Mountain Goats etc
I agree then, maybe.
playing as a full band was the correct thing to do. I think tours and radio works totally differently in the US, it's such a massive place. Word of mouth in the wake of their shows probably increased ticket sales as they went along. well worth the extra effort and expense of taking the full band.
but they're a two piece that paid themselves just shy of $100,000 (or $50,000 each) for a month's tour?
Could easily know they're losses off that, break even, and still make a lot of money for a month's work - and doing something 'fun' to boot.
but yeah, their personal expenses and 'comfort costs' are much too high.
if your first paragraph is anything to go by.
Shit, i've been rumbled.
here's one from a few years ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWNLE4sklfI
they are husband and wife i believe who've been doing covers and original compositions using various types of instruments for a number of years. I'm glad to see they've expanded.
and stop fucking moaning. They spend $17,589 on hotels and food, cut that right back, make savings elsewhere and they would have made a profit. Four hotel rooms a night, two in each! Basic stuff here dickheads.
Although they should be commended for paying their musicians and crew well, obv. But yeah - it's kind of weird, even removing their excesses, how much a touring band needs to foot without a label backing them.
(albeit in a self-aggrandising, smug way)
stop being deliberately dense
i don't know who he is. I thought he might have been an app entrepreneur but googled and he looks like another musician.
I find it impossibly hard to tell.
how much tours cost and how much bands earn from tours.
Don't really think he presented the argument from the pov of a `business savvy man from the hard world of business` so it's no surprise his post doesn't stack up when analysed as such. Just another insight into the mechanisms/finances of touring. Which I find fascinating personally.
Based on his breakdown of costings, I reckon there's some cost savings to be had. Possibly not $11k's worth but a few savings plus a few extra ticket sales = breaking even, which if salaries are taken into account that's all they really need to do...
Fuck being in a band these days.
reduce the salaries by £11k and you have broken even. Tour was a month, so once you have taken that off, divided by six, every walks away with about £3,600 for the month.
But I guess they would like to spread that figure over more than the individual month, as they wont be touring the next one.
Prepping/rehearsals beforehand could quite easily take several weeks too - don't forget that it's usually just the two of them, so the other six won't have performed or practiced with them before.
they should be able to turn up on the day and play, they shouldn't need weeks of rehearsals*
*presuming they've been provided with the appropriate material beforehand
But would they have been able to recruit the same quality of backing musicians if they'd paid them less?
You said that rehearsals could easily have taken several weeks, whilst the article refers to a mere week of rehearsals.
You'd do your rehearsals in the final week.
And again, as aboynamedgoo asks, would they have been able to recruit the same quality of musicians if they'd paid them less?
Maybe, maybe not.
This is like when you wade in to the cycling threads.
You'd know this if you'd read the article. But you haven't.
Feel free to apologise when you're ready.
for what is essentially a two person act. Kudos to them for wanting to put on a good show, but that download revenue will soon dry up, so really they need to be looking at their live revenue, YouTube income and brand endorsements to sustain them over the next few years.
Could've crowdfunded the whole thing, really. They're the perfect act to go down that route.
and get a JOb job.
Cushy careers as agency creatives beckon.
That doesn't preclude them from separately crowdfunding a tour through Kickstarter or Indiegogo.
plus the rewards would surely be tickets or merch which their fans will be buying as part of the tour anyway?
Crowdfunding would simply mean the fans pay upfront, guaranteeing a defined budget with which to perform the tour without losing money. Of course, that assumes that they're able to forecast correctly, and if they're not able to do that then they really should be paying a manager or tour production company to do it for them.
Can't see how it could be seen as greedy. Either fans want to see them play live and are willing to pay the money, or they don't and they won't bother.
and made the decision to make the tour more expensive that it needed to be as an investment in future success.
but that's clearly foolhardiness. A tour that breaks even is always going to be preferable to a tour that loses money. They could have put on the same shows to the same number of people and at least broken even with a bit more forethought and business acumen applied to the situation.
'forethought and business acumen'.
If businesses only ever chose breaking even over using more funds than the profits they're making at the time to take risks, they'd never make significant long-term gains.
should make significant long-term gains from their "music".
All I'm pointing out is that as a self-proclaimed DIY, indie band they could've run the same tour, having the same intended impact on their fans, and not made a loss if they'd been a bit smarter about how they ran it.
fuck off mate
the name is pretty terrible, to be fair. unless they were a ska band and it would be fine.
pieces_of_reece has posted that fucking dreadful Single Ladies cover they did ages ago. YouTube overly-clever awfulness. WHY ARE YOU GIVING THESE GUYS THE OXYGEN OF PUBLICITY, XYLO?
so you've saved yourself on suit hire costs.
for xylopwn's chest beating, silly dance down the aisle.
genuinely can't believe this is the first time loads of people have come across these shitheads
they're the most cynical people in music. their whole career is built off doing bizarrely emotionless covers of songs by black musicians repackaged to be viewed on youtube by anthropologie customers and mormon lifestyle bloggers. this is what crowdfunded music sounds like. the guy even fucking founded patreon! that they've lost money on this is pretty hilarious.
Just to check.
but then you know this
this isn't a band that happens to have a business plan, this is a business plan that happens to be a band.
what they're doing isn't something other bands can hope to emulate. everything they do is designed and tailored to make them succeed as a business. previously they've done national TV adverts in the US (i think for Toyota?) based off the back of youtube views. i mean they aren't exactly your everyday band trying to make ends meet. that they've seemingly hit a wall financially when they've tried to actually operate like a 'normal' band is almost refreshing.
that's probably, in the entire thread, the first bit of backed-up criticism, and fairly so too.
Although I guess it's going to be more and more prevalent as youtube 'makes' bands in the early stage before touring does, which is going to get weird.
What's the deal with patreon? I thought it was just like KS? Googled for criticism but coming up with nothing.
I back Cara Ellison's games journalism one on it. So rather than you just giving them a lump sum, you pay based on content at a maximum per month.
Obviously I don't really know the full Patreon background in terms of how it works.
well that's not a bad idea? i mean i get that there'll be lots of people who don't 'deserve' to be funded using it but... them's the breaks.
He founded something you're using with positive effect Theo? I don't understand why you're in oddly full hatred of him, then. Want to explain without using capslock or is that a lot to ask?
doesn't mean I complain if you use one to stop someone slaughtering children or something. (Deliberately Godwin-esque example.)
In truth, I had no idea he started Patreon. My objection to them was based pretty much entirely on what ideserve is saying, though. I don't think Patreon is really important to it unless, by having set it up, the guy is also getting a cut from every Patreon account. Which would somewhat call into question the whole, "Man we lost $11,000 but because we're an 'Indie band' we're fucking cool and we just accept that, yeah?"
Their videos are awful and all appear to be covers. I think even if you like that stuff, it can be weird for people to decide to crossover into the world of 'being a proper band'. Remember when that RatherGood guy graduated from funny shit on his website to putting together a full-on awful band and playing gigs?
It's not a deal breaker. They're terrible.
awesome. Think we're done here.
I agree with ideserve2's comments, as I stated. The fact that they had a number of covers is
As for covers, here is where I looked:
All about that super Bass
Video killed the radio star
Somewhere over the rainbow
Wake Me Up before you Go Go
Putting on the Ritz
I Feel Good
Pharell 'mashup' (fucking hell, is it 1999 already?)
Gotye/Call me Maybe 'mashup' (WHAT THE FUCKING HELL??)
There are other songs I may not know are covers. There are also some other weird non-song videos. In a grid of 30. And you wonder why I accused them of doing loads of covers.
Anyway, my point is that they're shit and I don't like them and I really don't care much about the money they lost if, in fact, they have other income streams that mean they didn't really lose money because they still got all the publicity the tour and this fucking piece of shit thread is giving them eh?
this is i think the massive blindspot you and a lot of people are having. The article wasn't posted to ask you to care about their loss their made, or indeed their band at all. It was someone discussing the mechanics of emerging acts from a personal perspective. Maybe they shouldn't do that lest they offend the bellends screaming about it on this thread, but I reckon it's okay.
Well it's interesting. They're making $2500 dollars each a month without bothering to tour, based on their videos and music sales.
I don't know if that's emerging or not. They are putting a lot of time into the videos to make the money but it's a different business model. This was a large tour from the sounds of it and expensively put together.
"We could have played a duo show instead of hiring six people to tour with us. That would have saved us over $50,000, but it was important at this stage in Pomplamoose’s career to put on a wild and crazy rock show. We wanted to be invited back to every venue, and we wanted our fans to bring their friends next time. The loss was an investment in future tours."
You see, that's where we note the entirety of this tour and its costing was a deliberate choice, one a 'normal' emerging band who didn't already have the time and money to be earning off their videos via Patreon wouldn't really be doing.
I'm not dismissing it as pointless. It's an interesting costing of things but the mere fact they can afford to both write off $12,000 and also put $21,000 on credit cards to fund it probably makes this a different prospect to the usual arts scene.
but this is going to be more and more of a trend, and is it wrong for bands to see youtube as the first and foremost place to start obtaining funding when the alternatives are low-yield and almost inevitably lead to break up without label backing?
That interests me as much as everything else, tbh. Maybe the music they make is vile and abhorrent and artless, but a lot of people like it, and buy tickets for it, so they're doing something right and I do think that right now any idea is better than no ideas when it comes to bands trying to figure out how to stay afloat.
They're doing something right? What is this? Do you say the same thing about the likes of 50 Shades of Grey and deeply average Kindle-only authors who make massive amounts of money of those books? I dunno, maybe you do.
Personally I think art is never served by the attitude that anyone making money off art is a plus even if the art they're doing is fundamentally shallow and uninteresting.
that just because I don't see art as being valid, it can bring a lot of happiness to a lot of people.
I don't think 50 shades is worth anything, but my dad said the same about rock music. People can like what they like and art isn't defined by you.
Which is why it's fine for me to say this is shit and I don't really think it's worth any particular interest in the world of music that I worry about not being funded.
I only question your appraisal because you seem to be taking that most awful of lines, "Yeah, I don't really care for it but I defend to the death your right to make art I don't really care for because of some vague principle I can't really pin down".
congrats on out-doing my gun analogy with a "specific view on a particular book" analogue to "old-person's world view on a whole form of art". :D
I'm tired of you whining on about pacman video games and spacehoppers and all the other mod cons.
unsigned bands managing to get x hundred thousand views of their videos are still going to remain the minority. From a business perspective, they've certainly found something that works for them - probably (I haven't seen any) because they're fairly slick videos, they're doing covers of well known songs (search for Pharell and this comes up) and there's presumably something niche about this lot.
Youtube's already full of tens of thousands of people pissing in the wind with their own material and poorly recorded covers that hardly anyone's ever going to find.
I mean in the videos she is totally the personification of a certain sort of Indie dream girl, I guess. I'm choosing my words carefully here because it's impossible to really know if that's remotely artful or not. Either she is totally aware of how she approaches the camera for the vids (marketing) or she naturally has a certain something that is magnetic (lucky). Again, tonnes of men and women out there whose fame is built on having some kind of special extra appeal so you can't really knock it.
is entirely justified and needs no further backing up.
it's just a thing that mid-level, entitled youtubers use to get their audience to 'pledge fund' their videos when they're already profiting from partnership/ad money or sponsorship deals. the whole thing is really smug.
genuinely thought it was just standard crowdfunding for twee comic book artists etc like KS and the rest of them.
Although not sure i condemn a platform based on the users of it, 's tricky.
Especially given that the strongest defenders and most effective users of Patreon seem to be people denied a platform by the white, male media.
Perhaps I'm just not that familiar with how youtubers use it, but from my exposure to it, it seems like it's been one of the best ways of funding feminist journalism and discussion, especially from groups not usually represented in the media.
I think it's a tool that can be used by anyone and therefore doesn't necessarily mean it's just awful.
But the point about people asking you to fund videos which then have ads stuffed all over them is a fair one. Apart from obviously the question of whether these are actually videos that needed funding. I would hope they do (e.g. stuff like Anita Sarkeesian's but I think that was KS) but if it's just making music vids like Pamplemoose do then, erm, fuck off do you need funding.
Seriously though, see my response to royter below. If bands need to be in/be sponsored by adverts to make money, that's because they ain't funded by mummy and daddy and need the cash from somewhere (record sales are fucked, live sales for small bands aren't ace).
So you're essentially championing only rich kids being in bands. Well done, chump.
You don't think they reek of middle-classness? You don't think they got their whole studio and music video setup from being well off?
The whole mummy and daddy thing isn't the end of the argument. Guys like me in well-paid IT jobs doing bands in their spare time aren't really any different in terms of helping to maintain a system that keeps the poorer parts of society out of music.
All they've achieved is on the back of massive privilege of one sort or another, I'd say.
one has given back their assumed privilege and middle-class-reeking by setting up a platform for creatives to achieve funding. The other one hasn't.
I know who I'm going to side with I reckon.
the guy has posted saying "yeah, we made a loss, but on balance it was worth it, and we're doing ok, just wanted to let you know about what stuff costs"
people in this thread: WANKERS. THEY MAKE MUSIC I DON'T APPROVE OF. HOW DARE THEY SPEAK WORDS. THEY LOST MONEY AND I WANT THEM TO MOAN BUT THEY AREN'T, THEREFORE I WILL CHANGE REALITY IN MY MIND.
actually, you're not all acting like you've had a lobotomy. you're acting like lobotomies would be merciful. YOUR BRAIN: USE IT OR LOSE IT
the article was interesting, a bit kind of forced optimism in tone but i do admire that to a point.
congratulations, brusma and marckee are on your side :D
and I'm a better dresser than you.
Life is good.
brusma. is. right.
I've wandered into opposite land right now.
remember that Brusma has now stated he admires forced optimism.
Backlash to backlash to backlash to follow shortly.
and you should hate them. YOU MORE THAN MOST.
'haven't read the article' thing is really fucking boring can everyone stop with that
you should probably have gone gomer pyle by now but you're holding out and i respect that
so it's taking much longer to chip away. Royter deserves a shout-out for trying to nudge me over the edge with increasing levels of near-success though
the personal finances of a postman.
but i do this because i love it, and i genuinely love everyone who sends letters."
I love every ounce of your bodies. You’re the reason I get out of bed at silly o'clock every day."
get a proper job mate and quit whinging"
Could this band do that?
I think people who whine about bands selling out don't realise they're effectively supporting only rich kids with trust funds being in bands.
Tory as you like Roy
Your name is even an anagram of
The Tory Rafood
It's built on so many braindead misconceptions that I don't even know where to begin demolishing it.
i'd swear you were a little irked right now, even. You alright?
from going full Moker.
Nor does he usually come off looking like a tory, it's crazy!
You hanging in there Roy?
about bands' expectations and how to adapt to the death of the music industry, that isn't really furthered by Tories and know-it-alls.
and which one of us has been trying to derail the debate since their first post, lovely?
Fed up of bands desperately trying to replace the money they got from the music industry in 'the good old days' and the accompanying idiotic clamour that they neeeeeeed our (financial) support or else music will become the preserve of Russian oligarchs and Eton schoolboys. It's fucking nonsense.
Idiotically interpreted* debate, then. Well done.
I get that people being earnest drives you mad, but at the same time, I think you're adding in magical paragraphs to what you're reading, mainly to just back up your initial cynicism that you blindly charged in with. Good stuff.
but these people don't fall into that category. If anything, they've leveraged a lot of money out of businesses to replace any funding gap from record sales, which is pretty bright).
They don't fall into the category of people trying to replace music biz money because they've managed to replace music biz money? Fucking hell.
you do understand that Lenovo and Toyota aren't just the names of dudes crowdfunding from their bedroom right?
what's your actual point, by the way? Are you denying that the money made by bands has lessened significantly over the years across the board? Or are you suggesting that bands should not in any way try and make a career out of music by leveraging money from other sources? What the fuck are you talking about, basically?
is that you see bands as small business enterprises and I see them as... bands.
within the paradigm of capitalism because:
a) UK and US state funding is heading into a ditch - I wish the government supported it more but they don't.
b) capitalism isn't going away any time soon.
I massively support people in the arts, including bands, trying to make money by whatever means necessary, as the rest of us do, so that they can focus on being in a band.
On the other hand, I equally support people trying to make it while running a day job too, whether for fun, or because that's the way they want to do things and genuinely see it as the most economically viable route.
Basically I don't condemn either approach, but specifically on a board that supposedly covets indie music it's striking that one can have a problem with bands trying to work entirely without a label and taking risks that a lot of other people do every day without criticism.
These guys are an absolute crock of shit so the view that they should make money because theyre in 'the arts' just doesnt work. You CAN make money being in a band, you just have to be willing to make sacrifices. Its exactly the same principle as being in a job. You wouldn't expect to do some shitty admin job for an hour a day, on and off, be shit, and make a living. ANy cunt with a smiths record and book of poetry can be in a band, and thats why its so difficult.
there are people - actually loads - who enjoy their music. Not me, and not you. But if bands were sunk because of whether the DiS demographic likes them, this would be the worst world ever.
They're a bad band that make me feel ill when I see their overly contrived video hell and I don't think it's good when we're patting people on the back for making money by attempting to appeal to as wide an audience as possible.
you were the dude jumping in with XYLOWHYWAAAAH upthread, for starters.
I think you're projecting cynical overtones onto a band because you dislike that they have a mass appeal when you don't like their music, basically.
and STILL manage to lose money! The fucking mongs.
"you dislike that they have a mass appeal when you don't like their music"
That's you projecting. I don't dislike that they have mass appeal. Where have I said that? I simply dislike their music.
I dislike that you're implying they are important artistically when they have got mass appeal by aiming for it specifically. These are different concepts.
we've got more projectors than one of your slides-from-my-summer-holiday soirées.
The idea of what a band is has been entirely defined by the music business, and it's ridiculous that bands still try to fit this arbitrary model of what they *should* be. Instead of aiming to replicate someone else's career path and coming up with increasingly kooky twists and workarounds to do it, why not try and do something new? Release whatever music you want, whenever you want, for however much you want. Go on tour, don't go on tour, promote yourself, don't promote yourself, but whatever you do, do something NEW. Do something new just for the sake of doing something new.
The problem that always crops up these whingy 'price of being in a band' things is that the bands in question are always tired, derivative shitehawks, and nobody needs them.
As you say, 'whingy' isn't the right term.
Personally, I think their approach is having the effect of redefining what the music industry has defined as a 'band' and the career path and route to success of those falling within that definition, and as such is worth more than just a sneering dismissal, minimal engagement and attempts to derail the thread.
I don't really care about what their music sounds like, in the context of the article, but it just offers a perspective on the kinds of costs and risks that bands, many of which people would assume have 'made it', have to take on these days, if they're to continue to make their music and get people to listen to their music, whether it's through making videos, licensing tracks, touring or promoting.
Second one: I don't think the piece was even a little whingy. But then I'm pretty whingy so what do I know?
I agree with your frustrations in fact, and it's mildly surreal to be getting to the core of this now after as many posts as possible trying to get me to xylo out.
Needlessly defensive might be nearer the mark. The whole thing is basically look at us look at us, we're so hard-working and passionate, but we don't expect any praise! *awaits praise*.
It's needy at best.
article than the one here. I don't really get it.
The response I had to this one wasn't entirely positive, but for pretty much the opposite reason that you seem to. They're talking about sinking money into a band like it's a business, and treating it like a 9-5 job. There's little in there about passion: in fact they sound about as passionate about it as I probably do when talking about my job. You mentioned up there about them being tired and derisive shitehawks: sure, that's maybe true, but tired, derisive shitehawk bands do have this tendency to become popular.
What's interesting to me about the article is that you have this gimmicky, kinda-derisive band that is totally business focused and fairly well-managed and run, pays touring musicians well, etc - and they've become popular in the way that gimmicky, derisive bands so often do. But they've had to have a shitload of spare cash behind them to get there.
The other point you raised above that bands should probably be looking to do things differently is fair enough as well, but christ knows what that is right now.
so my argument is a horrible coagulation of thoughts from previous threads rather than exclusively about this article.
As for the whole passion thing, I think all the "we got to rock out with people we love for a full month" stuff covers that. I'd almost prefer some dead-eyed money-grabbers to that kind of guff.
exactly the interesting and depressing thing (that you've managed to articulate better than I understood it myself) - these people *are* the new dead-eyed moneygrabbers. They're selling sanitised quirk, and people just adore that shit. I'd blame Bestival and the fucking flaming lips for putting forward this idea that every gig should look like a play therapy session for grown-ups.
On the other side of it, that 'we do it because we love it' rhetoric is common everywhere now. It reminds me of the shit copy style you have on innocent smoothies and Brewdog bottles. In fact, worse: even the big multinationals now do it as well. Was it npower or e.on that ran that campaign about how much they CARE about providing you with energy?
None of this excuses them of course: I find it depressing that this kind of approach seems to be increasingly essential to become a mid-card success kind of band. With a lot of money behind them to boot. But interesting to me that despite achieving it using all the tricks in the book (and being the one in a thousand bands that do so), they're barely breaking even in terms of personal finances.
He's a Tory lol.
They could easily turn that round next tour.
I imagine seeing them live once is more than enough for most people.
they seem quite gimmicky. should have done the shit tour with no frills, made a shit load of money and gone on to dream up some other gimmick for next year.
but then you've got people like ok go who fill out medium sized venues consistently. 1) who is going to watch ok go 2) are people going to see ok go more than once and who are these people
i wonder if a gimmicky fun band is just a better proposition in general than your regular earnest band who stand there and play their nice songs nicely.
if they kipped on people's floors instead of 4 hotel rooms each night.
but today I'm going to pledge it to the band's new kickstarter so they can buy the faberge egg they need to make the upcoming video for their cover of 'Blurred Lines'
Take a band like Low, for example. They have been touring for 20 years or so; Alan and Mimi have children together; they have a fanbase and steady sales... I can't imagine they're rolling in money though. I'm just wondering how successful a band would have to earn a modest income (let's say £30K pa per band member).
well, historically anyway, because they were notable for producing their albums for absolute peanuts. Before Steve Albini came along I suppose. The ROI on some of their albums (Curtain Hits The Cast for instance) must be astonishing. I mean not White Stripes' Elephant levels of astonishing but still...
They seem to set up and pack down their own equipment and drive their own tour van. but I guess they probably need to shell out for childcare.
isn't this on the music board?
'We didn't have a weekend in 2014 off' WTF you play shitty cover versions for a LIVING you dicks. 'Oh everyone else is just hobby musicians' fuck offfffff they're trying just as hard as you they're just not treating the whole thing as a cynical financial exercise.
Mostly just angry about the bandname to be honest.
You know how thin-skinned he is.
Even with your fluffer ohgood on hand.
but there's been a late surge of bellendry and I haven't had lunch yet. Could go either way.
(I'm not trying to wind you up, just wondering why you're defending them)
I haven't listened to a single song, or seen the video. This article popped up on my facebook feed and I thought I'd share.
On the other hand, I do have an interest in the finances and economic machinations within the music industry, especially for emerging acts, and his point of view is a relatively new one, however in need of polishing up it might be. I also feel as though bands being scalded for trying to level peg with the rest of the marketing-heavy world they're trying to make art within should be left be a little more.
that they took out $11k on credit cards to pay themselves to be musicians, in effect?
but music is a sacred cow that needs protecting from mean people talking about money or idk.
They should just cut costs, write some good songs and join/help the DIY scene network that could help them out back with musicians and accomodation and food and stop obsessing over fame and (within reason) money
he set up Patreon, which is the definition of going over and above to help the DIY scene. And he isn't obsessing in that blog, he's literally just talking out loud about where they're at. The amount of bizarre bile being thrown at someone doing that is baffling.
Seems like an obscure form of s&m at this point
it's going well.
from their music. They already are doing fairly well.
to basically put on a bigger show (with fairly paid crew and musicians) with a long-term game of bigger gains in mind on the next tour. It's not exactly Enron - no one's being fucked over. People can and should talk about money in bands because it's at a pretty desperate point to do so.
which makes their model specific and unlikely to be of much use to the wider world, IMO.
and I'm still never going to listen to this band
We need someone from that band to sign up and post in this thread.
and they start responding to absurd opinions only espoused by people to irk their board rivals
just leave us in our pit and carry on about your business, outside observer
'well Timmy, I was a paramedic. When the Russians attacked I was able to use my skills to help the wounded on the front line, saving countless lives'
'and what about Mummy and my *real* Daddy?'
'... they were... entrepreneurs'
'what does on-tra-pra-noor mean?'
'well Timmy, an entrepreneur is someone who makes a living through buying and selling things'
'what did mummy and daddy sell?'
'Well, mummy and daddy sold music!'
'oh great, were they succesful?'
'they were... sort of succesful.'
'oh, they must have sacrificed money in the name of original art'
'... never google the french for grapefruit, timmy'
efficiency is getting better each time
Remember a while back there was an interview on here with the guy from The Crocketts / The Crimea? He was writing to be a nurse abroad, top lad.
He was chatting about the ROCK STAR LIFESTYLE, how he hadn't been on the tube for years, and that he had someone who cooked for him etc.
So where the fuck did they get their money? I would have thought he'd be the epitome of the struggling musician...
When he wrote his blog he mentioned having no money and going to sign on. They never seemed like a rich band in fact one of the reasons it took square moon so long to come out (like years after most of it had been demos) was cos they had no money to release it.
'Being paid to be a rock star, never worrying about money or food or nothing, basically.' - which I guess is about being on a major label.
And: 'Before I became a nurse, I’d never cooked for myself, or ironed my own clothes, or travelled on the tube, or paid a bill.' - which I think's more about looking after himself better and not about having every thing done for him. He talked about how his flatmate used to deal with the all the bills. I certainly saw him on buses around Camden during the Crimea wilderness years.
I took it to mean he was financially comfortable enough to have other people do that stuff for him. Which would have surprised me. Big love for the guy anyway. Cheers.
his flatmate for a while when he was studying (not the one implied above)
while obviously i can't comment on personal expenses, i can assure you our pad was not exactly luxurious. plus he travelled pretty much everywhere by skateboard
i didn't cook for him. i never cook for anyone cos i want all the food for myself
Maybe it wasn't flatmate I think I remember somewhere him saying Owen (Crimea drummer) dealt with bills etc. Anyway. If you see Davy tell him he's fucking awesome.
was living in a flat in Plaistow when he was in the band. This was about 9 years ago.
This either means a) he was skint so could only afford to live in Plaistow or b) he had loadsamoney because the band was coining it AND he was living in Plaistow.
Can't imagine that geezer made much of a living. Did tour with the Stereophonics once though so...
of everyone involved in the initial piece and everyone who's posted in this thread up until this point, then when i've finished we can round them all up and break their fingers.
irked me, basically.
their cover of single ladies is really weird. Everything sounds really dissonant and out of key, dunno what it is cos i dont know anything about music. Can't tell if they're just crap musicians or theyre trying to be arty
anyway, that thing about their music videos being 'more than a full time job' or whatever it was: THEY'RE JUST PLAYING THE SONGS. I was expecting some sort of ok-go type thing, not... a few clips of the recording process with the girl looking completely blank whilst singing, like a metaphysically empty manic-pixie-dream girl you can imbue with all your misogynistic desires
honestly, they must put in about 1/15th of the effort of any *actual* proper band in the world.
I've decided they're twats, which is a relief cos i really wasn't too keen on agreeing with brusma on anything.
bit awkward this. Everyone's gone. The thread kind of piqued a while back when a lot of people admitted they were being dickheads and ceded to the correct point of view. We don't really have any time left.
Sorry bud. I mean I can pretend to disagree or something but I'm going for a pint :(
Well there you go, that's something new I suppose.
read some of it.
I was ok with this piece until he started channelling Richard fucking Florida and talking about 'the creative class'.
And, worryingly, Royter's.
just for the bizarro.
I'm siding with markee, jonny_rat and a reformed brusma.
I'm comfortable with my decision TheBro
http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4456727#r8380940 because he's pointing out what we're all saying, which is that they're a uniquely different business model who put business before music and aren't really a template for other bands.
He's actually on my 'side' whatever that is.
That right now we do need alternatives to the current models out there. I think a lot of quite righteous and/or dim people assumed that people were massively in favour of the approach Conte mentioned upthread. In fact, I posted it because it was an honest analysis of an odd approach, and then gigantic swathes of projection began. No one was saying everything should be modelled on his ideas, I was just interested that he was debating it openly. We're not going to fix the way the industry runs without actually talking about it. Screaming derision and bizarre, running-in-blind aggression is the opposite of a good debate. Still, netted me a massive thread so
I can't be fucked. You've insulted me too much here.
I was responding to you urging someone to dismiss everything save a couple of posters' points of view. And okay, I was OTT just then. But largely sick of debate being forfeited in favour of people wading in shouting, basically.
you should have #SSP'd it
you basically called those who didn't agree with you "righteous and/or dim". even by my standards, that's pretty fucking dismissive. Stop calling Theo a righteous dimbo, ok?
Perhaps I was a BIT old-me OTT there. To be fair I kept calm for easily 250 posts before it got to me. Also I feel genuinely terrible for Theo baiting. I never thought it would work. It's undone all the royter-goading positives :(
Gotta respect that sort of effort, really.
Expected a dig at xylo when I saw you'd posted.
Everyone who interpreted it as such should take a good hard look at themselves.
there's no way I'd have managed to spin it out so gloriously though.
(I assume, haven't read the thread obviously)
Then diligently debated the points raised in response.
Forum mod in mocking forum user for displaying good forum etiquette shocker.
I'm gonna need a lie-down after making my way through that
is the anger generated in you by the band's name.
Shout out to Theo and s_h being the only two people in the thread to mention the girl's looks. Odd place to lie blame.
Anyway have a good day and hi to Fidel!
FUCK YOU if you think I'm laying blame at her looks.
FUCK YOU TOTALLY. FUCK OFF.
Read it again and then FUCK THE FUCK OFF.
I can only assume you're parodying yourself or s_h in this thread because you're the only two that used caps lock during the entire thing.
Women-in-music issues and anger issues. Hmm. Not exactly a massive shock.
Whatever man. If you think I'm blaming her looks you're being a moron. It's a fact that looks sell. If he looked like a member of One Direction then they'd do even better on the video front, but he doesn't particularly, so he's mostly seen playing instruments and there's lots of focus on her. The question was brought up as to how they're so successful and it's worth pointing out they're not ugly and they're not lacking in visual persona. Her ability in front of the camera is key part in how they've got where they are.
Relax. This is post-thread bants. You are the last person I would accuse of that.
They're sponsored by Toyota. If they were worthwhile human beings and their band was any good, Toyota wouldn't go anywhere near them.
Toyota are so cool with their music sponsorship, look, a Canadian website said so!
"Toyota is one of the top car brands sponsoring music, and their Scion brand has become synonymous with underground music in North America. The company is even moving into record label territory, sponsoring records, music videos and tours for acts like metal group the Melvins, DJ and producer Dâm-Funk, and the Singapore grindcore band Wormrot. If these don’t sound like the types of bands that a brand would typically stand behind, it’s because Scion is specifically targeting the subcultures that have previously been ignored or flat-out rejected by other brands, creating a unique brand platform catered to a niche market that responds to their offering. “We really put a lot of effort into the metal market because they actually buy cars,” Jeri Yoshizu, Scion’s manager of sales promotions, explained to Adweek’s Melissa Hoffman. “All those negative things about these kids, it’s changing. They recognize value"
Pic of the scion, so indie!- http://www.designboom.com/technology/toyota-scion-fr-s/
I've never claimed to be remotely indie!
slightly less ostentatious version of my car.
and he's testing the waters.
On the next 'Arrested Devxyloment' - loads of shitty YouTube cover videos
I crowd funded your transformers opera so you'd better give back too
this one that pieces_of_reece linked to is alright: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWNLE4sklfI the dancing at 01:58 is probably what they were on about when they said it was more than a full time job.
the rest are aaaaaaawwful though
please summarise in a few key points, why this is a 300+ thread.
posts an article saying they lost money on tour despite good sales because they budgeted for a loss in the first place
- indie nerds are mad
- xylo was determined to respond to every post in his new reserved persona
- theo turned up and started theoing all over the place
Back in 2010.
That's how their unbearable schtick first came to anyone's attention.
"Jingle Bells": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enq5Xt_yTFE
"Deck the Halls": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enq5Xt_yTFE
I guess they made a load of cash from this shit.
Also, they run the crowdfunding website Patreon, from which they rake in even more cash. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patreon - "Patreon, based in San Francisco, is a crowdfunding platform created by musician Jack Conte").
They both also have profiles on Patreon (http://www.patreon.com/natalydawn, http://www.patreon.com/jackconte), from which they make an additional few grand a month each.
These guys have devoted their lives to making godawful cover versions in order to bring in as much cash as possible. Good for them and everything, but this bullshit article boasting about their indie-tour losses doesn't really mention the desperate money-grubbing that is their entire lives.
he even looks like xylopwn
He and I are both card-carrying members of Lucky Baldies. That's why I'm defending him.
Look at that video. Just look at his car-schilling wacky jumper cunt antics.
You've brought too much hate into my life, you bastard.
we're bald, we live for marketing, we wear shit jumpers, we are unnknowingly super uncool and too indie all at once...
...and yet we're two more names to add to the list of kooky indie bald men with no clue who have better lives than you. I'd be mad, I get it.
somehow i'm disappointed
So...making a crowdfunding platform, which arguably benefits so many, many more people than most businesses can ever hope to, is money grubbing.
Using the platform - and therefore proving faith in the process - on a crowd funding basis where people choose to give money to other people, is money grubbing.
And being in adverts, where they are basically just selling a song to a company that no one minds being sold because of their derivative shithawkness... is money grubbing.
Are you an armchair socialist son?
but in fantastic news, various events have lead to US rightists attacking Patreon as "crowdsourced welfare".
ell oh ell
"Pledge $100.00 or more per video
3 patrons (All 3 sold out!)
Click to be notified when a spot opens
You get everything you see in the other packages PLUS an hour long Google Hangout with me, every time I release a new video. Just the two of us. We can talk about how to produce music, how to get started on YouTube, how to setup and play a Launchpad, anything you like! Plus, when you sign up, I will personally call you on the phone and thank you for becoming my patron."
Pledge $200 dollars or more and he'll lick yoghurt off your nuts.
really full on final stages socialism i guess.
which isn't really dirtier than 'band' but somehow just seems much dirtier
(went the other way with it. Don't try and stop me)
I'll look out for terrible_hyundai_cashmaggot or whatever on the account approval list
I cannot BELIEVE how this thread panned out.
is it terrible?
...I don't even know man.
Like some really funny lines on both sides, but... damn.
given what a proven bunch of needy think-skinned arseholes musicians can be (are)
i've been really good, despite some mega kickoffs
I reckon we can do easily 500 if one of the Pamplameese comes in here and calls one of the tear-stained-cardy brigade in this thread a cunt.
Would probably be a sassy put down from Ace Ventura or something
You're probably watching this with one eye and watching the tailor you've hired specifically to knit your victory waistcoat with the other. I bet you've got him adding an extra colour of check for every reply, and for that reason I hope it ends on an odd number.
i just need to bring roy back in. have sent him the equivalent of a christmas hamper with a giant gingerbread 'fuck you' to try and push it just upthread ^
But I think it's clear we all owe xylo an apology for sharing our opinions - he clearly thinks there's nothing worth discussing and it should have been 0 replies
we're all getting warm and quiet, eyes closing, no longer arguing, just sipping at the mulled wine...
The smee stomps in out of the cold and chucks half a can of petrol on the fire.
five minutes with pixlr, big man ;)
(ie ban him before he starts hyperventilating)
this is shrinking on a level even I can only dream of.
Can't imagine a bookshop for posh people has particularly frantic customer levels.
maybe ban both of us?
what it's about.
I just want to point out that Jeph "Questionable Content" Jacques makes just shy of $10k a month from his.
$120k a year, on top of a webcomic that was previously supporting two employees. Let's all just think about that.
assuming you have something you can point to that your audience will get more of by sponsoring you. That's really the point of this terrible thread, isn't it. If you have the money and time already and a basic concept of marketing, the internet makes it really pretty easy to get yourself going. And there's nothing wrong with that, but others don't have 11 grand to lose.
hasn't for a long while.
By simply having nothing at all happen. I
was you suddenly becoming paralysed with hatred towards JJ for all of the terrible things that he has done
and every time he suggests a plot point their response is *Oh God, absolutely not, are you an idiot?* So he just has to have them go for coffee or something.
extra points for grotesque self-fandom-ing
I started off and the first few had no dialogue and a certain kind of mystery about what was going on, but now it's all super-decompressed shitty-joke-in-the-last-panel guff as per usual.
I think I'll just leave this one be...
xylopwn, royter and jack conte are all bald.
But who is the baldest?
"We make $2.5k a month each from the band, don't have day jobs and for some reason make two professionally produced music videos a month"
the two videos a month thing is literally their whole schtick you can't be in a gimmicky covers band and put out two videos a year.
this thread is a master class it pushing dusbject near to a 500 reply thread. this is what we all aim for guys.
To the ridiculous kabuki of the insane that is the forty hour work week.
No one here is content
I know you meant that as in like "everyone is angry" but I preferred reading it as "no one here is anything", very nietzschean
As it looks like it's fucking boring.
xylo = 120
Hatf = 43
marck = 25
fidel = 21
That's getting on for half of it
Say no more...
despite his late arrival.
tomorrow: cheddar babybells
I've eaten mine already.
in a thread, they very often get deleted
this is an important thread.
pitch in, otherwise this thing will never get to 1000 replies.
the article is written in a bit of an annoying way, and they seem like a terrible band, certainly a band who seem to embody everything that is contrary to everything i look for in music, but as a blueprint of how to make a living out of doing something you love, outside of the / an industry it's pretty interesting.
I'm slightly amazed by how much cash they are making through itunes and this patron thing, that kind of implies to me that mid level bands and artists that I do like are maybe doing a bit better financially than I would have previously thought, which is nice.
the whole MADE A LOSS OF OUR TOUR thing is pretty irksome, like they have calculated that loss into their budget, which I assume is based on their yearly income, so they haven't made a loss at all, just chosen to earn a bit less that they would have done if they hadn't done the tour (which they state anyway is an investment in the future of the band)
I doubt this kind of strategy is really appropriate for anyone who wants to make challenging and interesting music, maybe it is, I might try it out one day
also - instantly dislike anyone who starts going on about HOW HARD THEY WORK, generally i don't buy it - yeah they could probably work a lot less hard doing something else and make more money, but I'm sure there are shit loads of people out there working harder for less, so they can fuck off.
so, kindof annoying article, but I think there are a few crumbs of interest in there.
and you didn't even mention the name.
Not sure whether that's a Well Done or a Total Fail.
That word just makes me sad today.
Bit of an oversight on my part there.
lot of people on here not making much money in bands are feeling weird about the excellently-named Pamplamoose achieving success despite being musically less worthy. I don't think we need to perpetuate all that jealousy stuff, people will get upset :(
and that's not the sort of stuff we can just undo
can anyone explain to me why people give money to other people to make music videos, when the incentive offered is stuff like this
'Anyone who helps us get to 2k/video will receive hi-res photos from our recent shoot at the Burlington Hotel as well as a pre-release of our next song. For patrons only! So shhhh...'
like, why would anyone want that at all?
I might give money to a band to make a video if that included getting a copy of the single, and if the pictures are nice then bonus.
in the instance of pamplamouse? no fucking clue.
what do I do?
kind of tempted to C&P every reply from this thread under it every time.
you SPOKE to him.
going to read it though. but...uuhhhhggggghhhhh worst phrase eevvvvaaarrgghh!!!
yeah I don't agree with that line of thinking at all.
I like that his solution to all their problems is to hire a manager (they don;t have one now) and to make the band sleep on the floor and pay them badly. Way to advertise your services mate, I'm sure lots of musos will be lining up to pay you 25%.
that response above raises just as many questions at pimplemouse's article.
bet they've racked up LOADS more youtube hits off the back of this
plus more people feeling sorry for them and donating to their patreons, even though they're raking it in when they're not on tour blowing their money on lighting rigs.
not from me
on constant loop since Tuesday morning.
Crazy, depressing and uplifting all at once.
THAT'S 500 YOU CUUUUNNNNTTTTSSSSSSS <3
congratulations everyone. well done
and yet pamplemouse or whatever STILL haven't broke even
Every post is like a SoundCloud play for him, no?
Fucking hell, Raans.
thanks p4k http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/574-op-ed/
also since this thread I've found out that the singer from Chocolatemousse did a kickstarter for a solo album, raised about $100k, and then signed to... Warners to put it out. pretty good grifting!
this paragraph in particular:
"This article is like a lot of things in 2014 that give young people all the wrong ideas. This is an extension of things like "American Idol", or "The Voice", in that it distorts people's perception of what it means to create music. Some young musician will read this, and think they just can’t afford to go on tour, or that it’s virtually impossible to come out ahead in the music world. It’s not true, young person! Pomplamoose is claiming all of this is an investment into the future, so that the next tour will be even bigger. Well, again, time to get your ego in check, because the next one could be smaller. There could even not be a next one. This may have been the one. The one where you all came back with $8,000 in your pocket. You want to make art, and you want to do that for a living, guess what: you’re currently doing it. You just don’t seem to think this is what it’s like to be successful, because other bands have been MORE successful. That thinking, in my opinion, is poisonous, and will hamper your ability to wholly experience the amazing ride you’re currently on."
xylo's post made Gawker.
and not just something that was evidently an interpretation of the situation already
HIS SHITHOUSE NOVELTY CABERET BAND IS SPONSORED BY FUCKING TOYOTA
and all the people mentioned in the article for basically saying exactly what we did here? :D
it was an investment - he spent more time in this thread than he could really afford to so that the next thread he does will be even bigger END OF SATIRE
is that the same thing as saying he makes no money from it? honestly don't know. like he can say he doesn't take a salary but still receive some kind of commission or live in a house that belongs to the company? i've no idea
It's immaterial really. He is clearly well placed to make a lot of money should he decide to do so.
he just uses it to fund his project from which he pays himself a monthly salary...
and raised 15 million dollars
just for a service to exist that he can be a user of?
like imagine if Sean just set up DiS purely for the bants