Band Sell Their Name For $251,000

Selling out might be a career choice once you’re writing your second album for a major label, but when you do it before your career really begins, it comes across as impressively entrepreneurial.

That’s what an enterprising young band from Seattle did when they became "The BuyStock.net Band" - for $251,000.

The young group auctioned their naming rights, and it was picked up by a new website BuyStock.net, which promises to "enable anyone to buy stock like the best".

"Initially we didn’t take the idea seriously but later realized it was brilliant," explained frontman Ben Adley. "Sports stadiums do it, why not a band?"

They want to use the money to fund their debut album, which will be released for free. Well, they can afford it. Their first single is available on their sponsor’s website.

"We’re a new band that needs cash to record our first album. It’s as simple as that," Adley continued. "We’ve written a lot of songs and we want to record them in a quality studio and to do that takes cash."

The BuyStock CEO Tim Jakobs added, "I think it’s a fantastic idea and a clever way for the band to fund their passion. We’re thrilled to be a part of it. I look forward to a long relationship."

Could it be worse? What would be the worst website a band could be named after?

Thanks to Gibson for the report.

Comments

[nargoth]

I also forgot neutralmilkhotel.net

[AdamLeMoine]

blink 182 loll

[ŠicDra]

that's like...the definition of sell-out

[rd93]

areyou****ingkiddingme.jpg

[Harry_66]

i`d do the same if i only got the chance...

[Slash_is_a_God]

Hmm, I'd be tempted, but I feel that artists should remain as independent as they can so that they aren't just a cash cow and are making music for music's sake. There are plenty of ways to get a decent record made without having to spend 6 figures. On the other hand, a quarter of a million is nothing to sneeze at...

[theotherguy7145]

Gotta say- it's clever! I'd get sick to death if every band did that though.
Can you imagine future music festivals?
"BuyStock.net Band, Ultimate-Guitar.com Band, Facebook.com Band.." etc.
Nightmare!

[Raider76]

thats so stupid

[Duv]

Genius, what incredible entrepreneurialism.

[jerrystar]

wtf

[strat0blaster]

This is so _____, I'm going to the thesaurus to find a more powerful word for it....

Fatuously puerile. That is what this is.

[flashmdg]

Dont get this at all :/

[SkepsisMetal]

Impressive. Not entirely original, but their like the first band to do it, and that takes balls...especially in the current climate of kids chucking "sell out" around as the be all-end all of career ending choices. It's not an insult, it shows maturity from simple musicians, to innovative businessmen who work within the industry not just as a product and selling point of it. Kudos to them, and I hope it works out. Hell, they're even releasing the debut for free. I'm going to download it whether I like it or not.

[Ackj]

Probably a bad investment for that company. How many bands stick around long enough to produce a popular record? Not a whole lot. If they become big, sure it's great advertising, but the likelihood of that? Not so much.

[Ackj]

wtf, the company isn't even launched yet... how the hell do they have this revenue?

[nailsarecruel]

They could have just gone with ARK Music Group for $2,000 and retained 15% more dignity.

[murph13]

Disgusting

[Bridge_H]

Wow. This takes selling out to an entirely new level XD

Still, money is hard to come by these days. At least it wasn't some porn site or something, lol!

[hudsonstradlin]

That's freaking genius. And it's not selling out. Selling out is forsaking your fanbase to make money. And since they haven't even recorded their debut album yet, no tears were wept. This is just so fantastic, I'll have to use it as an example in my business enterprises class.

[hereticfive]

penisland.com

it used to be a website selling pens up till a few years ago hahah

[~Shred Hero~]

Pssh, 'The Google Garage Band' would have got paid 10x that amount...

[CydoniaKnight95]

Technically, it is selling out, but honestly, what's so bad about it
They're getting enough money to properly record a new album and their music is unaffected so I don't see what the big deal is. They were just lucky/smart enough to do this :P

[zalant]

Mike Judge is frickin' Nostradamus. Any see Idiocracy? Everything has some sort of sponsorship attached to it. There was even a character who had to say "Brought to you by Carl's Jr." after anything he said. It's like when you're watching a sporting event and they take a 'Burger King time out', or they show a 'Sprite instant replay'. The days of festivals shows like theother714guy5 mentioned above are not far away, me thinks.

[stepco12345]

*Checked*

No mentioning of shock / porn sites people. -__-

[Zeppelin Addict]

definitely the worst band name ever... see where this goes...

[zalant]

(sorry about mangling your username, dude)

[Jack2994]

Selling out might be a career choice once you’re writing your second album for a major label

Is that a Nirvana reference?

I automatically hate this band for doing what they did. It's not the selling-out that annoys me, they just sound like dicks.

[vinnym86]

HAhahaha "Brought to you by Carl's Jr."

I was intrigued enough to download their single from the BuyStock website... It's not even too great, its like mediocre music that just sounds extremely well produced. It's basically every pop-rock band you know right now.

[MXFNCK]

That's disgusting. First of all, band names generally define the bottom line of a band's identity or the feel of their music. In any genre, really. Don't agree? Let's walk through a few.
Slayer? Obvious
Dream Theater? A basic description of their music and complexity
Rolling Stones? Named after the song Rollin' Stone by Muddy Waters, indicated their early roots
Alice in Chains? A bittersweet play on innocence gone bad, as well as struggle.
The BuyStock.net Band? Prostitution
Of course there are exceptions, such as Job for a Cowboy

Second, people who dig this... Don't you see how our surroundings nowadays are polluted by commercialism in every way? Pop ups, commercial breaks on tv that are just as long as the show you're watching, people honking products during the show you're watching... Or you're taking a piss at a bar and are always staring at some poster telling you what to do with your money to find true happiness...

If this had happened in, say, the 1970's, when commercialism was emerging but not yet dominating, this would have been totally not done. Now they're being praised to become barkers for some website (that has NOTHING to do with music)... imagine if Led Zeppelin was called United Airlines and had songs like Stairway to Burger King? Even in Rap, the genre that has money as a recurring theme, this vulgarity has not been displayed... The Chronic 2001 by Dr. Pepper?

Point being, if this band had any merit of relevant proportions, they would have been able to get an album recorded without selling their souls. Especially in the age of computers and killer recording software. Or.... play shows???

I can only wonder what Bill Hicks would have said about this

bring on the flame.

[_LoveFuzz_]

Take the money
Change name to TurdBox.net
Put out shit record
Break up
Reform under new name

I don't think CEO Tim Jakobs will be CEO for long.

[loinmute]

I bet their debut will be a total flop. Sounds like something only a poppy band would do. Prog Metal bands would never do this

\m/

[Minivirus2]

"Initially we didn’t take the idea seriously but later realized it was brilliant," explained frontman Ben Adley. "Sports stadiums do it, why not a band?"

Why not a band? Well, stadiums do it for monetary gain, whereas a bands name is an artistic choice. Art and corporate gain, two things that will never work in conjunction.

This is just ****ing stupid. Any money says, these guys will fold before they ever gain any real recognition. Clearly, they're probably happy with the payout, but they can't hope to be taken seriously having based their career off of selling out. They could make music that induces orgasms and I still wouldn't care for it or pay it any mind. Hell, I'm justifying these guys simply by writing this post.

In a world where music fans are very much vocal about their disdain for sellouts, these guys should take a firm look in the mirror and just call it a day before they're the laughing stock of... well, everything.

[me_llamo_juan]

Interesting move. On one hand, the simple fact that they did sell their name gives them instant exposure in news outlets. Yes the cash allows them to record their debut album, but it also gives them the funds to tour multiple times or go on one long ass tour. Who knows how it'll work out.Then again, maybe they release the album, split, and have college paid for.

[Armagedn]

OMG SELLING OUT IS BAD!!!111!!!!

Pfft. Everyone needs money. I'd sell out (to a certain degree) if given the chance. I mean, I play in a prog band, but these people called us telling us they'd pay us $300 to play a bunch of 50's and 60's songs for two hours, so guess what we learned at our next practice.

[GNRfan32]

MXFNCK wrote:

That's disgusting. First of all, band names generally define the bottom line of a band's identity or the feel of their music. In any genre, really. Don't agree? Let's walk through a few.
Slayer? Obvious
Dream Theater? A basic description of their music and complexity
Rolling Stones? Named after the song Rollin' Stone by Muddy Waters, indicated their early roots
Alice in Chains? A bittersweet play on innocence gone bad, as well as struggle.
The BuyStock.net Band? Prostitution
Of course there are exceptions, such as Job for a Cowboy

Second, people who dig this... Don't you see how our surroundings nowadays are polluted by commercialism in every way? Pop ups, commercial breaks on tv that are just as long as the show you're watching, people honking products during the show you're watching... Or you're taking a piss at a bar and are always staring at some poster telling you what to do with your money to find true happiness...

If this had happened in, say, the 1970's, when commercialism was emerging but not yet dominating, this would have been totally not done. Now they're being praised to become barkers for some website (that has NOTHING to do with music)... imagine if Led Zeppelin was called United Airlines and had songs like Stairway to Burger King? Even in Rap, the genre that has money as a recurring theme, this vulgarity has not been displayed... The Chronic 2001 by Dr. Pepper?

Point being, if this band had any merit of relevant proportions, they would have been able to get an album recorded without selling their souls. Especially in the age of computers and killer recording software. Or.... play shows???

I can only wonder what Bill Hicks would have said about this

bring on the flame.

No offense but a band like this doesn't even deserve a post this long

[gabrielr]

The link to download the song doesn't even work. Fail.

[Kapalen]

Expect censorship and product placement in their music. I see little chance they'll be able to write songs that could in any way be construed as negative for fear that it will hurt the website's image. If they're a supper happy fun band all the time anyway, I guess itll be fine.

[DemonInTheFlesh]

GNRfan32 wrote:

MXFNCK wrote:

That's disgusting. First of all, band names generally define the bottom line of a band's identity or the feel of their music. In any genre, really. Don't agree? Let's walk through a few.
Slayer? Obvious
Dream Theater? A basic description of their music and complexity
Rolling Stones? Named after the song Rollin' Stone by Muddy Waters, indicated their early roots
Alice in Chains? A bittersweet play on innocence gone bad, as well as struggle.
The BuyStock.net Band? Prostitution
Of course there are exceptions, such as Job for a Cowboy

Second, people who dig this... Don't you see how our surroundings nowadays are polluted by commercialism in every way? Pop ups, commercial breaks on tv that are just as long as the show you're watching, people honking products during the show you're watching... Or you're taking a piss at a bar and are always staring at some poster telling you what to do with your money to find true happiness...

If this had happened in, say, the 1970's, when commercialism was emerging but not yet dominating, this would have been totally not done. Now they're being praised to become barkers for some website (that has NOTHING to do with music)... imagine if Led Zeppelin was called United Airlines and had songs like Stairway to Burger King? Even in Rap, the genre that has money as a recurring theme, this vulgarity has not been displayed... The Chronic 2001 by Dr. Pepper?

Point being, if this band had any merit of relevant proportions, they would have been able to get an album recorded without selling their souls. Especially in the age of computers and killer recording software. Or.... play shows???

I can only wonder what Bill Hicks would have said about this

bring on the flame.


No offense but a band like this doesn't even deserve a post this long

Maybe they don't deserve it, but he's absolutely correct. I understand wanting to get finanaces for your first record, but dude NOBODY has finances for their first record. They get them by WORKING, or PLAYING GIGS and SAVING MONEY to get studio time. That's how all the other working-class bands start out. Shit, Jimmy Eat World all got day jobs to finance their last album. But this- Some people make a joke out of their band name, some people take it seriously, but what these guys have done is unquestionably just a mark of greed and laziness.

[raoooos]

I see that jealousy is out in force today!
This idea is genius.

[CoheednRHCP]

I don't think these guys are complete asses like some people think. They're doing this so they can record their first album and put it out for free.

That said, I wouldn't do it just cause I think it'd be a bad idea from a business perspective.

[krakkrox]

vinnym86 wrote:

HAhahaha "Brought to you by Carl's Jr."

I was intrigued enough to download their single from the BuyStock website... It's not even too great, its like mediocre music that just sounds extremely well produced. It's basically every pop-rock band you know right now.

Cause they pay me every time I say it!-Brought to you by Carls Jr! OR WOULD YOU LIKE ANOTHER, EXTRA BIG-ASS FRIES!!?? You have been deemed an unfit mother. Your child will be taken into custody by-Carls Jr!

[iwannabesedated]

Gives new meaning to selling out. lol

Whatever, if they want to sell themselves to a website that's cool.

[Abom]

Good on them. Lord knows I'd do the same thing, railing against selling out is fun and all but being in debt sucks.

Besides, as CoheednRHCP said they're using the cash to record the album and release it for free. This was a way for the band to obtain the financial resources to release the album that they wanted to release, even if it involved taking a PR hit--that sounds pretty legit to me.

[jbab]

Fucking ridiculous

[cambo187]

This is ridiculous. I don't see how anyone could take them seriously. The company might as well just commission a band to do commercials and write songs. And $250K!!!! They must be talented, otherwise I don't see why any company would do this. Bad investment in my opinion, but who knows, could become the new thing.

[watch it crash]

they have the money, they record the album, they break up and form again under a different name. they get a freely produced album.

[Gord@k]

MXFNCK wrote:

That's disgusting. First of all*good arguments here*

I agree with you to 100% this is revolting and i will never ever give this band a chance. They have officially ruined it by being corporate *****s.

[rickyj]

Ackj wrote:

Probably a bad investment for that company. How many bands stick around long enough to produce a popular record? Not a whole lot. If they become big, sure it's great advertising, but the likelihood of that? Not so much.

you dont understand

they sold the rights to their name, the band cant use it anymore because the website's owner have the rights.


the website didnt invest in the bands name, they bought the name from them for the website.

[6StringBlazer]

MXFNCK wrote:

That's disgusting. First of all, band names generally define the bottom line of a band's identity or the feel of their music. In any genre, really. Don't agree? Let's walk through a few.
Slayer? Obvious
Dream Theater? A basic description of their music and complexity
Rolling Stones? Named after the song Rollin' Stone by Muddy Waters, indicated their early roots
Alice in Chains? A bittersweet play on innocence gone bad, as well as struggle.
The BuyStock.net Band? Prostitution
Of course there are exceptions, such as Job for a Cowboy

Second, people who dig this... Don't you see how our surroundings nowadays are polluted by commercialism in every way? Pop ups, commercial breaks on tv that are just as long as the show you're watching, people honking products during the show you're watching... Or you're taking a piss at a bar and are always staring at some poster telling you what to do with your money to find true happiness...

If this had happened in, say, the 1970's, when commercialism was emerging but not yet dominating, this would have been totally not done. Now they're being praised to become barkers for some website (that has NOTHING to do with music)... imagine if Led Zeppelin was called United Airlines and had songs like Stairway to Burger King? Even in Rap, the genre that has money as a recurring theme, this vulgarity has not been displayed... The Chronic 2001 by Dr. Pepper?

Point being, if this band had any merit of relevant proportions, they would have been able to get an album recorded without selling their souls. Especially in the age of computers and killer recording software. Or.... play shows???

I can only wonder what Bill Hicks would have said about this

bring on the flame.

+1000. No flames man, just pluses.

[rickyj]

i think it was a brilliant idea

[j_link13]

what a joke

[VanCamp]

rd93 wrote:

areyou****ingkiddingme.jpg

Don't do that here. Keep it where it belongs.

[Tengatu Man]

Getting paid that much for just their name??

And the album'll be free!?...

If they have any songs against establishment/the man then they're my new favorite band no matter what their name is. They just beat every single pop artist or artist that doesnt write their own music. I mean these guys havent even played anything and they already got that much money.

P.S. I'll name my band Dr. Pepper for free Dr. Pepper or OMG Gibson for free guitars (I have no shame)

[Korzack]

Bahahaha! That's more cash than that band's likely to see ever again, so mission accomplished in that regard. Besides, if it's a case that the band've sold naming rights to the website, we all know there are music ventures which're backed by corporations anyway, at least there's no pretend. And if it's the case that the band have just literally sold that name to the website, they can easily come up with another one, job done.

[EL2T]

For me it would have been like:

"No! Just think about our artistic integrity, that's worth more than anything they can off-

...How much?

Yeah sure."

[actaderock]

im not gonna call sell out anyone ever again after hearing this story

by the way, this isnt the way to revive rock n roll

[leohimself]

the microsoft.com band with bill gates playing xilophone.

[Vampire96]

did not read a thing while saying this... i personally would not like what they did, for me name is my pride and that is one of the things no one could take from you... what they did is my equivalent of selling your soul..

[mrretard]

so well they have to get a new band name?

[Gu1tar_guy1010]

This sounds like sponsorship

[cambo187]

rickyj wrote:

Ackj wrote:

Probably a bad investment for that company. How many bands stick around long enough to produce a popular record? Not a whole lot. If they become big, sure it's great advertising, but the likelihood of that? Not so much.


you dont understand

they sold the rights to their name, the band cant use it anymore because the website's owner have the rights.


the website didnt invest in the bands name, they bought the name from them for the website.

No, you don't understand. The band was previously unnamed. They made a website which promoted the band and told investors/companies that they could choose the band's name for a price. Apparently, the highest bidder was an up and coming website called buystock.net. They paid the band $250K to name themselves The buystock.net band. Obviously, they think this band is hot s*** because they were willing to pony up that much dough in hopes that the band will be big and have their company name attached to it. Not really sure how a stock buying website would translate positively to music fans, but oh well.

[potatoejunkie]

SimonCowell.com "band"....

[EngilHramm]

MXFNCK wrote:

That's disgusting. First of all, band names generally define the bottom line of a band's identity or the feel of their music. In any genre, really. Don't agree? Let's walk through a few.
Slayer? Obvious
Dream Theater? A basic description of their music and complexity
Rolling Stones? Named after the song Rollin' Stone by Muddy Waters, indicated their early roots
Alice in Chains? A bittersweet play on innocence gone bad, as well as struggle.
The BuyStock.net Band? Prostitution
Of course there are exceptions, such as Job for a Cowboy

Second, people who dig this... Don't you see how our surroundings nowadays are polluted by commercialism in every way? Pop ups, commercial breaks on tv that are just as long as the show you're watching, people honking products during the show you're watching... Or you're taking a piss at a bar and are always staring at some poster telling you what to do with your money to find true happiness...

If this had happened in, say, the 1970's, when commercialism was emerging but not yet dominating, this would have been totally not done. Now they're being praised to become barkers for some website (that has NOTHING to do with music)... imagine if Led Zeppelin was called United Airlines and had songs like Stairway to Burger King? Even in Rap, the genre that has money as a recurring theme, this vulgarity has not been displayed... The Chronic 2001 by Dr. Pepper?

Point being, if this band had any merit of relevant proportions, they would have been able to get an album recorded without selling their souls. Especially in the age of computers and killer recording software. Or.... play shows???

I can only wonder what Bill Hicks would have said about this

bring on the flame.

Totally agree with you ! This "news" makes me f*cking sick...

[WiZoRZ]

This is not selling out because they needed money to start their career... good job!

[ParasiticTwins]

The fact that this is apparently relevant is more irritating than anything; people want money, what's new?

[Lordyboy]

I see why they've done it, and how it is a way to fund their first album, but I personally wouldn't do it. It makes that band now always carry the label of the first band to be named a web address. People just won't take them seriously.

[SkoraProduction]

Everyone is selling out... my damn high school stadium is even called "RAY SKILLMAN CHEVORLET"... It's f*ckin pathetic...
"And the award for best new rock group goes to... Buystock.net Band!'
"Thank you so much, we couldn't have done this without you guys... and buystock.net, where you can buy stock just like the pros!"...

[Beedy10]

This is genius!

[pauljrcobain]

nargoth wrote:

I also forgot neutralmilkhotel.net

Great band. I'm proud of you, stranger.

[Tarsplitter]

loinmute wrote:

I bet their debut will be a total flop. Sounds like something only a poppy band would do. Prog Metal bands would never do this

\m/

And here we have the reason I dislike the typical UGer.

[mark3777]

$251,000? alright, I will make an album, and put your website name on our band.....but I will need a band first... TO THE LAIR!!

[ParasiticTwins]

pauljrcobain wrote:

nargoth wrote:

I also forgot neutralmilkhotel.net

Great band. I'm proud of you, stranger.

*best band.

[guitarman28]

That's actually a good idea. I mean the name is kinda stupid but at the same time new bands need money to get their name out there. If the band I was in had the chance to make 251,000 to have someone else name the band as they please I would have taken. Its 251,000!

[BreatheOver]

theotherguy7145 wrote:
Can you imagine future music festivals?

Duv wrote:
Genius, what incredible entrepreneurialism.

Both of those. The future industry is advertising so thats pretty genius but it would interesting to see if this idea takes hold of future bands and genereations

[Pencil Man]

This just goes to show that someday, all the world will be is a bunch of advertisements for other people. It's a shame. In a business POV, this is pretty clever, but what kind of self-respecting band accepts being named after a company to fund their albums. Bands should get popular because they are good, not because they are backed by Wal-Mart or something. What a shame to the integrity of music.

[megadethdefying]

This is what british brass bands do, or at least used to before people stopped sponsoring them; names like the buy as you view band, GUS footwear band, Polysteel plus many more (these ive mentioned are under new names now however)

[Chronologo]

Maybe their first album will be entirely of their own composition, but I wonder how much in the future the band guys will start to submit to the "recommended lyrics and music" imposed by the company

[Paramecium302]

-_-

[Peres.T.Peanut]

-__-

[Private Eye]

Sure it's easy to say you wouldn't do it, until $251,000 is staring you in the face... I'd do it, as long as my band could make the music we want to make without the sponsor butting in, which will inevitably happen. That's when, as someone said before, you split up and reform under your own name.

[guitarplayer292]

Odd, this has Gene Simmons written all over it...

[Andrax20]

This is a great idea, they get a huge amount of money to fund their passion, and a ton of publicity.

Don't believe me? There's been 85 comments on this page, and we don't even know what the band used to be called.

[metalme31]

That takes the "unusual news of the day" for me. That made me laugh, its cleaver! I like the fact they sold it for $251,000. They would never EVER sell it for $250,000. Thats just ludacris hahaha

[Kilimacory]

if the only thing between you and putting out your first record is this name thing, then youd do it too.
"a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." it's only selling out when it affects their sound. am i the only one that went and listened to their single? it was decent...

[Nick Curleo]

guitarplayer292 wrote:

Odd, this has Gene Simmons written all over it...

You know, it actually doesn't. In any way, really.

Seems like a good idea, if you don't really care what your band is called. I personally think naming is half the fun. To each their own.

[rokr258]

Slash_is_a_God wrote:

Hmm, I'd be tempted, but I feel that artists should remain as independent as they can so that they aren't just a cash cow and are making music for music's sake. There are plenty of ways to get a decent record made without having to spend 6 figures. On the other hand, a quarter of a million is nothing to sneeze at...

don't you think an artists career should be about the music more than how they portray themselves?

[PhillyHendrix]

It said they had all of their material written before the offer, so they're clearly not only interested in money, but rather putting out quality music. Good idea or not, I'm going to give them a listen.

[tehREALcaptain]

pretty brilliant. they get some revenue/start up capitol without sacrificing ANY of the artistic or business aspects of their music (genre, style, the group's image, and of course rights).

[tml_ca]

idiots.....but yet so clever.

[WheredMyRockGo?]

I think thats a hell of an idea but how the hell did a company without an actual working website get $250,000 to spend on an unproven band. Listening to the single, I think the band should have stayed independent. I could see them getting popular without the gimmick.

[Chuckles1234]

what is the point of buying a name?

[Killzark]

That...is actually a good idea

[Tster]

DemonInTheFlesh wrote:
Jimmy Eat World all got day jobs to finance their last album.

Thats because they wanted to self release it with no label backing. I'm sure labels offered the funding. Obviously for cuts etc.

[Brad_Bassist]

People are sayign this is a good idea yet will say Metallica are sell outs for making a 3D live concert..

[TechnicolorType]

so some no name group with one song recorded (and it wasn't recorded too well. there's so many parts where it skips and makes poppy clipping sounds.) just set this up?

they'd pay 250 grand for a no-name group? I can understand if an already famous group was offering this but they're nobodies?

wow I have better recordings than they'll ever have. Going to go auction myself on ebay. 250 grand pls

[peaches58`]

You're an up and coming band, you have no money, and someone offers you $251,000 to call your band their website for a few years. Hell yeah I'd do that.

[jd3v3n3y]

nailsarecruel wrote:

They could have just gone with ARK Music Group for $2,000 and retained 15% more dignity.

haha nice one

[guitarmazdur]

thats like... the definition of a sellout. i'll actually take them seriously as long as they dont write songs advertising the website. they'll end up like the "free credit score.com band" XD
jk, i understand they just need some cash, but selling your name to support a first album? the more i think about it, they start sounding more and more like a band of prostitutes....

[Reagar]

Could people stop talking about selling out? It's such a ****ing bullshit term and such a cliche

[jestsumguy]

All they did was sell their name for 1/4 million bucks. What's the big deal? It's just a name. I'd take that offer. In this economy, if a chance at easy money comes your way you'd have to be an idiot to not take it.

The word sell-out is a very over-used and mis-used word these days. It's so easy for a band to be accused of selling out.

It's as if a lot of people think mainstream equals sell-out.

[snaaake]

This reminds me of that band that played on all those FreeCreditScore.com commercials. Does anyone take them seriously as musicians?

[Iommianity]

I'm going to pretend I hate these guys for playing the corporate game and getting ahead because of it. All of this followed by a long winded diatribe on artistic integrity.

This band found a way to make money, get financing, and build buzz in a day where that's very hard. Anything else is bullshit. More power to them.

[somebellguy]

WOW...if this is what the music industry has come to it is embarrassing...especially for the band. I feel like it takes away from the awesomeness of starting your own band and naming it something meaningful to its members. They have to go up on stage and say "hello! we are the buystock.net band!"...idk about you guys but if in 50 years all of the current bands are named after a website or a company i might cry a bit.

[b_flo]

Now time to invest that money in better musical instruments and promotions...rename the band and create good music, and there's a start.

[Damaged Roses]

Now that's stupid..

[namesroverrated]

I think this idea is brilliant, I'm definitely going to download their album

[TechnicolorType]

snaaake wrote:

This reminds me of that band that played on all those FreeCreditScore.com commercials. Does anyone take them seriously as musicians?

It was freecreditreport.com.

I would totally be FreeCreditReport.com Band.

[jetfuel495]

snaaake wrote:

This reminds me of that band that played on all those FreeCreditScore.com commercials. Does anyone take them seriously as musicians?

Yes. They are catchy as hell.

Checked.

Chronologo wrote:

Maybe their first album will be entirely of their own composition, but I wonder how much in the future the band guys will start to submit to the "recommended lyrics and music" imposed by the company

This is stupid. Just saying.

checked

[Diaverde66]

As long as the music is good, I don't care what the band name is.

[Polaris666]

Ackj wrote:

wtf, the company isn't even launched yet... how the hell do they have this revenue?

Investors.

[rain-man]

I can only wonder what Bill Hicks would have said about this

Part of me thinks he's glad he died before he had to see this.

I understand that the band isn't selling out, since they a) they haven't established a musical direction and b) the company has no say over it anyway, since they just bought the name. But it's pretty much the musical equivalent of prostitution.

And let's face it, nobody's gonna really take them seriously. "Did you hear? Thursday night at Jack's bar 'TheBuyStock.net Band' is playing." "The what band? That doesn't sound that interesting." Part of the idea behind picking a band name is for image. They just totally blew that aspect of their career.

It's just a dumb move, especially as the gap between 'amateur' and professional recording technology continues to close. The dollars may have looked good, but what they sold for it was much more than it was worth.

[ginger ninja102]

have they heard of freeware you can record pretty decent shit with it, plus id gladly let them use any gear i have if they wanna give me the whole 250k

[lionslicer9999]

If my band wasn't going anywhere and had a random name like that, I'd sell the name. Like why not? I bet they sucked and were never gonna make any money anyways

[kayno86]

I used to have a band tentatively called 'The Midnight C**t Hunters'. The bidding starts at $25, do I hear an offer?

[Vornik]

Shit, why not.

[Grimriffer]

Wal-Mart. Technical Death Metal

[LordBishek]

Screw it, it's enterprising. Kudos to them for having the brains to come up with a good idea and the balls to see it through.

[krypticguitar87]

hahaha the comments are hillarious, I honestly didn't think there would be so many people so mad about this, it was a good idea and I'm pretty sure the majority of you are just mad that you didn't think of it first hahaha

[CrawlingHorror]

For the company that basically bought the souls of that no name band this is kind of a two way street:

On the one hand, this move is novel so that alone guarantees a certain amount of publicity. Therefore, in terms of getting the company's name out, this was probably worth the money.

However, it will also provoke a lot of revulsion among the music community and in the culture at large since a hell of a lot of people are already annoyed with the increasing corporate domination of our lives. And, let's face it, this looks uber desperate and minor league. A real company would have bought sponsorship for a major band's tour or a festival, not the name of a group nobody has previously cared about. So it drives down any prestige the company may have aspired to.

For the band, here today, gone later today since this move will ensure that nobody can take them seriously.

[wraith313]

I see a lot of you are arguing whether this is...a moral issue or not. Or something along those lines. I am going to sidestep that entirely and go with this: Isnt 250k a ridiculously high amount of cash for something like this? I mean, christ, thats a quarter million for doing absolutely nothing.

[TorturedSoul666]

Can I think of a worse band name? Yeah how about "the ultimate-guitar.com band" that one would really suck.

[Gu1T@r_H3r0]

MXFNCK wrote:


I can only wonder what Bill Hicks would have said about this

Bill Hicks would have verbally ventilated these hacks with a torrent of abuse, and rightly so.

[Skullivan]

Geniuses.

[Witezombi3]

who wants to bid to name my band? How about you ultimate-guitar.com?

[Notoriousdoc]

Art and integrity before monetary gain.

[Eifler121]

I'd do it. The fact is it ISN'T that easy to get picked up no matter how solid you are. There are bands out there who have even had #1 hits and still can't get record deals. It is silly, and it's totally selling out. However, as long as they don't change their sound to better represent Buystock, I don't see this as a bad thing.

However, how are people supposed to trust in Buystock as an investment company when they just invested a quarter mil on some band no one's ever heard of? Poor buisiness decision on Buystock's end.

[kunkushin]

wah wah wah sell out blah blah... was this everyone's favorite band? is everyone scared this will change the integrity of music that isn't recorded yet? right... they don't have an album yet. I think it's awesome they're playing the system, it's like taking a big pot in hold 'em on a bluff, that's just cool.

[kunkushin]

just listened to the single... it's good, kinda an arctic monkeys sound

[jannick]

Ozzy sold his soul... Elton John sold his sexuality... G'n'R sold their band to Rose... I'd sell my nipples for a Lamborghini... selling out isn't new...

[devilex121]

EL2T wrote:

For me it would have been like:

"No! Just think about our artistic integrity, that's worth more than anything they can off-

...How much?

Yeah sure."

hahahaha just made this whole thing sound much more sensible now

[Slash16]

Gene Simmons is banging his head against the wall "Why didn't I think of it first!"

[PsiGuy60]

The penisland.com Brothers.

[GrungeHippie26]

i guess if you suck and noone wants to go to your shows, then you gotta make money somehow....LOSERS

[cody.adams@lyon]

These guys are actually onto something. If you read their information from their site (http://www.younameourband.com/) you can tell that they aren't really making much money off of this deal.

[DisasterMatt]

D: sellouts