Dr Paul Bilokon (PB) has interviewed Prof. Matthew Dixon (MD), who, having established himself as a leader in academic and industrial quantitative and computational finance, has founded the Los Angeles-based alternative rock and rock band Goth Soul known for a sound that blends post-punk influences with elements of heavy metal and 80s synth-pop.
PB: From stochastic calculus to stagecraft: what was the inflection point that made you swap research seminars for front-of-house lights, and what risk model (explicit or implicit) did you run on that decision?
MD: It was really a two-step process. First, I entered into the fintech and entrepreneurship and experienced life without seminars and the ability to publish. I realised that taking on a high risk venture, far outside my comfort zone, was exhilarating and only limited by my commitment and energy. When that reached a point where I felt I couldn’t give it anymore, I decided to look at myself and give that person a chance to express themselves in a creative way with concern for failure or even risk. It was an act of self love.
PB: How does your quant training show up in your songwriting—do you think in motifs like factors and regimes, or is the studio your place to renounce models and embrace noise?
MD: I definitely adhere to a strong structure and double down on what works and lean into the science behind commercially successful songs. I try not to be progressive and just let whatever I want take over during the songwriting. But it has to feel spontaneous and natural and not too contrived and I think quant trading has to be reactive and pragmatic too and not too cerebral and rigid.
PB: Goth Soul has lineage (post-punk atmospherics, soul phrasing). Who are your canonical influences, and how have you “regularized” them into a sound that’s identifiably yours?
MD: The 80s pop rock scene heavily influenced me as a child. But I also liked heavy metal and hard rock when I was older. The project was an opportunity to integrate the two.
PB: Leadership vs. soloism: as a bandleader and a front-line soloist, how do you balance collective groove with individual voice—especially live, when the variance spikes?
MD: What makes a band special is the chemistry between them. It is so important to have fun up there on the stage. If you’re not having fun, then people pick up on that and it comes across as stiff and formal. I try to read the audience and hold emotional space for them. Connecting with people is always the name of the game in any leadership role. It’s all too easy to fall into a mind trap and get stuck in your head.
PB: You’ve built systems in finance; what “system” (process, rehearsal cadence, tech stack, signal chain) underlies your band’s reliability night after night?
I think incorporating a lot of feedback leads to quality control. It’s so important to review performances and critique them. It’s also very important to assume that equipment will fail and be prepared for it – a skill no different to production engineering.
PB: Where does technology meet taste for you—are AI tools, algorithmic composition, or live electronics part of your palette, or do you draw a hard line to keep the music human?
It’s important to use the best tools available to improve work flow. But music isn’t trading and finance. It is all about the emotional resonance and the deep connection with the material and the band with the listener. AI generated music sounds the same and is hard to make it stand out.
PB: If you had to write a prospectus for the band, what’s the thesis, key risks, and the KPI you actually care about—and how will you know you’ve hit product-market fit with your audience?
The KPI is signing up “super-fans”. The thesis has always been that it’s better to be a gateway band into a subgenre while being listenable to a wider audience. The key risks are excessive financial expenditure on music marketing and equipment and not having a coherent band image or sound. I think people fall in love with music and when that happens, we will know that our music has found the right audience.