‘I could get you so many gigs’: Female DJ, 21, exposes fellow DJ’s ‘disgusting and degrading’ voice note after she asked him for career help… and rejected his advances
A 21-year-old DJ from Noosa, Australia, has publicly accused a Melbourne-based DJ of sending her a "disgusting and degrading" voice message after she contacted him seeking career advice and gig opportunities. Tiarna Hanson said Ryan Mattiazzo, who performs as "Mattix", made it clear that access to his industry contacts came with an expectation of something in return, before making comments about wanting her attention romantically. When she rejected him, he responded by seemingly mocking her decision, referencing the number of gigs he could have helped her secure.
Hanson said she first messaged Mattiazzo in May after he had previously shown interest in booking her, but the exchange turned uncomfortable when he implied opportunities depended on her personal engagement with him rather than professional merit. Despite her repeated attempts to keep the conversation focused on work, he persisted, later telling her he "could help you with so many gigs" before criticising her for rejecting him. Hanson, who brands herself as a "girls' girl" and performs mainly for female audiences, said she decided to share the exchange publicly despite fears it could damage her career, saying she wanted to highlight what she described as a broader pattern of women in the industry facing similar treatment.
- DJ Tiarna Hanson, 21, says male DJ sent degrading voice message
- Ryan Mattiazzo allegedly implied gigs required something in return
- Hanson rejected his advances and publicly shared the exchange
New here? Start with this
Tiarna Hanson is a 21-year-old DJ from Noosa, Australia, who has spoken out after contacting a more established DJ, Ryan Mattiazzo, who performs under the name "Mattix" and is based in Melbourne. She reached out to him in May to ask for career advice and possible gig opportunities, a common practice among newer artists seeking connections in the music industry.
Hanson says the conversation shifted when Mattiazzo appeared to suggest that his help came with personal strings attached, and that he expressed romantic interest in her. When she turned him down, she says he responded in a way she found belittling, referring to the work opportunities he could have offered her.
The dispute has drawn attention to wider concerns about how women starting out in the DJing and music industries are sometimes treated by more established figures they turn to for mentorship or bookings. Both DJs are relatively niche performers, but the row has gained traction after Hanson chose to share details of the exchange publicly, despite saying she worried it might affect her career.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those who back Hanson's decision to go public argue that in an informal, HR-less industry like DJing, publicly naming behaviour that conditions professional opportunities on romantic interest is often the only realistic form of accountability available to young or freelance workers. They point out that quietly enduring or privately reporting such conduct rarely changes anything, whereas open disclosure can protect others from similar treatment and validate the experiences of women who have faced comparable pressure but felt unable to speak up. For advocates of this view, the public interest in exposing an apparent pattern outweighs the discomfort of naming an individual before any formal process has run its course.
The case against
Others, without condoning genuinely inappropriate conduct, caution that a single voice note or exchange of messages can be open to more than one interpretation, and that tone, intent and context are easily lost or misjudged when private communications are shared publicly. They argue that trial by social media denies the accused a considered opportunity to respond before reputational damage is done, and that even well-intentioned callouts can escalate unfairly once amplified online. For those holding this view, due process and the presumption of good faith matter precisely because informal industries lack formal channels, making public allegations harder to test or correct if they prove mistaken.