vj theory home page
ArtTextsInterviewsReferencescontribute for the website
The Book

LANCE BLISTERS

  Interview with Lance and Ilan. By Ana Carvalho

 

 

Lance Blisters is an AV band comprised of Lance Blisters (music, vocals) and Ilan Katin (video).

To start this interview please introduce yourselves as individuals or/and as a group and what brings you together as an AV band.

Lance:
I started working on this project in 2003. By then nearly every gig featured some sort of video, most often VJ's improvising with whatever material they brought. I was interested in a stronger correlation so I began contacting the video artists in advance to coordinate. I'd send them a description of my set so they could prepare.

Ilan:
My entry into the world of live video performance began in early 2003. I found some software that let me make images in an interesting way. I met Lance
at a venue called Open Air Bar that hosted an open audio visual jam called SHARE. Doing live video mixes at SHARE was very exciting. It was great having the freedom to try anything. As a result of this free exploration at SHARE I would occasionally get requests to perform at other venues. I found that there were two types of performances. A club or lounge with a DJ usually playing hits or a musician/singer with a band. I found the club lounge experiences very exhausting due to the fact that a DJ set can last about three or four hours and lack cohesiveness. I really enjoyed performing with a musician because it was a concentrated amount of time for playing with songs that I could attach relevance to through images. The problem with most of these instances is that most musicians would notify me about a show with less then a week for preparation. There were almost no rehearsals and very often it was a struggle to try and extract information from the artist as to what they wanted. While I did enjoy the spontaneity I felt that there was a lot more that could be done with more time and more of a dialogue between me and the musician.

Lance:
I started LANCE BLISTERS as a solo music project in late 2003 and premièred it in early 2004. One of the first gigs had an A/V lineup, so as usual I contacted the visual artist in advance. It happened to be Ilan, who I'd known for years but rarely performed with. Ilan was interested in coordinating his work with mine. Whereas most of my earlier projects had been DJ/Remix/Mashup sets, LANCE was original music, discrete songs, with vocals, about political topics. The nature of the material lent itself to very literal, concrete visual depictions of the songs' subjects, which is how Ilan approached it.
After two shows together, we were inspired by the direction it was taking and decided to build on that by playing together regularly.
It wasn't long before we transitioned from music and video artists into an AV band - not simply playing together but collaborating on material and meeting
regularly for rehearsals.

Ilan:
We both had the same ideas about how visuals should function and it has been very rewarding. I get to hear new songs as they are being developed and design promotional graphics for LANCE BLISTERS based on the materials that we use for the show.

 

You both had the same idea of what an audiovisual show should be like and what you wanted from your participation. Do you think this similarity in your expectations is visible on your gigs?

Ilan:
I recall one of the earlier performances we did together. I distinctly remember looking up from my computer at Lance standing inside the visuals and thinking “this is what it's all about”. What “it” is exactly I can't say for sure but
I know that “it” motivates me.

Lance:
At least, the similarity of vision made developing material earlier. When we're brainstorming ideas, we tend to evaluate them by the same criteria. We have different ideas and see things from different angles but a common vocabulary which makes it easy to explain what we see good and bad about different ideas. Having similar goals keeps our rehearsals amicable... I don't recall ever arguing about what direction to take a song.

 

The visuals look great but I was wondering if you ever felt that you might take a less literal approach to the relationships between the music and the visuals.

Ilan:
There is so much “spin” being used in the news media today about what is happening in the world and personally I have not seen any performances that address these issues directly that it made a lot of sense to be as clear as possible. Our audience appreciates this. I almost think that the more direct the better. For example NO is probably one of our most popular songs. It's simple yet highly effective in stating our position on the issues that bother us at the moment. I think it helps that messages are simple because the moment you allow
too much complexity the artistry itself becomes the attraction and not the message. The message is what we want to be clear about. In some respects we are adopting the same tactics that were adopted to convince people to got to war. The difference is we are not trying to close peoples eyes.

Lance:
In terms of the content of the visuals, it is almost entirely political. That's because the band is political, and I want to hammer the message home. I wouldn't rule out doing a political song with abstract visuals, but in every case so far we've found it more rewarding to reinforce the song in a direct way. It can be a bit tiring, because what we're talking about is often unpleasant.
We do have some instrumental songs (not based on lyrics or sampled words) that provides a bit of reprieve from the ultra-literal approach.
The instrumental songs are often exploring a certain way of presenting music and presenting visuals. When I come up with a new concept of how to arrange music controls onto the MIDI guitar's fretboard, or a different software approach for performing music, I'll create a song to try out the idea. When the song doesn't have an explicit message through lyrics or samples, then there is more freedom in the selection and presentation of the visual elements. The visuals for instrumental songs are often, but not always, political. The non-political visuals are either to show off technically, or abstract purely to create a mood.
In terms of the presentation of the visuals, I am always considering how to heighten the synchronization. Our song Guitardcore is a showcase, every sound element is represented visually, for instance different geometric animations. Not only does the visual loop change when I change the drum loop, but the visuals correlate on an event level to each kick and snare hit.
Because i'm comfortable working in the technical domain, part of my artistic expression is striving for technical perfection.

 

I'm curious about the idea of an “open source” band. It is obvious to me the connection between software you use on your performances and how you use it and the political attitude you seem to express through music and imagery. Could you expand on the relationship between software and politics.

Lance:
I perform all my music using Open Source software called GDAM, which a friend and I have been developing for about 8 years. When we started GDAM, there was not much software which did what I wanted, which was sophisticated DJ mixing and remixing of digital music files. Although commercial software became available, and my interests shifted, it was always easier to build on my own software rather than learn a commercial app. I'm convinced that this was the correct decision; whenever my creative whims run into a limitation of the software, it is always possible for me to extend the software.
Of course, my system relies on the work of many people who develop Linux, MIDI and audio routing system, MIDI broadcast, tools to convert between audio file formats.

 

Your experience of working with software is very different from mine and so I am curious about it. Do you mean you change and adapt the software you use and that was created by yourself to produce the music you want?
and if so, what are the advantages and disadvantages?

Lance:
Exactly. I don't take existing music software and explore it to see what it can do. I have a clear of what I want to do, and I make my software capable of doing it.
Part of writing music is making changes to my software, to make composition more efficient or performance more fluid and flexible. Perhaps half my "songwriting" time is spent on software development, the other half actually working on the music.
Work with other people's software I always run into limitations; wanting to do things which are difficult or impossible, some behaviour which foils my plans, a limitation of the interface.
When in the course of songwriting I encounter that kind of problem, I can always adapt my software to meet my precise requirements of the moment. In the end, I have complete control over the software. There is something fundamental about having complete control... struggling with commercial software gives me a claustrophobic feeling.
With open source software, you can always look inside the software to see exactly how it works, and you can change the software if need be.
I also debug and enhance software written by others in order to achieve my goals.
With software, the possibilities are endless. I always find the limiting factor to be the interface. Hardware: the computer mouse, with a single pointer, is a terrible interface for interacting with virtual knobs and faders. Laptop touchpads are even worse. Software: the controls for interacting with the software are limited. Can only enter even numbers for certain values, or the control doesn't allow you to set a high enough value. It's restricted by perspective of the people who designed it.
The disadvantage is that I spend so much time on software development, so I have less time for working on music and rehearsing. Because anything can be possible, I could spent any amount of time on software. I have to manage my time and work on only the most important features.
The visual software we use, modul8, is commercial, but we have been in contact with the developers who have been kind enough to make some changes to meet our requirements. There is also a system for programming extensions, and a community of people sharing the extensions they've written.
I believe that Open Source software is a very viable model which has been proven for many projects. I do not believe it is the only valid model.

 

Could you explain a bit more. specially when you refer to other models.

Lance:
The other big model is proprietary commercial software, where the source code which defines the software is a secret. You have to live what whatever product they sell you. Your only freedom is to configure or arrange the software in ways predefined by the creator. Commercial software is generally sold for money.
With open source software, the source code is published openly. This lets anyone see exactly how software works and to modify the software. Software is something like a common good, and any work contributed becomes freely available. Because the source code is published, anyone can freely use the software without paying money.
There are many professional quality open source software applications including audio software, which proves that great software can be created outside of the traditional commercial model.
I do believe that Open Source should be protected against legal threats from commercial software, and from wicked laws which would make certain software development illegal.

 

You mention protecting software, would it be falling into the same ownership kind of problem that commercial software has?

Lance:
When I speak of protecting commercial software, I don't mean copy protection. The threat is from legal challenges. Companies claim the rights to certain software ideas, and open source software can come under threat, for example by supporting certain file formats.
I do believe that wherever possible, governments should invest in Open Source software rather than proprietary software. I believe in the strongest terms that only Open Source software and systems should be used for electronic voting. Currently in the US, there is no concrete proof of election results in many districts!
As far as extending the Open Source model to creative works, I think the Open Content movement is valuable.
We have not reached a final decision about how to license LANCE BLISTERS material; in part, this is because some of our songs rely heavily on sampling and quoting others' work. While our use of others' material falls under fair use, I have not yet sorted out the legal ramifications of releasing under
Creative Commons or other Open Content model. I think creators have the right to copyright their work as they wish, but there must be protection for fair use and
reuse.

 

Regarding open content; as you said, you sample and quote other people's work. How do you use fairly other people's material on your performances?

Ilan:
I am not sure about the materials that I use. I mostly find stuff that falls within the range of 'ephemeral' although I am sure there are other things that will at some point become 'sticky'. I am sure an alternative can be found should there be a major problem.

Lance:
American copyright law is generous in some ways, it allows the reuse of copyrighted material for purposes such as criticism, education, and satire. I can reasonably claim that my uses of copyrighted material fall into these categories. I use copyrighted samples not for the sounds, but for what the samples signify. When I use the chorus from "Celebration" by Kool and the Gang, I change the lyrics to be about revolution, and I'm contrasting the "good times" of the original to the current situation.
Technology and patent law in the US is poor, and very poorly executed. Patents are granted for vague, broad, and commonsense ideas. This holds back technological development.
Politically, the Open Source and Open Content movements are most important as a safeguard against the control of information. People must resist any attempt to control technology or the flow of information.

 

By watching the videos I understood that your work is based on communication between music and visuals.
How do you develop work and how much of what we see is rehearsed and how much is improvised when performed live?

Lance: All of our material is composed in advance, with certain elements available for free play.
I write the music first, then map it onto the MIDI guitar. I play the songs to Ilan, and we conceive and compose the video together. We spend a lot of time working on the layout of each song, setting up intuitive MIDI control so that we have complete freedom to focus on performance rather than technical issues. Each song is separate audio and video project files, and we pause between songs. The arrangements are fairly rigid; we know exactly what visual material goes with which part of each song. However we perform it all live; very little of the audio, and none of the video, is on a timeline. We trigger samples and effects and swap out loops in real time to achieve each song. Because we are playing the songs live, we have freedom to tweak the presentation of the material. We are very conscious to leave certain parts of the composition open for improvisation; I may play the same drum beat each chorus but I can apply the effects in different ways, and extend the breakdown as many bars as I feel.
We rehearse often.

Ilan:
It's very interesting to see how a set of visuals will evolve over time. From a songs inception there is a constant dialogue about what both of see in our minds. I'll download some reference materials and when we get a clear enough idea of what we want I set about making the compositions. The gigs usually test out the songs for us. In the heat of the moment you can see how things really work and usually afterward we will go and revise or add graphics where we agree it's necessary.

Lance: I'm very interested in heavy correspondance and synchronization between
audio and visuals. Synchronization can be on various time scales, from the event level (each snare drum hit is an image flashing onscreen) to video loops which repeat each bar, to swapping clips when song goes from chorus and verse.
I want every obvious change in the music to be visually represented somehow.

 

What is the input of different audiences into your performance. Do you react/interact somehow to/with them?

Ilan:
LANCE is a rock show. On one of the songs Lance tries to get the audience to sing along.

Lance:
yes, we interact in the classic ways, banter with the audience between songs, feeding off their energy, singing along. Many songs have very simple lyrics, some just a chorus or chant, and the audience is invited to sing along. In the transparency of the performance, with one or both of us on stage and our instruments clearly visible, there is something akin to interactivity. The audience can follow along. It is taken for granted with a rock band.

 

I would like you to frame your work, political ideas, software/hardware philosophy and aesthetics within a context by using examples. These can be historical examples of other gigs, books, films or music you saw in the past
and that are relevant for where you are now as performers. Or it can be examples of other artists, bands, works, theories, texts, anything that you relate with your work and that explains your points.

Ilan:
For LANCE BLISTERS I am mostly inspired by the great political artists of past and present. For example in the instance where I use illustration based materials one of my main influences is Seth Tobacman. His black on white
comic/graphic stories are always politically charged. The first piece of his that I saw was in World War 3 magazine and covered the NYPD's siege of squatters in the East Village. Because the LANCE material needs to be projected I mostly use white on black. However the line quality and the subject matter is always made with Seth in mind.
For the collage work I always think of John Hearfield. He basically took the idea of photo collage from the Dadaists and transformed it into some of the strongest political statements ever to be printed in a magazine.
There of course many other influences that are not so direct and that meld into the medium of the software and the projection format. There is also a wealth of imagery on the internet that can be re-appropriated for whatever message is trying to be conveyed. This approach is very much in tune with Lance's favorite shows The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report. There are so many good ideas to be drawn from these shows it's almost
overwhelming. So much of broadcast news is full of these red white and blue dreary glowing streamers and flags with gold and silver frames. These two shows successfully poke fun at these graphic cliches and sometimes break from them completely in order to convey how much of a sham most of these so called 'fair and balanced' news programs are.

Lance:
Musically, in chronological order of my biggest interests: punk with interesting arrangements, Nomeansno and The Minutemen. Political hip-hop - Public Enemt and Immortal Technique. Jungle and breakcore, as complex and compelling as possible - Bogdan Raczynski and Venetian Snares.
Visually, we've always got our eyes open. Street art. The video for our cover of Religious Wars is rendered as a video game.
I'm inspired by simple ways of expressing an idea, the visual presentation in ads - we want to get our message across, "sell it" if you will. If we are successful with the visuals for a LANCE song, any still frame will work as agitprot. I'm interested by the way the information is presented in popular media, compartmentalizing and framing it.
Politically, although it may be strident, most of our songs are arguing for a pretty minimally decent society. What should be a common ground everyone can agree to! No war, no corruption, freedom, an honest national dialogue and engaged citizenry. These things are non-negotiable. I don't think our material even goes into our personal politics - it may be inspired by it, but for the most part our personal politics aren't the subject.
I do argue for changing the political/social system itself. Not everyone accepts that revolution is called for, but if you accept the common ground and pay attention to the way the world works, it's clear great change is needed.

TOP
VJ Theory: INTERVIEWS
Date published: 02/02/2007