Oops!

It looks like you don't have flash player 6 installed. Click here to go to Macromedia download page.

An Interview with John Whybrew of Portion Control
Posted: Sunday, June 15, 2008
By: Ilker Yücel
Editor

Like many underground bands of the '80s, Portion Control went largely unnoticed amid a plethora of higher profile acts. Yet despite their relative obscurity, their influence as innovators of pure electronic music could be felt long after their dissolution in 1987, particularly in harder industrial groups like Front Line Assembly and Skinny Puppy and even in the lighter fare of Depeche Mode and Orbital. Releasing but a handful of singles, EPs, and albums in the '80s, the band transmuted into Solar Enemy during the early part of the next decade before embarking on an extended period of creative hibernation that ended with the group's return in 2002. Now, more than 20 years after their inception, Portion Control stand yet again as an innovative force in modern music, utilizing such tools of the era as software synthesizers and online distribution and marketing to bring their music to the masses. Since their return, the group has shown a steady stream of audiovisual output, with 2004's Wellcome, 2006's Filthy White Guy, and now 2008's SLUG as the prime examples, along with the Onion Jack IV EP in 2007 and the Archive boxed set containing all of their material from the '80s. Besides that, they've developed a strong presence both in the live circuit, as they've opened for several of the artists they'd originally inspired, and over the Internet with several Web sites devoted to their various releases. John Whybrew offers some insight into the enigmatic group's development of their craft, their views on making music in the modern era, and the scope of their influence over the years.

Let's start with your latest release, which is entitled SLUG. What are the significant differences between SLUG and your most recent previous releases? In other words, how do you feel your music and concept has been evolving, and how is SLUG representative of that?

Whybrew: Wellcome was our chance to represent Portion Control, and we wanted it to be a significant body of work drawing influence from our past experiences. It was the first release we had produced and engineered ourselves. Some of the material existed on our hard drives; other tracks were specifically written. At the same time. we were wanting to develop a way of presenting more filmic/atmospheric material, and consequently Onion Jack was devised as a vehicle for these pieces. We determined that these tracks should be evolving and able to be free-form, unlike the verse/chorus structure or expected duration we often favor.

Filthy White Guy was different to Wellcome in that it had, for the most part, stronger conventional song structures and timings. On Filthy White Guy, we wanted to concentrate on the dynamics, hence the use of locations to create and mix the material.

For SLUG, we wanted to create a looser feel and vary the songs' structures, some tracks having a less direct approach compared to Filthy White Guy. We looked at 'chance' and automatic processes for creating short sequences and used techniques where we would limit a song's development time to prevent us over-tweaking and refining the material. More than ever on SLUG, we looked at creating strong individual samples, principally from soft-synthesizers that were then heavily treated; these might dominate a track (like 'Sick Man') but would also create forceful sonics and a different dynamic: granular synthesis, feedback, bit reduction, and tap delays creating color.

The last full album release was titled Filthy White Guy, whereas the title of 2004's Wellcome was inspired by the work of Sir Henry Wellcome, and now the new album is called SLUG. Between Filthy White Guy and SLUG, what is the rationale behind these titles? How do they relate both to the themes presented in the music on those albums and to each other, if at all?

Whybrew: They share no relationship with each other; we see SLUG as our annual/biannual report, and this has partly inspired the artwork, which has the track titles on the front cover. It's very functional. We try not to present our products in fully conventional forms.

Your previous release was Onion Jack IV, continuing the instrumental series that began on Wellcome. You'd once mentioned a possible EP that would contain 'Onion Jack III.' What became of this? Will 'Onion Jack III' ever be released? What is the conceptual basis for this series, and how is it represented musically?

Whybrew: As mentioned earlier, Onion Jack is a vehicle for the more filmic/atmospheric output, although beats and loops are never far away. Onion Jack IV included some pieces that never made Filthy White Guy and some pieces that we included in our live sets. The writing process is also eased when we aren't working on a 'studio CD' and the expectations are lowered. In many ways, Onion Jack IV works as headphone/mobile music. As a download-only project, it didn't reach our expectations, but we continue to distribute the CD-R version at our live transmissions. Parts of 'Tyger' and 'Lambeth' are included in the current live set, and 'Cosh Boy 2.1' has been included on SLUG. Onion Jack simply continues our theme of Portion Control's England; VMAG visuals also tune into this theme. We may consider another Onion Jack release, but have no plans at this time.

It has now been four years since Portion Control returned to the music scene, and you've been very active not just with your studio material, but also performing at several concert and festival appearances. From the live perspective, what sorts of changes have you noticed in the way things are done since the band first started?

Whybrew: Live has changed very little in the sense that we present visuals and live sequenced music; we can't and don't play keyboards. The major difference is that we mix both the visuals and audio live, using a Yamaha 16-track AW1600 for the audio and Resolume running on a laptop for the visuals. It's far easier than the Teac 16-track reel-to-reel and bank of four Kodak carousel slide projectors we used in the past. The live mixing lets me set up mixes allowing for the venue's acoustics and to respond to Dean's vocal performance. Another change we have seen is in the amount of groups using projected visuals; this has always been an area we have worked hard to develop and continue to do so. Our current, very recent setup operates with a deck of 12 or so short video pieces for each track. These are triggered by me on stage and effected and manipulated in real time in response to the audio. This means I have to concentrate hard and keep ahead, lining up cues and markers. Our first uses of these methods were at Infest and Wave Gotik Treffen.

Four years, and you've released three albums, several EPs and samplers, and an Archive set of your output from the '80s. How do the members of Portion Control manage to maintain such a rigorous production schedule?

Whybrew: The creative part of the process is still challenging especially with changes in technology and soft-synthesis. We don't set a schedule as such, as Portion Control is a creative vehicle for us, not a means to an end. I have always been fascinated with the technology and continue to be; some of the new soft-synths are truly amazing and can create the kind of powerful music unimaginable when we started. We are so reliant on technology it is often the inspiration for creation.

You've embraced modern technology in your recent work, incorporating software synthesis as well as utilizing digital distribution and developing micro-sites for each new album. How do these new techniques compare to the way promotion and distribution was done when the band first started?

Whybrew: When we started, we relied on record labels and good distribution followed by word of mouth, supported by the odd European live appearance. Now, of course, the music industry is a completely different model. Our aim to self-create means we keep our operational costs low, with any profits reinvested into technology, hard or soft. This level of control is good in the sense that we can reach anyone finding our Web sites, but not having a record label distributing and promoting us restricts our ability to reach newer listeners who aren't aware of our history. We determined that our Web site would be easy to navigate, and the micro-site idea stemmed from the fact that each release has its own audio and graphical feel, and these help underpin this.

What would you say are the contrasting negative aspects of these techniques? In other words, being that Portion Control is rather technology-driven, by nature of the band's style of music, what are the downsides to it all?

Whybrew: Not having our CDs in specialist shops. Not being able to promote or market as vigorously as we would like. Traditionally, bands played live at a loss to make money from CD sales, but now, exactly the opposite is true; live concerts will save the music industry.

As you were one of the instrumental forces in the development of underground electronic music, and having performed with some of the groups and artists you've had an impact on, both live and through remixes, what are your thoughts on the current state of industrial and electronic music?

Whybrew: It seems as if industrial music and darker electronic music is either softer, with lots of pads and angst vocals, 4/4 techno, or the more rock-oriented flavor inspired by NIN and Skinny Puppy; if anything, it's missing its innovation and experimentation. I am constantly surprised that in the UK, bigger, more commercial electronic groups don't really exist. Groups like Leftfield were undoubtedly good for electronic music.

Many of the acts that you've inspired, such as Front Line Assembly, Skinny Puppy, Depeche Mode, etc., have developed their sound over the years. What are your thoughts on how they've progressed over the years, and do you still feel you can detect Portion Control's influence on them now?

Whybrew: These bands may have been influenced early on in their careers, but all have developed strong identities over the years and have helped to keep electronic music relevant and on the fringes of the mainstream.

You've spoken in the past about those artists and groups that inspired you to make electronic music, such as SPK, Chris and Cosey, and Throbbing Gristle. Who from the newer generation would you say is exciting you in a similar way?

Whybrew: We were inspired by Wire, the Pop Group, and some of the more interesting post-punk bands. We became aware of SPK as they were living in a squat in Vauxhall just a few minutes from our Kennington base. We never quite understood Throbbing Gristle until a few years into our existence. We don't listen to a lot of music, and our personal preferences are for the more innovative left field output of electronic music, such as Panda Bear (Person Pitch) and Burial.

Having been making music for almost three decades now and having seen the development of electronic music over the years, what advice would you offer to any aspiring musician or group of musicians?

Whybrew: We can't offer any advice except don't listen to any advice! The music industry will change fundamentally in the future, and who can predict what's ahead?