# Analysis: “Frownland” from Trout Mask Replica



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Composer Samuel Andreyev analyzes 'Frownland' from Trout Mask Replica


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Red Terror said:


> Composer Samuel Andreyev analyzes 'Frownland' from Trout Mask Replica...


An interesting analysis, thanks. I can't say that it helped me like the music any better, though.


----------



## 38157 (Jul 4, 2014)

Samuel has also done great interviews with all the Magic Band members from that album too. I don't think the Mark Boston interview is out yet.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

I saw it. Good analysis, I guess... nothing too special. I felt like there could've been more depth, maybe less breadth. A bit annoying though, as half the time it seems like he's just idolizing the album, or at least vehemently trying to defend it.

As for TMR itself, well, it's an interesting concept. However, the praise and status it gets, especially among "hipster" circles, is more than a bit unwarranted, and tbh kinda goes against the intent of the music itself.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I'm reminded of one, long acid trip where everyone is completely immersed in their own hallucinations of reality-and there was a lot of that going around in '69 and perhaps I hear the album as being mostly confined to the era in which it was created. So for me, it's a bit of a mess but a wild, free, poetic, _ interesting_ mess, and I can understand why some would consider it a classic. It captures something iconic of those chaotic and experimental times. No matter the analysis of any work, I believe it always comes down to how people feel about it, something positive or inspired or it never ends up being worthy of analysis or considered a classic.


----------



## 38157 (Jul 4, 2014)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> A bit annoying though, as half the time it seems like he's just idolizing the album, or at least vehemently trying to defend it.


I don't hear it like this, I got the impression he was more trying to straighten out misconceptions (like common claims that it's "atonal", which are patently incorrect). There does tend to be a knee-jerk response to this album, and people seem to passionately argue for their love or hatred of it (I'm definitely in the former category), so I wonder if the breadth of the analysis was an effort to make it accessible with the hope that more people might at least try to then understand it on its own terms?

Anyway, I like Samuel, but I agree that I'd like to see further analyses which focus more specifically on the composition and examine it section-by-section. That said, I did like this video and thought it did a good job of addressing misconceptions and clarifying the main features of the music in an accessible way.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

It may be polytonal and polyrhythmic, but I don't feel the parts really gel, harmonically and rhythmically. It sounds a bit arbitrary to me.


----------



## 38157 (Jul 4, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> It may be polytonal and polyrhythmic, but I don't feel the parts really gel, harmonically and rhythmically. It sounds a bit arbitrary to me.


It is completely arbitrary - Don would bash out whatever he felt like on the piano, and would randomly assign the passage and instrument. Over some time, he stopped even doing that, assuming the John French (drummer and transcriptionist of the music) would know what part was supposed to be for what instrument.

This is something I love about the album - all these lines make sense alone (they're basically just blues lines, sometimes slightly botched), but they're forced to navigate a common territory in spite of their harmonic and rhythmic incompatibility. This makes polymeter the primary organisational feature which drives the music forward, and each time all the parts "resolve" and land on the same beat 1 is an extremely satisfying relief (could maybe call it a cadence of sorts?). It places the music in a bit of a tonal uncanny valley, not just because there are conflicting tonal centres, but because there's no conventional harmonic resolution.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

****** said:


> It is completely arbitrary - Don would bash out whatever he felt like on the piano, and would randomly assign the passage and instrument. Over some time, he stopped even doing that, assuming the John French (drummer and transcriptionist of the music) would know what part was supposed to be for what instrument.
> 
> This is something I love about the album - all these lines make sense alone (they're basically just blues lines, sometimes slightly botched), but they're forced to navigate a common territory in spite of their harmonic and rhythmic incompatibility. This makes polymeter the primary organisational feature which drives the music forward, and each time all the parts "resolve" and land on the same beat 1 is an extremely satisfying relief (could maybe call it a cadence of sorts?). It places the music in a bit of a tonal uncanny valley, not just because there are conflicting tonal centres, but because there's no conventional harmonic resolution.


For me, Trout Mask serves as a benchmark for the high level of artistry rock is capable of reaching. Whatever one may think of the album, nothing produced before or since sounds remotely alike.


----------

