# Playing the "Shallow" Card and the "Deep" Card



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

I've noticed quite often that when discussing music, people criticize pieces, composers, or performers as being shallow or praise other things for their profound nature. It happens with non-musical things too sometimes. I won't mention examples right now, but I often find that I like a piece/musician only to see others calling it/them shallow. It seems that works or musicians get a bad reputation or are ignored because they are seen as lacking depth. 

It seems to me that people will see depth or lack thereof where they wish. Often, this type of critique comes across as a pseudo-intellectual way of saying "I like this" or "I don't like this". It seems to be used as a method of presenting one's own preferences as factually better or others' preferences as factually flawed or lowly. It can also put someone in the position of feeling as though they need to justify their preferences.

Does anyone else feel this way? What makes something profound or shallow? Is there any substance to the shallow-profound appraisal of art?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

adriesba said:


> I've noticed quite often that when discussing music, people criticize pieces, composers, or performers as being shallow or praise other things for their profound nature. It happens with non-musical things too sometimes. I won't mention examples right now, but I often find that I like a piece/musician only to see others calling it/them shallow. It seems that works or musicians get a bad reputation or are ignored because they are seen as lacking depth.
> 
> It seems to me that people will see depth or lack thereof where they wish. Often, this type of critique comes across as a pseudo-intellectual way of saying "I like this" or "I don't like this". It seems to be used as a method of presenting one's own preferences as factually better or others' preferences as factually flawed or lowly. It can also put someone in the position of feeling as though they need to justify their preferences.
> 
> Does anyone else feel this way? What makes something profound or shallow? Is there any substance to the shallow-profound appraisal of art?


Polyphony - many different simultaneous lines of music - is one way of being deep, especially if they aren't all singing from the same hymn sheet. It's because in polyphonic music there's not just an idea, there are many ideas, and they may be commenting on each other.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2020)

adriesba said:


> I've noticed quite often that when discussing music, people criticize pieces, composers, or performers as being shallow or praise other things for their profound nature. It happens with non-musical things too sometimes. I won't mention examples right now, but I often find that I like a piece/musician only to see others calling it/them shallow. It seems that works or musicians get a bad reputation or are ignored because they are seen as lacking depth.
> 
> It seems to me that people will see depth or lack thereof where they wish. Often, this type of critique comes across as a pseudo-intellectual way of saying "I like this" or "I don't like this". It seems to be used as a method of presenting one's own preferences as factually better or others' preferences as factually flawed or lowly. It can also put someone in the position of feeling as though they need to justify their preferences.
> 
> Does anyone else feel this way? What makes something profound or shallow? Is there any substance to the shallow-profound appraisal of art?


It takes all sorts, of course. For some listeners, it's all about the profundities - and I mean that sincerely. They seek 'the meaning of life' (or death, or the afterlife...or whatever) in their listening. Personally, I'm not after profundity. It's not a dimension that I refer to when listening to music that I enjoy. I'd say you can find it if you're looking for it, but it's not necessarily there, intrinsic to the music.

I shouldn't pay attention to those who want to put you down for listening to 'shallow' music. That's their problem, not yours.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

For me, music that's deep is something that unfolds in the longer course, and much greater than the sum of its parts, which are the more immediate motifs, melodies, or counterpoint. I love Haydn, some Liszt, and Ravel, but I don't hear their music as especially deep. Is Bruckner more deep? I think he sounds that way, but personally I don't feel much gets built in the larger picture; the motifs, interludes, passages or whatever still don't add up more than the sum of its parts to me. 

I don't consider a lot of modern music that especially deep either. Take Scriabin's Black Mass. Sounds intimidating (someone else gave the nickname), but is built on something pretty simple, and doesn't go far beyond its first couple of minutes.

A lot of music follow similar forms, so there isn't much difference in depth. But Wagner's Tristan Prelude, I consider that deep, apart from anything to do with extra-musical themes or setting in an opera, it's the way it cuts its path to me. The first movement of Beethoven's Quartet 14 is also pretty deep to me. It's not just counterpoint, it goes beyond what Bach did in its course.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

I believe that, if there were to be an official study, there would be a remarkable correlation between descriptions with a positive association and personal response to that music. In general, people tend to decide what they want, then they decide how to justify it. I suspect that a similar action is at work here.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I am unaware of any objective test or measure of depth or shallowness of art or artworks. Many things, attributes, qualities of artworks can be measured and described with great accuracy. "Depth", not so much. Everyone brings a unique measuring tool to quantify this particular descriptor.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

I am currently watching a video of a presentation by Tom Scott called "There is no algorithm for truth." It is very good, and deep . . . or at least I think so.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I like lots of music that I consider relatively shallow. And I like lots that seems profound to me. I don't see a link between liking a piece and thinking it profound or the opposite case.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> I like lots of music that I consider relatively shallow. And I like lots that seems profound to me. I don't see a link between liking a piece and thinking it profound or the opposite case.


Which is not the same as there not being one. (It is why I said a remarkable corelation, rather than an absolute one. It is certainly a concern worth thinking about.)


----------



## gregorx (Jan 25, 2020)

Not sure how "they" define the terms. Does deep and shallow correlate to serious and frivolous? Is a Shostakovich symphony deep because it eludes (somehow) to Stalins' oppression and a Strauss waltz shallow because you can dance to it? Does a piece entitled "For the End of Time" have to be considered deep? I'm not looking for meaning or enlightenment in music. The music can evoke an emotional response without having to change my life. 

I hope that adds to the confusion.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think "shallowness" and "deepness" are based on subjective conclusions. As I say in my signature, "If anything is sufficiently complex, it will eventually reveal a layer of profundity."

"Complexity" can vary, as can the "profundity" that we get out of it.

In La Monte Young, a single sustained note is not complex _per se,_ but it can have a high degree of profundity according to how we engage with it. If we start considering the note's harmonics, or spatial effects, this can increase the apparent "complexity" of what was previously considered to be "simple."


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

JAS said:


> I believe that, if there were to be an official study, there would be a remarkable correlation between descriptions with a positive association and personal response to that music. In general, people tend to decide what they want, then they decide how to justify it. I suspect that a similar action is at work here.


I find the choice of the word "justify" misleading. People certainly investigate why they like something, and if their structural and psychological knowledge suffices, they can correctly deduct the roots. If not, they tend to say a lot of words that fail to convey their subconscious insights about a work of art to others.

Of course what usually follows is a debate about what sorts of human activity refine our minds more (or enough), which is not limited to music. That's where trouble begins.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I don't suppose there will be wide variation in people's views about which works are shallow and which deep, although many of us will try to avoid the terms as rather lazy or inarticulate. But it is when the words are applied to performances that I think we are deeply in the realms of poorly expressed subjective judgments.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

JAS said:


> I am currently watching a video of a presentation by Tom Scott called "There is no algorithm for truth." It is very good, and deep . . . or at least I think so.


I am not going to watch the video, but I disagree with the premise. There is an algorithm for truth, it is called the scientific method.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Jacck said:


> I am not going to watch the video, but I disagree with the premise. There is an algorithm for truth, it is called the scientific method.


Except that scientific method is an ideal, and the problem is often in the execution.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Some performers and performances are "shallow" in that they don't dig in and elicit the emotional possibilities like others. Others, dig too deep and try to make music more profound than it is - that's the beginning of vulgarity. A symphony by Tchaikovsky can nicely demonstrate the whole range.

One of my favorite conductors of all is Neeme Jarvi. He is often seen as superficial, glib and shallow. He gets all the right notes, plays the music pretty much as the composer wrote it and doesn't add much. His Tchaikovsky 6th on Bis is pretty much like that. There's nothing wrong with it, but you get the sense that there's more especially near the end of the development in the first movement and the entire finale. And that's how it was reviewed: shallow and lightweight.

Compare that to a classic: Monteux on RCA. Very romantic, very heartfelt, makes a searing impact without going overboard. It seems perfect and sure is gripping at just the right moments. The emotional outpouring is sincere and powerful. Deservedly a great recording.

Then came Bernstein on DG. Slow, hyperdramatic, vulgar. Did he think this is Mahler? He tried to make more of the 6th than is there and blew it big time.

For conductors, this difference between shallow and deep is what makes an efficient Kapellmeister into a maestro. I've played with many conductors for whom the goal is to play every passage correctly, no wrong notes, every rhythm spot on and yet they miss the music. Players get frustrated when they know there's more to the music. Then you play the same work with a conductor who has less skill with a baton, is less concerned with razor sharp precision, yet the music just blossoms and you feel like the whole 80-piece orchestra is working as one and playing their hearts out. It's a thrilling sensation when it happens but unfortunately it doesn't happen all the time. And there are too many players who are more concerned about that precision than the music.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Fabulin said:


> I find the choice of the word "justify" misleading. People certainly investigate why they like something, and if their structural and psychological knowledge suffices, they can correctly deduct the roots. If not, they tend to say a lot of words that fail to convey their subconscious insights about a work of art to others.
> 
> Of course what usually follows is a debate about what sorts of human activity refine our minds more (or enough), which is not limited to music. That's where trouble begins.


I am thinking along the lines of "confirmation bias," which is widely recognized as a real and power influence on thought. And lots of things are not really subject to a scientific process of experimentation. measurement and carefully recorded results. Often, even when there is some scientific aspect, we find that we are on a continuum, and not sure where we fall on the path to discovery (until later, when perspective gives us some insight that is almost always lacking in the moment).


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

JAS said:


> Except that scientific method is an ideal, and the problem is often in the execution.


it is the only algorith that works and it has brought us extraordinary results. Things like cell phones would seem like magic to people from 200 years ago. I dont understand the need of some people to question this extraordinary effectiveness, but I am pretty sure that those people doing the criticizing will never contribute anything useful to human civilization


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

Jacck said:


> it is the only algorith that works and it has brought us extraordinary results. Things like cell phones would seem like magic to people from 200 years ago. I dont understand the need of some people to question this extraordinary effectiveness, but I am pretty sure that those people doing the criticizing will never contribute anything useful to human civilization


Even scientists don't go around using the scientific methods to investigate most things they interact with in their lives. The scientific method is great, but it's narrowly focused on a relatively small set of questions that humans ask ourselves.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

apricissimus said:


> Even scientists don't go around using the scientific methods to investigate most things they interact with in their lives. The scientific method is great, but it's narrowly focused on a relatively small set of questions that humans ask ourselves.


of course you cannot use it to solve the problems of everyday living, like human interpersonal problems, which constitute the vast majority of our experiences. But it is still useful to have developed critical thinking skills, which you use to orient yourself in human society. People without such critical thinking skills believe various strange things like horoscopes, astrology, scientology or communism


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

JAS said:


> Except that scientific method is an ideal, and the problem is often in the execution.


I don't think I understand what you are getting at here. Jacck's answer to the idea that there is no algorithm for truth seemed quite a conclusive one?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> I don't think I understand what you are getting at here. Jacck's answer to the idea that there is no algorithm for truth seemed quite a conclusive one?


The original statement was that there was no algorithm for truth. The reply that scientific method is the answer is inapplicable as it is not an algorithm. It is an ideal. It may be a laudable idea, but it can be as subject to twisting, distortion and error as anything else in the hands of humans. You might as well say that the algorithm for truth is to be truthful. That might be true, in some way, but also utterly pointless as an answer to the problem.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

JAS said:


> The original statement was that there was no algorithm for truth. The reply that scientific method is the answer is inapplicable as it is not an algorithm. It is an ideal. It may be a laudable idea, but it can be as subject to twisting, distortion and error as anything else in the hands of humans. You might as well say that the algorithm for truth is to be truthful. That might be true, in some way, but also utterly pointless as an answer to the problem.


if you think that scientific method is not an algorithm, then, respectfully, you dont understand it. 
1) use observation of the world and induction to find patterns in the data
2) use deduction to generate a hypothesis (or a scientific theory), that is testable
3) test the hypothesis, if it passes the test, you may add it to verified knowledge, if it fails, you need to reject it
of course it is the ideal, but this is in essence an algorithm for the generation of verified and tested knowledge, which we might call truth. And dont start me on a discussion of what we mean by truth 
https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Jacck said:


> if you think that scientific method is not an algorithm, then, respectfully, you dont understand it.
> 1) use observation of the world and induction to find patterns in the data
> 2) use deduction to generate a hypothesis (or a scientific theory), that is testable
> 3) test the hypothesis, if it passes the test, you may add it to verified knowledge, if it fails, you need to reject it
> ...


If you think that scientific method is an algorithm, then, respectfully, you don't understand what an algorithm is. You cannot feed most situations into the scientific method, as if it even existed as a tangible thing, and come up with any answer, let alone a correct one.

Many things are not even subject to testing, either morally or as a mater of practicality. Which Stephen Hawking is correct, the one who says that matter cannot survive passing through a black hole, or the one who says that it can? How do you propose we try that experiment, and that is at least something that might apply if you could figure out how to accomplish it.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> I think "shallowness" and "deepness" are based on subjective conclusions. As I say in my signature, "If anything is sufficiently complex, it will eventually reveal a layer of profundity."
> 
> "Complexity" can vary, as can the "profundity" that we get out of it.
> 
> In La Monte Young, a single sustained note is not complex _per se,_ but it can have a high degree of profundity according to how we engage with it. If we start considering the note's harmonics, or spatial effects, this can increase the apparent "complexity" of what was previously considered to be "simple."


I add a thought to the above, which I added a "Like" to:

The most profound thought voiced in _a language one does not understand_ will fail to be anything but shallow (save for a possible appreciation of the profoundness of the mellifluousness of the syllabification).


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

JAS said:


> If you think that scientific method is an algorithm, then, respectfully, you don't understand what an algorithm is. You cannot feed most situations into the scientific method, as if it even existed as a tangible thing, and come up with any answer, let along a correct one.


all those people doing the A.I. research would disagree that searching for truth (for the optimal anwer) cannot be algorithmized. Our brains are complex algorithmic machines to sort all the vast data that we get from the outer world from our senses. And if our brains did not generate some form of truth, which would be reflective of the conditions in the outer world, we would not have survived. Another pretty universal altorithm for truth searching is the Bayes algorithm. It has been proposed, that the Brain operates as a Bayesian brain. 
https://www.mindcoolness.com/blog/bayesian-brain-predictive-processing/
but we are getting pretty off topic from deep or shallow music, so let us stop it

personally, I found Mozart shallow in the past, because I could not relate to his music emotionally. So I equate depth or shallowness with the emotions the piece can elicit in me. I have overcome my difficulty with Mozart.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Jacck said:


> all those people doing the A.I. research would disagree that searching for truth (for the optimal anwer) cannot be algorithmized. Our brains are complex algorithmic machines to sort all the vast data that we get from the outer world from our senses. And if our brains did not generate some form of truth, which would be reflective of the conditions in the outer world, we would not have survived. Another pretty universal altorithm for truth searching is the Bayes algorithm. It has been proposed, that the Brain operates as a Bayesian brain.
> https://www.mindcoolness.com/blog/bayesian-brain-predictive-processing/
> but we are getting pretty off topic from deep or shallow music, so let us stop it
> 
> personally, I found Mozart shallow in the past, because I could not relate to his music emotionally. So I equate depth or shallowness with the emotions the piece can elicit in me. I have overcome my difficulty with Mozart.


They might or might not agree, but until they accomplish the task, their opinion isn't worth much. (In many cases, there isn't even a means of obtaining sufficient information for evaluating the truth of something. If we have one historical source for something, is that true in the absence of alternative sources? If we have two historical sources for something and they disagree in some material way, can we really tell which is correct? Is an autobiography, being more directly from a first-hand source, more truthful than a memoir by someone else?)

"Algorithm" for getting a millions dollars:

- find a million dollars
- get it


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

JAS said:


> They might or might not agree, but until they accomplish the task, their opinion isn't worth much.
> 
> "Algorithm" for getting a millions dollars:
> 
> ...


there are plenty of such algorithms, it is called algorithmic trading
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_trading


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> Polyphony - many different simultaneous lines of music - is one way of being deep, especially if they aren't all singing from the same hymn sheet. It's because in polyphonic music there's not just an idea, there are many ideas, and they may be commenting on each other.


Is that 'depth'? Or mere 'complexity'?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Jacck said:


> there are plenty of such algorithms, it is called algorithmic trading
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_trading


You are missing the point, but obviously you don't want to see (or admit it), since it is quite simple. Even in that case, there are algorithms that have been used in pursuit of the goal, but the steps listed are not an algorithm, nor an answer in and of themselves. Too often, the idea of scientific method is waved around as easily, and as pointlessly, as saying "Jesus is the answer."


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

JAS said:


> You are missing the point, but obviously you don't want to see (or admit it), since it is quite simple. Even in that case, there are algorithms that have been used in pursuit of the goal, but the steps listed are not an algorithm, nor an answer in and of themselves. Too often, the idea of scientific method is waved around as easily, and as pointlessly, as saying "Jesus is the answer."


if it was programmed as a set of instructions for a computer, then it is an algorithm. Algorithm is essentially just a set of instructions to take some input, and transform it into some output


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

JAS said:


> They might or might not agree, but until they accomplish the task, their opinion isn't worth much. (In many cases, there isn't even a means of obtaining sufficient information for evaluating the truth of something. If we have one historical source for something, is that true in the absence of alternative sources? If we have two historical sources for something and they disagree in some material way, can we really tell which is correct? Is an autobiography, being more directly from a first-hand source, more truthful than a memoir by someone else?)


Now you are shifting the goalposts, JAS. No-one has said that scientific method can be applied to all questions. The point has been that when it is used it can be described as an algorithm. I think you can see this in the thinking of Karl Popper concerning what science involves.

With that straightened out perhaps the thread can get back to its main subject.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2020)

Jacck said:


> People without such critical thinking skills believe various strange things like horoscopes, astrology, scientology or communism


Well, as someone who belives that there is some value to be found in communism, I take exception to the suggestion that I lack critical thinking skills. 

Oh, and while we're at it, I'm with JAS (I think)

The "scientific method" ≠ "algorithm"


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Well, as someone who belives that there is some value to be found in communism, I take exception to the suggestion that I lack critical thinking skills.
> 
> Oh, and while we're at it, I'm with JAS (I think)
> 
> The "scientific method" ≠ "algorithm"


Do you really come from the same country as George Orwell? Have you read the Animal Farm? That is a pretty basic explanation, why communism will never work.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2020)

Jacck said:


> Do you really come from the same country as George Orwell? Have you read the Animal Farm? That is a pretty basic explanation, why communism will never work.


Yes, I do, but I don't see _Animal Farm _as simplistically as a critique of Communism.

Anyway, Orwell wasn't born in England, and he lived through a different era than me.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Phil loves classical said:


> For me, music that's deep is something that unfolds in the longer course, and much greater than the sum of its parts, which are the more immediate motifs, melodies, or counterpoint. I love Haydn, some Liszt, and Ravel, but I don't hear their music as especially deep. Is Bruckner more deep? I think he sounds that way, but personally I don't feel much gets built in the larger picture; the motifs, interludes, passages or whatever still don't add up more than the sum of its parts to me.
> 
> I don't consider a lot of modern music that especially deep either. Take Scriabin's Black Mass. Sounds intimidating (someone else gave the nickname), but is built on something pretty simple, and doesn't go far beyond its first couple of minutes.
> 
> A lot of music follow similar forms, so there isn't much difference in depth. But Wagner's Tristan Prelude, I consider that deep, apart from anything to do with extra-musical themes or setting in an opera, it's the way it cuts its path to me. The first movement of Beethoven's Quartet 14 is also pretty deep to me. It's not just counterpoint, it goes beyond what Bach did in its course.


Maybe this is largely subjective but I will offer some of my opinions. Some of it in response to Phil's post. I think Ravel has a lot of depth when he wants to, in a similar way to Mozart. Both can be very deep.

I think Haydn has some depth in has craftsmanship, but lacks darkness, (not exactly the same thing).

Wagner's prelude to Tristan initially felt very impactful but doesn't do much for me anymore. In my view Brahms music has more depth than Wagner because there are more layers, there is more to uncover. R Strauss has less depth than Wagner. Brahms and R Strauss are in some ways opposites because Strauss uses impressive surfaces, without as much substance in the music, the surface of Brahms music is more ordinary but the compositions overall have more substance and depth. To me it is kind of like comparing fools gold (Strauss) to gold (Brahms).

I think both Beethoven and Bach have depth, the difference to me is that Beethoven sounds as though he tries very hard to be deep, for Bach it seems relatively effortless. Bach's music is so much more than just counterpoint. So saying 'Beethoven goes beyond just counterpoint..' Well Bach does too.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

tdc said:


> Maybe this is largely subjective but I will offer some of my opinions. Some of it in response to Phil's post. I think Ravel has a lot of depth when he wants to, in a similar way to Mozart. Both can be very deep.
> 
> I think Haydn has some depth in has craftsmanship, but lacks darkness, (not exactly the same thing).
> 
> ...


But... why? What makes one composer's music deeper than another's?


----------



## Simplicissimus (Feb 3, 2020)

As for @Enthusiast’s comment that “shallow” and “deep” are often covers for “poorly expressed subjective judgments,” I know that I am often guilty of just that sort of thing. Are the terms shorthand for something real, or are they meaningless? For the sake of clarity, let me consider the case of the performance of solo keyboard music. Upon reflection, I can say that I tend to describe performances as deep when they have relatively great dynamic range and ample rubato, shallow when I feel they’re underplayed with respect to marked dynamics and tempi, and vulgar when the dynamics and tempi seem way overplayed to me. I really don’t know how to use “deep” and “shallow” to express subjective judgments about musical compositions, and I don’t think I use the terms in that area.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Well, La Mer is deep in more places than not. The bubbling brook in the Pastoral Symphony is relatively shallow. I'm not sure that makes either of them a better piece of music.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

adriesba said:


> But... why? What makes one composer's music deeper than another's?


Well, I do think that part of it is very subjective. When one listens to a piece of music and is very moved by it in some way one might describe as 'deep' (for example beyond just making you want to dance or head bang) that is an aspect of depth, the subjective aspect. I think it also relates to layers of meaning. For example if one listens to a piece of music many times, and does not grow tired of it and is still noticing new aspects of the work they appreciate after many listening's I relate this also to depth, in a somewhat more objective way. However, this is not to imply that more complexity=more depth. I think ideally a composition balances simple aspects with the more complex. The simple elements are what draw us in and give us the strongest immediate response, the complex elements sustain our interest and allow the music to be perceived as intricate and exciting because it is not too predictable.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

As is well known, Schindler reports that in 1819 Beethoven said to him, "Anton, I have discovered three or four tricks to make my music seem _tiefgreifend_ ("profound"), which should increase sales of my future music quite a bit." However, Beethoven didn't share these tricks with Schindler, or if he did they weren't passed along to us.

Just a cautionary note to those of us inclined to hyper-enthusiasm.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

KenOC said:


> As is well known, Schindler reports that in 1819 Beethoven said to him, "Anton, I have discovered three or four tricks to make my music seem _tiefgreifend_ ("profound"), which should increase sales of my future music quite a bit." However, Beethoven didn't share these tricks with Schindler, or if he did they weren't passed along to us.
> 
> Just a cautionary note to those of us inclined to hyper-enthusiasm.


If only we had Schindler's list.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

tdc said:


> Maybe this is largely subjective but I will offer some of my opinions. Some of it in response to Phil's post. I think Ravel has a lot of depth when he wants to, in a similar way to Mozart. Both can be very deep.
> 
> I think Haydn has some depth in has craftsmanship, but lacks darkness, (not exactly the same thing).
> 
> ...


I always thought Mahler tried deepness in the Symphonies and succeeded.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Jacck said:


> Do you really come from the same country as George Orwell? Have you read the Animal Farm? That is a pretty basic explanation, why communism will never work.


Why is it that so many who live in the (very imperfectly) democratic west get so defensive when someone suggests that there may be some good things in Communism? There is only black and white on this issue, it seems.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

adriesba said:


> I've noticed quite often that when discussing music, people criticize pieces, composers, or performers as being shallow or praise other things for their profound nature. It happens with non-musical things too sometimes. I won't mention examples right now, but I often find that I like a piece/musician only to see others calling it/them shallow. It seems that works or musicians get a bad reputation or are ignored because they are seen as lacking depth.
> 
> It seems to me that people will see depth or lack thereof where they wish. Often, this type of critique comes across as a pseudo-intellectual way of saying "I like this" or "I don't like this". It seems to be used as a method of presenting one's own preferences as factually better or others' preferences as factually flawed or lowly. It can also put someone in the position of feeling as though they need to justify their preferences.
> 
> Does anyone else feel this way? What makes something profound or shallow? Is there any substance to the shallow-profound appraisal of art?


There is, of course, no literal depth to music - unless you mean the degree to which low frequency dominates (as in a deep voice).

Result = 'depth' is used in many different, metaphorical ways and people had best define what they mean by 'depth' if using the concept to analyse a piece of music or the result will be pointless argument.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

RogerWaters said:


> There is, of course, no literal depth to music - unless you mean the degree to which low frequency dominates (as in a deep voice).
> 
> Result = 'depth' is used in many different, metaphorical ways and people had best define what they mean by 'depth' if using the concept to analyse a piece of music or the result will be pointless argument.


At best, it is just yet another attempt to find some quality that can be bandied about as an "objective" means of elevating some music over some other music. At worst, it is yet another attempt to find some quality that can be bandied about to compensate and fight back against the general negative response to some music as being simply awful. In other words, yes it is pointless.

For goodness sake, some of the people in this discussion cannot even grasp the basic idea of what an algorithm is. They have "shallow" down pretty pat, but I don't see any hope for them establishing "deep" in any meaningful sense.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Jacck said:


> there are plenty of such algorithms, it is called *algorithmic trading.*


Get it now, only $39.95!!!

Depth or profundity is not "in" music; it is in the mind of the beholder. Man is a pattern-seeking creature. Just looking at a tiled floor will reveal all sorts of lines, groupings, and meaning.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Depth or profundity is not "in" music; it is in the mind of the beholder.


There is certainly truth to this, but I think it has an objective element as well. Pink Floyd's music has more depth than the Backstreet Boys. There is more depth in Brahms symphonies than in his Hungarian Dances. There is more depth Bach's Mass in B minor than there is in the jingle on a commercial for tennis shoes. I think these are pretty acceptable statements that just require some common sense to understand. Sure, sometimes the word can be abused and it is not something that can be precisely measured. But to suggest the word has no meaning whatsoever in a musical sense, I think goes too far.

Lastly I don't think all good music has to be 'deep', because not all music serves the same function. There are attributes in lighter music that become decreased when depth is increased and vice versa. It depends what one is in the mood to listen to.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Depth or profundity is not "in" music; it is in the mind of the beholder. Man is a pattern-seeking creature. Just looking at a tiled floor will reveal all sorts of lines, groupings, and meaning.


Now THAT I agree with. The human brain is very good at finding, selecting or inventing patterns. It is designed to try to "make sense" even, and perhaps especially, where sense is not readily apparent.



tdc said:


> There is certainly truth to this, but I think it has an objective element as well. Pink Floyd's music has more depth than the Backstreet Boys. There is more depth in Brahms symphonies than in his Hungarian Dances. There is more depth Bach's Mass in B minor than there is in the jingle on a commercial for tennis shoes. I think these are pretty acceptable statements that just require some common sense to understand. Sure, sometimes the word can be abused and it is not something that can be precisely measured. But to suggest the word has no meaning whatsoever in a musical sense, I think goes too far.


I don't think the problem is that the word has no meaning. The problem is that the meaning is mostly a personal impression, and not an objective or measurable quantity.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

JAS said:


> I don't think the problem is that the word has no meaning. The problem is that the meaning is mostly a personal impression, and not an objective or measurable quantity.


So what? That doesn't mean using the word is 'pointless', as you suggested. What is the exact objective measure of the universe? Can you tell me? Does that mean that referring to the vastness of space is pointless? How do you objectively measure your own imagination? Maybe imagination is a figment of my imagination and it is pointless too?

By your logic most descriptions of music would be pointless. I could say 'this hall has good acoustics' but that would be pointless. Or 'this composer is an excellent orchestrator' completely pointless!

So what descriptions of music are _not_ pointless? How about pointing out how many notes are in a particular piece of music? That is an exact, measurable, and objective feature. Maybe you should start a thread that counts all the notes in different pieces of music, and compares them that way. It would be completely measurable and objective.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

I did not say that it was pointless. I said that it was not an objective or measurable quantity. You protest much about something that was not said.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

JAS said:


> I did not say that it was pointless. I said that it was not an objective or measurable quantity. You protest much about something that was not said.


Well, you also said there was a "problem" with it and that that problem was it wasn't "measurable" or "objective". If we are discluding all things that aren't directly measurable in conversations about music, then I'm not sure what the point of such discussions are.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

JAS said:


> I did not say that it was pointless. I said that it was not an objective or measurable quantity. You protest much about something that was not said.


Well, actually you did. Here is your post no. 46 from this same page of this thread:



JAS said:


> At best, it is just yet another attempt to find some quality that can be bandied about as an "objective" means of elevating some music over some other music. At worst, it is yet another attempt to find some quality that can be bandied about to compensate and fight back against the general negative response to some music as being simply awful. *In other words, yes it is pointless.*


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

It is pointless _if what is being proposed is an objective measure or value_. As a mere _descriptive_ value, it is not _entirely_ pointless, but also not especially meaningful, except to those who already agree with it. In other words, it has the value of communicating that the person asserting depth perceives depth, however that might be conceived. (Some of the value might be in how depth is defined, if it is defined at all, which it usually is not.) How much point there is to that is a matter of opinion. _As it is normally asserted_, it is pointless, which is not necessarily the same as being intrinsically pointless.

I might also note that although the size of the universe cannot really be measured, as it is, essentially, infinite, most practical senses of size _can_ be measured. There is no equivalent for depth in music. The problem with the sense of depth in music is not that it is infinite, and therefore exceeding the concept of measurement; it is that depth is only a personal impression.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

tdc said:


> Maybe this is largely subjective but I will offer some of my opinions. Some of it in response to Phil's post. I think Ravel has a lot of depth when he wants to, in a similar way to Mozart. Both can be very deep.
> 
> I think Haydn has some depth in has craftsmanship, but lacks darkness, (not exactly the same thing).
> 
> ...


I agree it's largely subjective, or at least hard to substantiate what depth is.

I don't feel Brahms is very deep (neither did Mahler, Britten and Tchaikovsky). I feel his music is more clever and acrobatic than anything deep. That does take skill and it's brilliant. But I don't equate skill with depth. I think the opposite, that Wagner had more depth, with some of the stuff he did with harmony, which I think is more layered than Brahms.

I agree Beethoven seems to try hard to be deep, but he achieved it. Like in the 9th symphony and that 14th quartet opening movement. The effect of Bach is felt more in the immediate and short term, to me. While Beethoven was more into longer form development (which I view as depth).


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

JAS said:


> I might also note that although the size of the universe cannot really be measured, as it is, essentially, infinite, most practical senses of size _can_ be measured. There is no equivalent for depth in music. The problem with the sense of depth in music is not that it is infinite, and therefore exceeding the concept of measurement; it is that depth is only a personal impression.


But how do you know that the universe cannot be measured or that it is infinite? Can you point to objective undisputable proof of this? Or are you just agreeing with what you perceive to be conventional knowledge regarding space and then acting as though it is objectively true? At one time the earth was 'objectively' flat, and there seems to be a new flat earth movement that has resurfaced (I believe the earth is round personally). I'm just saying a lot of what people today pass off as 'objective science', is not actually objective (just because it is printed in a 'peer reviewed' article does not make it objectively true) and is every bit as dogmatic as religion.

None of the most important things in life can be measured in my view, unless of course you believe money is one of those things.

This being said depth is not only a personal impression. If we look at the lyrical content of Pink Floyd and The Backstreet Boys, we can observe that the topics in Pink Floyd cover a *deeper range of life experiences* than what we encounter in the lyrics of the Backstreet Boys. This is objectively true. Likewise the music of Pink Floyd is also more explorative and diverse. Lyrics are more literal than music, however music itself can be looked at as a kind of language and once one understands the syntax of a given style of music, it is indeed possible to observe more depth in some composers than in others. This has some basis in objectivity but cannot be measured precisely.



Phil loves classical said:


> I agree it's largely subjective, or at least hard to substantiate what depth is.
> 
> I don't feel Brahms is very deep (neither did Mahler, Britten and Tchaikovsky). I feel his music is more clever and acrobatic than anything deep. That does take skill and it's brilliant. But I don't equate skill with depth. I think the opposite, that Wagner had more depth, with some of the stuff he did with harmony, which I think is more layered than Brahms.


I think Brahms has more layers because of what he did with counterpoint. Wagner was more innovative with harmony (and also a composer I consider to have some depth) but I find that there is more to discover in Brahms in repeated listening than with Wagner.

You have on a number of occasions brought up the fact that those handful of composers did not like Brahms as a way of throwing his musical contributions into question, but the truth is you can find famous composers that don't like any of the big names. Janacek didn't like Bach, Ravel and Vaughan Williams didn't like Beethoven, Ives and Gould didn't enjoy Mozart etc. In this sense I just don't think it proves anything other than revealing that part of musical appreciation is subjective, something we already know.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> I agree Beethoven seems to try hard to be deep, but he achieved it. Like in the 9th symphony and that 14th quartet opening movement. The effect of Bach is felt more in the immediate and short term, to me. While Beethoven was more into longer form development (which I view as depth).







To me, Beethoven is a curious case where "compositional difficulties" are used in his own advantage to express "emotional struggle". 
There are cases Beethoven spends minutes laying out long slow arpeggios (like the 'D major -> diminished 7th on B# -> F sharp major' in the development of this sonata movement) and recitatives or long repeated chords. 
(I don't quite get this sort of feeling with similar pieces in Bach and Mozart, for example; the Chromatic fantasie from BWV903 or Fantasie K.397)

Speaking of counterpoint, there is a section in the middle of his 14th quartet where he seems to be going through "uncertainties":





















but somehow everything just "works out".

Perhaps this is what Bernstein meant by saying "It all checks, it all works out, you can rely on it, you know the next note has to be the next note, the only next note that could come."


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

tdc said:


> I think Brahms has more layers because of what he did with counterpoint. Wagner was more innovative with harmony (and also a composer I consider to have some depth) but I find that there is more to discover in Brahms in repeated listening than with Wagner.
> 
> You have on a number of occasions brought up the fact that those handful of composers did not like Brahms as a way of throwing his musical contributions into question, but the truth is you can find famous composers that don't like any of the big names. Janacek didn't like Bach, Ravel and Vaughan Williams didn't like Beethoven, Ives and Gould didn't enjoy Mozart etc. In this sense I just don't think it proves anything other than revealing that part of musical appreciation is subjective, something we already know.


I see a general dislike isn't really telling, as for example Ravel found much of Beethoven exasperating. But on something as enigmatic as depth vs shallow, I think it could hold more water. I felt I couldn't take Brahms seriously with how he sounded, in light of some of the stuff he did, but later I lightened up, and found it quite clever and fun to listen to, which was only when I relinquished the thought of him doing anything deep or serious. To come across and be taken as serious, I think there is a line of what is acceptable, and Brahms crossed that line for me.


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2020)

tdc said:


> Pink Floyd's music has more depth than the Backstreet Boys.


Really? That doesn't help us understand what depth is.



tdc said:


> not all music serves the same function.


Exactly so.



tdc said:


> I could say 'this hall has good acoustics' but that would be pointless.


Er, no, that wouldn't be pointless. I'm quite sure experts in acoustics could show acoustic differences between concert halls such that a performance of an LvB symphony would sound better in one than another. Let's not reduce the argument to the absurd.



tdc said:


> If we look at the lyrical content of Pink Floyd and The Backstreet Boys, we can observe that the topics in Pink Floyd cover a *deeper range of life experiences* than what we encounter in the lyrics of the Backstreet Boys. This is objectively true.


I think you'd need to give some specific examples, rather than just a general assertion about the lyrics (but then we're not really talking about music, are we?)



tdc said:


> Likewise the music of Pink Floyd is also more explorative and diverse.


Show your objective measurements please.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Really? That doesn't help us understand what depth is.


Maybe it doesn't help you, I'm not sure why you think you speak for all other members on the forum now. I think it is a pretty straight forward example and if you are familiar with the music of the two bands, I don't really see what is controversial about the statement.



MacLeod said:


> , no, that wouldn't be pointless. I'm quite sure experts in acoustics could show acoustic differences between concert halls such that a performance of an LvB symphony would sound better in one than another. Let's not reduce the argument to the absurd.


I'm not sure there are any studies that show one place is definitively and objectively the best, although they may be able to indicate _some_ of the best places. Much like musicologists could show us some of the greatest composers and explain why. Even if I acknowledge this as being more objective (but not completely), I see you ignored the other comment on orchestration, which of course applies.



MacLeod said:


> I think you'd need to give some specific examples, rather than just a general assertion about the lyrics


I don't think I do, if you can show me an example from the two bands that you think I'm over looking, please do.



MacLeod said:


> Show your objective measurements please.


Really? I need objective measurements to make a statement like that? Sorry, I don't think so.


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2020)

tdc said:


> Maybe it doesn't help you, I'm not sure why you think you speak for all other members on the forum now.


You're right, I don't. Slip of the figure of speech.



tdc said:


> I'm not sure there are any studies that show one place is definitively and objectively the best, although they may be able to indicate _some_ of the best places.


I simply said that I thought such studies _could _be carried out to show objective differences, not that there have been. But since you acknowledge they may be able to indicate the best halls, that would not be a pointless exercise, would it. Would it?



tdc said:


> I see you ignored the other comment on orchestration, which of course applies.


So?



tdc said:


> I don't think I do, if you can show me an example from the two bands that you think I'm over looking, please do.


Well, it's you that's making the assertion, but merely an assertion. I needn't take it seriously unless you're going to support it with some evidence.



tdc said:


> Really? I need objective measurements to make a statement like that? Sorry, I don't think so.


If you want to claim that Pink Floyd's music is more 'explorative and diverse' it would help me (I can't speak for anyone else of course) to understand the point by your offering some illustrations at least.

So, since you're reluctant, let's pick a Floyd song and look at an extract from the lyrics. How about _Set the controls for the heart of the sun?

_


> Little by little the night turns around.
> Counting the leaves which tremble and turn.
> Lotus's lean on each other in union.
> Over the hills where a swallow is resting.
> ...


Compare with this extract from the lyrics of Backstreet Boys' _Shape of my Heart_



> He deals the cards as a meditation
> And those he plays never suspect
> He doesn't play for the money he wins
> He don't play for respect
> ...


Now, please show how the 'depth' of one is greater than the 'depth' of the other. Thanks.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

There is a whole lot of baloney talked about this sort of thing. Obviously there will be things which appear to be more profound to the individual but it is a subjective and not an objective assessment. Some people find profundity in complexity while others (like me) often find it more often in simplicity. It's what it does for the individual. There are no rules.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

tdc said:


> But how do you know that the universe cannot be measured or that it is infinite? Can you point to objective undisputable proof of this? Or are you just agreeing with what you perceive to be conventional knowledge regarding space and then acting as though it is objectively true? At one time the earth was 'objectively' flat, and there seems to be a new flat earth movement that has resurfaced (I believe the earth is round personally). I'm just saying a lot of what people today pass off as 'objective science', is not actually objective (just because it is printed in a 'peer reviewed' article does not make it objectively true) and is every bit as dogmatic as religion. . . .


This is mostly just pseudo-philosophical blathering, but I will play along for just a little bit longer. I made a similar, but more relevant, comment to a friend many years ago, noting that many things of significance could not be reduced to a financial value. (That is to say, a precise monetary price.) I basically won the argument by asking if the love of his mother was significant, and if so what it was worth. He said, in a clear cheat of an answer: "everything." At that point, I noted that the love of his father, then, must not be worth anything, nor that of his daughter, because he had already assigned everything to his mother. But the real trick of the argument is that these are things of personal significance, and not really important in a broader sense.

We accept the idea that the universe is infinite because that is the current thinking on the subject by those who are most qualified to make it. It has, thus far, exceeded the ability of anyone to measure it, and in spite of much effort in that regard. But, again, you are playing rhetorical tricks to make a false point seem valid. Almost any physical thing less evasive than the universe can be measured. We have measurements of the oceans and even distant planets. And none of this is to the point in any case. (And just for reference, at no time in recorded history have any serious thinkers considered the earth to be flat. That is mostly a kind of urban myth, although I understand that some Amish still insist that it is so, mostly because they take the Bible so literally and it refers to "the four corners of the earth," which to them implies that it has corners.)

But here, in our actual discussion, the question is the figurative nature of depth, and not the literal sense of it. Thinking of another thread, on Hurwitz, the question might be asked if the music of Boulez has depth. Advocates of the music will probably say yes, and opponents, being opponents, will probably say no. In what way has the discussion of that topic been advanced by the concept of depth? If it has not be so advanced, what point of any purpose has been made?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> I simply said that I thought such studies _could _be carried out to show objective differences, not that there have been. But since you acknowledge they may be able to indicate the best halls, that would not be a pointless exercise, would it. Would it?


You're right on this point about acoustics, I retract it. However my related point still stands on orchestration, and you can substitute any other aspect of composition and it applies.



MacLeod said:


> Well, it's you that's making the assertion, but merely an assertion. I needn't take it seriously unless you're going to support it with some evidence.


I have shown my evidence, how I define 'depth' in music, I think it makes clear and logical sense. If you can't accept there are differences in the concept of depth in extreme examples like that between Pink Floyd and The Backstreet Boys, or between Bach's sacred music and a tennis shoe commercial, then I cannot proceed to further explain because you are not grasping basic examples. You don't have to take anything seriously that you don't want to.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

DavidA said:


> There is a whole lot of baloney talked about this sort of thing. Obviously there will be things which appear to be more profound to the individual but it is a subjective and not an objective assessment. Some people find profundity in complexity while others (like me) often find it more often in simplicity. It's what it does for the individual. There are no rules.


It doesn't have anything to do with what 'does it for the individual' plenty of music that 'does it for me' is not particularly deep. As I said earlier in the thread, not being deep is not the same thing necessarily as poor music.

Beethoven is generally deeper than Johann Strauss Jr. that doesn't mean that the latter wrote poor music or that you cannot be moved by it. Why is that hard to understand?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

JAS said:


> This is mostly just pseudo-philosophical blathering, but I will play along for just a little bit longer. I made a similar, but more relevant, comment to a friend many years ago, noting that many things of significance could not be reduced to a financial value. (That is to say, a precise monetary price.) I basically won the argument by asking if the love of his mother was significant, and if so what it was worth. He said, in a clear cheat of an answer: "everything." At that point, I noted that the love of his father, then, must not be worth anything, nor that of his daughter, because he had already assigned everything to his mother. But the real trick of the argument is that these are things of personal significance, and not really important in a broader sense.
> 
> We accept the idea that the universe is infinite because that is the current thinking on the subject by those who are most qualified to make it. It has, thus far, exceeded the ability of anyone to measure it, and in spite of much effort in that regard. But, again, you are playing rhetorical tricks to make a false point seem valid. Almost any physical thing less evasive than the universe can be measured. We have measurements of the oceans and even distant planets. And none of this is to the point in any case. (And just for reference, at no time in recorded history have any serious thinkers considered the earth to be flat. That is mostly a kind of urban myth, although I understand that some Amish still insist that it is so, mostly because they take the Bible so literally and it refers to "the four corners of the earth," which to them implies that it has corners.)
> 
> But here, in our actual discussion, the question is the figurative nature of depth, and not the literal sense of it. Thinking of another thread, on Hurwiitz, the question might be asked if the music of Boulez has depth. Advocates of the music will probably say yes, and opponents, being opponents, will probably say no. In what way has the discussion of that topic been advanced by the concept of depth? If it has not be so advanced, what point of any purpose has been made?


So as you admit much of what you believe are things you just have faith in based on the knowledge of 'qualified' individuals, not things you have direct objective evidence for.

The Boulez point is interesting, I don't enjoy his music, but I do actually think it has some depth. It is a grey area, there are many of them in life. I think discussing these things is interesting, I have given my ideas of musical depth. You are free to accept or reject them.


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2020)

tdc said:


> You're right on this point about acoustics, I retract it.


Thank you.



tdc said:


> However my related point still stands on orchestration, and you can substitute any other aspect of composition and it applies.


I don't agree that such discussions are 'pointless', but I do agree that it would be difficult to establish qualitative differences between composers (wrt to orchestration).



tdc said:


> I have shown my evidence, how I define 'depth' in music, I think it makes clear and logical sense.


I don't think you have. You have 'explained' what you mean, but without illustration, so the explanation is, IMO of course, insubstantial.



tdc said:


> If you can't accept there are differences in the concept of depth in extreme examples like that between Pink Floyd and The Backstreet Boys, or between Bach's sacred music and a tennis shoe commercial, then I cannot proceed to further explain because you are not grasping basic examples. You don't have to take anything seriously that you don't want to.


It seems to me, as a fan of neither Pink Floyd nor Backstreet Boys*, that the example I have offered shows that there is less extreme in the lyrics than you suggest.

As for music for a tennis shoe commercial...that's so far away from what the OP is talking about, and what you and I would wish to treat as examples that the OP would recognise (depth in classical music, not depth in any kind of music at all) that I'd say you've somewhat lost your bearings.

*FWIW, I have listened to a fair bit of Pink Floyd over the years, but only ever owned one album. I have never knowingly heard a song by Backstreet Boys.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

tdc said:


> At one time the earth was 'objectively' flat, and there seems to be a new flat earth movement that has resurfaced (I believe the earth is round personally). I'm just saying a lot of what people today pass off as 'objective science', is not actually objective (just because it is printed in a 'peer reviewed' article does not make it objectively true) and is every bit as dogmatic as religion.


That is, of course, nonsense. Scientific findings are expressed with precision regarding the methods, assumptions (if any) and results. They can be overthrown. There is nothing like that in religions. And scientific theories are tested by the toughest tests that the scientific community can come up with. Crudely, it goes like this - "if this theory is right then we will find x when we do y". If the theory is found to predict some things that don't happen but it still explains a lot it may still be adhered to until a better theory comes along. The most famous case of this was Newton's physics which seemed to work in all but a few apparently minor details. Einstein developed a very different theory that explained and predicted everything that Newton did and the apparently small things that Newton failed to predict. You don't find anything like that in religions.



tdc said:


> None of the most important things in life can be measured in my view, unless of course you believe money is one of those things.


I guess that depends on what you consider important. It seems to me that if we understand something well we will probably be able to measure the important aspects of it in terms of that understanding. But, of course, there are many things that we don't have a good and demonstrably true understanding of yet.



tdc said:


> If we look at the lyrical content of Pink Floyd and The Backstreet Boys, we can observe that the topics in Pink Floyd cover a *deeper range of life experiences* than what we encounter in the lyrics of the Backstreet Boys. This is objectively true. Likewise the music of Pink Floyd is also more explorative and diverse. Lyrics are more literal than music, however music itself can be looked at as a kind of language and once one understands the syntax of a given style of music, it is indeed possible to observe more depth in some composers than in others. This has some basis in objectivity but cannot be measured precisely.


Well, this is subjective - just a matter of your opinion. You find PF's music and lyrics deeper. I could argue that you will find more truth about the human condition in the Backstreet Boys.



tdc said:


> I think Brahms has more layers because of what he did with counterpoint. Wagner was more innovative with harmony (and also a composer I consider to have some depth) but I find that there is more to discover in Brahms in repeated listening than with Wagner.
> 
> You have on a number of occasions brought up the fact that those handful of composers did not like Brahms as a way of throwing his musical contributions into question, but the truth is you can find famous composers that don't like any of the big names. Janacek didn't like Bach, Ravel and Vaughan Williams didn't like Beethoven, Ives and Gould didn't enjoy Mozart etc. In this sense I just don't think it proves anything other than revealing that part of musical appreciation is subjective, something we already know.


I'm with you in this!


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

tdc said:


> So as you admit much of what you believe are things you just have faith in based on the knowledge of 'qualified' individuals, not things you have direct objective evidence for.
> 
> The Boulez point is interesting, I don't enjoy his music, but I do actually think it has some depth. It is a grey area, there are many of them in life. I think discussing these things is interesting, I have given my ideas of musical depth. You are free to accept or reject them.


Now you are just trying to hide a bad argument behind a general cloud of uncertainty. Game over.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

tdc said:


> So as you admit much of what you believe are things you just have faith in based on the knowledge of 'qualified' individuals, not things you have direct objective evidence for.


No-one can be an expert in everything. But we can, if we will, inform ourselves concerning what the experts are actually saying and how they reached their conclusions. We can opt to follow the findings that appear to be based on robust and reliable methodology. The view you are expressing - that we know what we know based on faith and other feelings we find in ourselves; that what we feel we know is just as valid as what someone else knows - is IMO very dangerous. It leads to those who stand to lose the most buying into the view that there is no man made global warming or that vaccines are dangerous and many other madnesses.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

JAS said:


> Now you are just trying to hide a bad argument behind a general cloud of uncertainty. Game over.


I don't know why I even bothered. Good bye.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Enthusiast said:


> That is, of course, nonsense. Scientific findings are expressed with precision regarding the methods, assumptions (if any) and results. They can be overthrown. There is nothing like that in religions. And scientific theories are tested by the toughest tests that the scientific community can come up with. Crudely, it goes like this - "if this theory is right then we will find x when we do y". If the theory is found to predict some things that don't happen but it still explains a lot it may still be adhered to until a better theory comes along. The most famous case of this was Newton's physics which seemed to work in all but a few apparently minor details. Einstein developed a very different theory that explained and predicted everything that Newton did and the apparently small things that Newton failed to predict. You don't find anything like that in religions.


Actually religions can be overthrown and the ideas are often scrutinized. They aren't just generally accepted. I am guessing you don't consider yourself a religious person, there is not as much difference than you think. Both religion and what we call modern science, are a mixture of truths and deceptions in my view.



Enthusiast said:


> Well, this is subjective - just a matter of your opinion. You find PF's music and lyrics deeper. I could argue that you will find more truth about the human condition in the Backstreet Boys.


The Backstreet Boys music was written with content specifically marketed towards younger teenaged girls.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Enthusiast said:


> No-one can be an expert in everything. But we can, if we will, inform ourselves concerning what the experts are actually saying and how they reached their conclusions. We can opt to follow the findings that appear to be based on robust and reliable methodology. The view you are expressing - that we know what we know based on faith and other feelings we find in ourselves; that what we feel we know is just as valid as what someone else knows - is IMO very dangerous. It leads to those who stand to lose the most buying into the view that there is no man made global warming or that vaccines are dangerous and many other madnesses.


This post is evidence in my view that you have things precisely backwards. A sane person in a crazy world, will appear insane. Repeat lies enough and they become truths to people. I find your views tragic, though I suspect you are a well intentioned person. As the saying goes "You can fool most people most of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time."

This appears true to me, unfortunately I think most of the people on this planet have been fooled.

We should get back to discussing music.


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2020)

tdc said:


> We should get back to discussing music.


In a way which recognises the overlapping, but nevertheless limited areas of personal experience and understanding of music, objective measurement of music's attributes and qualities, acknowledged expertise and 'facts', personal worldviews...


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

tdc said:


> It doesn't have anything to do with what 'does it for the individual' plenty of music that 'does it for me' is not particularly deep. As I said earlier in the thread, not being deep is not the same thing necessarily as poor music.
> 
> Beethoven is generally deeper than Johann Strauss Jr. that doesn't mean that the latter wrote poor music or that you cannot be moved by it. Why is that hard to understand?


Of course it has to do with what it does for the individual. If someone doesn't care for Beethoven it doesn't matter how 'deep' you insist his music is, it will not do anything for that individual. Incredible to me the implication that somehow I have said that Johann Strauss Jr wrote poor music. Just where did I say that?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

.....An old post from (not that) Long Ago.....

"People will hate this, but reflecting again upon our fine TC discussion of back when on statues of David, I would urge all interested to use the wonder of the Internet and look at those four works: Verrocchio, Donatello, Michelangelo, Bernini. There are no reliable photographs of the biblical David but we do have the story. It seems to me that each sculptor chose to emphasize a particular trait of David--accomplishment, youth, adolescent(?) male beauty, determination--in his work. And so we have four wonderful, evocative statues, any one of which could be anybody's favorite. Is one statue objectively "greater" than the rest? Are any of them a perfect simulacrum of the real David? Is that important? I like them all--sometimes preferring this, sometimes that. But that's just me."


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

tdc said:


> Actually religions can be overthrown and the ideas are often scrutinized. They aren't just generally accepted. I am guessing you don't consider yourself a religious person, there is not as much difference than you think. Both religion and what we call modern science, are a mixture of truths and deceptions in my view.


That is just quite simply not true. You can't just decide something, be sure of it, have faith in it, and that makes it just as true as something for which there is an enormous body of evidence. Dinosaurs existed and they did so 66 million years ago! You sound certain of what you are saying but I hear appalling and lazy ignorance. It is so much easier to arrive at an opinion than to learn how to evaluate the truth of something.



tdc said:


> The Backstreet Boys music was written with content specifically marketed towards younger teenaged girls.


And Pink Floyd's music - at least post-Dark Side - was written for aging young men. So?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

tdc said:


> This post is evidence in my view that you have things precisely backwards. A sane person in a crazy world, will appear insane. Repeat lies enough and they become truths to people. I find your views tragic, though I suspect you are a well intentioned person. As the saying goes "You can fool most people most of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time."
> 
> This appears true to me, unfortunately I think most of the people on this planet have been fooled.
> 
> We should get back to discussing music.


Are you for real? Do people who think like you really exist among the educated? Even down to the conspiracy you are now evoking. I'm amazed. You were responding to a post that I felt would not be challenged by anyone with an education. I was wrong!



> No-one can be an expert in everything. But we can, if we will, inform ourselves concerning what the experts are actually saying and how they reached their conclusions. We can opt to follow the findings that appear to be based on robust and reliable methodology. The view you are expressing - that we know what we know based on faith and other feelings we find in ourselves; that what we feel we know is just as valid as what someone else knows - is IMO very dangerous. It leads to those who stand to lose the most buying into the view that there is no man made global warming or that vaccines are dangerous and many other madnesses.


As for music, its depth or shallowness, I think we would agree that depth and shallowness must be largely in the ear of the beholder. But we could probably arrive at a crude consensus among people concerning the major differences in the depth of musical works that we are familiar with even if we could not agree on the details. And if we defined carefully the group/population whose views we are considering - perhaps by measuring experience and knowledge of the repertoire - we could probably arrive at a somewhat more precise consensus. But that would be through measuring the subjective opinions of interested parties ... so it would still only be a measure of opinion and not a true measure of "musical depth". As things stand I do not even think we can define what we mean by musical depth.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

tdc said:


> But how do you know that the universe cannot be measured or that it is infinite? Can you point to objective undisputable proof of this? Or are you just agreeing with what you perceive to be conventional knowledge regarding space and then acting as though it is objectively true? At one time the earth was 'objectively' flat, and there seems to be a new flat earth movement that has resurfaced (I believe the earth is round personally). I'm just saying a lot of what people today pass off as 'objective science', is not actually objective (just because it is printed in a 'peer reviewed' article does not make it objectively true) and is every bit as dogmatic as religion.
> 
> None of the most important things in life can be measured in my view, unless of course you believe money is one of those things.
> .


Just a point. I don't think there was a time when the earth was viewed as 'objectively flat'. Nor to my knowledge is there a flat earth movement around today unless I am missing something.

Funny people who make dogmatic statements about being 'dogmatic' !


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> As things stand I do not even think we can define what we mean by musical depth.


Shallowness means everything that makes a piece work is obvious and immediately apparent, for example, graceful melody, harmony that keeps it moving, euphonious blending of instrumental sounds, well-rounded, tried and true formal design, and so on. Close study will reveal details about how the immediate effect is achieved, but it won't lead to a fundamental reevaluation of the work or its structure.

Depth means there are underlying relationships among the parts that aren't obvious and are impossible to digest on a first, or perhaps even a tenth hearing, yet when they are finally grasped they put the whole structure in a new light. Sometimes such relationships are sensed or felt long before the listener can explain them. For example, the finale of Shostakovich's Fifth string quartet retrogrades bits of the first movement. One is likely to feel some kind of relationship between the two movements before one realizes there are thematic connections, but the difference in mood between the movements belies the relationship. Grasping it puts the apparent differences in a new light and in a more intimate relationship. The whole becomes a unified psychological progression rather than just a series of contrasting moods.



DavidA said:


> Just a point. I don't think there was a time when the earth was viewed as 'objectively flat'. *Nor to my knowledge is there a flat earth movement around today unless I am missing something*.


OMG David, you are missing something! There are flat-earthers everywhere today. They have yearly conventions, and thousands of videos on the internet. Sorry to be the one to break it to you.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

_Depth or profundity is not "in" music; it is in the mind of the beholder. Man is a pattern-seeking creature. Just looking at a tiled floor will reveal all sorts of lines, groupings, and meaning._



JAS said:


> Now THAT I agree with. The human brain is very good at finding, selecting or inventing patterns. It is designed to try to "make sense" even, and perhaps especially, where sense is not readily apparent.
> 
> I don't think the problem is that the word has no meaning. The problem is that the meaning is mostly a personal impression, and not an objective or measurable quantity.


We may not agree to the extent that you think we do. I think art is "inter-subjective" in that the artist is sharing his experience with the observer via the shared medium of art.

To the extent that this shared experience is manifest as a potential "in" the art can make it more meaningful (more profound) than a purely functional piece of dance music.

"High art" is designed for "divine contemplation."

"Functional" dance music is not; it's made for dancing.

Therefore, we can still make distinctions between different kinds of music and art.

I've always said that "high art" should ideally be non-utilitarian, or "useless" except as a medium for "divine contemplation."


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ OK ... but that doesn't work for me at all. I feel fairly sure that depth and shallowness are not a factor of the musical argument itself. I don't listen to music like that. I feel there probably are thematic ideas that are deep, for example, and that some very simple treatments can still give rise to music that seems profound to me.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

tdc said:


> So what? That doesn't mean using the word is 'pointless', as you suggested. What is the exact objective measure of the universe? Can you tell me? Does that mean that referring to the vastness of space is pointless? How do you objectively measure your own imagination? Maybe imagination is a figment of my imagination and it is pointless too?
> 
> By your logic most descriptions of music would be pointless. I could say 'this hall has good acoustics' but that would be pointless. Or 'this composer is an excellent orchestrator' completely pointless!
> 
> So what descriptions of music are _not_ pointless? How about pointing out how many notes are in a particular piece of music? That is an exact, measurable, and objective feature. Maybe you should start a thread that counts all the notes in different pieces of music, and compares them that way. It would be completely measurable and objective.





JAS said:


> I did not say that it was pointless. I said that it was not an objective or measurable quantity. You protest much about something that was not said.


This whole argument is flawed. With art, especially "high art," we cannot make artificial distinctions between "objective" and "subjective," because high art is "inter-subjective" in nature.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

tdc said:


> Actually religions can be overthrown and the ideas are often scrutinized. They aren't just generally accepted. I am guessing you don't consider yourself a religious person, there is not as much difference than you think. Both religion and what we call modern science, are a mixture of truths and deceptions in my view.
> 
> The Backstreet Boys music was written with content specifically marketed towards younger teenaged girls.


Depends which on which branch of science. The realm of physics, math, and chemistry is certainly quantifiable. Can anyone see an atom? Not that I know of, but the model can be proven, and certain characteristics/properties be seen, like electricity for one. We couldn't be conversing on the internet if it wasn't the case. Medical science is different. Some studies can reach opposite conclusions than others, but the unknowns are acknowledged. Still, people now live longer than they did a couple of centuries ago because of the advances in medicine. Now about the universe being infinite, that is not something that can be proven with the science we currently have. They did see stars moving apart, which suggested the universe is expanding, hence finite to a certain degree. But what is the universe, as in just 3D space, or includes other dimensions?

The difference between science and religion, is science is based on principles that can be proven, while religion is based on faith.

On Pink Floyd vs Backstreet Boys. I was a little surprised by MacLeod's example. I find both lyrics pretentious anyway (subjective I know). So there can be any number of ways of looking at the lyrics. I do think Pink Floyd's music has more depth, just that it has broader range than Backstreet Boys. That can definitely be analyzed by chords progression, etc.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> . . . We may not agree to the extent that you think we do. I think art is "inter-subjective" in that the artist is sharing his experience with the observer via the shared medium of art.
> 
> To the extent that this shared experience is manifest as a potential "in" the art can make it more meaningful (more profound) than a purely functional piece of dance music.
> 
> ...


I suppose that our big difference is that you are so enamored of the pattern seeking role of the receiver that you want that with little or no consideration for the intent of the artist who creates a work. For music and visual art, I am primarily interested in what I can detect and follow of the patterns established by the creating artist. (If, as a receiver, I am creating all of the patterns, then I have little need for the artist.)

It is somewhat different for literary works as the transmission of ideas is very different. I am still looking for the intent of the creating artist, but I might also value what those ideas lead me to on my own.

Edit: That and the fact that I look terrible in polka dots.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> ^ OK ... but that doesn't work for me at all. I feel fairly sure that depth and shallowness are not a factor of the musical argument itself. I don't listen to music like that. I feel there probably are thematic ideas that are deep, for example, and that some very simple treatments can still give rise to music that seems profound to me.


I purposely wasn't commenting on profundity in the sense of being meaningful; simple ideas can be profound in that sense. But depth in the sense of more layers and more complex patterns of interrelationship among a work's parts is definitely a thing that can be discussed and demonstrated objectively. Some works simply have more threads to follow and disentangle.


----------



## Guest (Sep 8, 2020)

EdwardBast said:


> Shallowness means [...]
> 
> Depth means [...]


Thanks Edward. A sensible set of ideas of what these two terms could be used to mean, though, I think, without any value judgement implied.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> I purposely wasn't commenting on profundity in the sense of being meaningful; simple ideas can be profound in that sense. But depth in the sense of more layers and more complex patterns of interrelationship among a work's parts is definitely a thing that can be discussed and demonstrated objectively. Some works simply have more threads to follow and disentangle.


We must be careful to observe the penumbras of approbation that accompany the terms "depth" and its synonym "profundity" here, lest they confuse with "complexity". I can think of dozens of paintings, for instance, that are seas of visual complexity yet convey little of what might be called profundity. The same is true of music. I certainly agree that complexity can be measured quantitatively (but I am ill-equipped to do so).


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> I purposely wasn't commenting on profundity in the sense of being meaningful; simple ideas can be profound in that sense. But depth in the sense of more layers and more complex patterns of interrelationship among a work's parts is definitely a thing that can be discussed and demonstrated objectively. Some works simply have more threads to follow and disentangle.


Yes.
What EdwardBast said in this post and previous. I wholly agree.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

tdc said:


> Actually religions can be overthrown and the ideas are often scrutinized. They aren't just generally accepted. I am guessing you don't consider yourself a religious person, there is not as much difference than you think. *Both religion and what we call modern science, are a mixture of truths and deceptions in my view.*


Yet...



Enthusiast said:


> Scientific findings are expressed with precision regarding the methods, assumptions (if any) and results. They can be overthrown. There is nothing like that in religions. And scientific theories are tested by the toughest tests that the scientific community can come up with. Crudely, it goes like this - "if this theory is right then we will find x when we do y". If the theory is found to predict some things that don't happen but it still explains a lot it may still be adhered to until a better theory comes along. The most famous case of this was Newton's physics which seemed to work in all but a few apparently minor details. Einstein developed a very different theory that explained and predicted everything that Newton did and the apparently small things that Newton failed to predict. You don't find anything like that in religions.


(great example)

The idea that religion and science are on equal terms when it comes to the tendency to be self-critical is something only a person quite misinformed/oblivious about history would think.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> On Pink Floyd vs Backstreet Boys. I was a little surprised by MacLeod's example. I find both lyrics pretentious anyway (subjective I know). So there can be any number of ways of looking at the lyrics. I do think Pink Floyd's music has more depth, just that it has broader range than Backstreet Boys. That can definitely be analyzed by chords progression, etc.


Getting back to my first post, this, of course, depends on your definition of 'depth'.

If your definition of 'depth' is 'a greater range of chord progressions', then Pink Floyd will be probably be deeper.

I don't think that's the conventional sense of musical 'depth', though, which admittedly is probably a vague concept not admitting of necessary nor sufficient conditions. I would think however that depth _conventionally _means something vaguely along the lines of 'music that illicits feelings of the sublime'.

If this is true, it's interesting that 'deep' refers to feelings rather than anything objectively measureable like counterpoint, chord progressions, harmony, etc.

I.e. I think a monophonic chant like this comes out as deeper (on the conventional meaning) than a Dvorak symphony - because of the feelings it's elicits as opposed to technical mastery:






I have a similar reaction to this assertion:



EdwardBast said:


> I purposely wasn't commenting on profundity in the sense of being meaningful; simple ideas can be profound in that sense. But depth in the sense of more layers and more complex patterns of interrelationship among a work's parts is definitely a thing that can be discussed and demonstrated objectively. Some works simply have more threads to follow and disentangle.


You've chosen to define musical 'depth' as "having more threads to follow and disentangle". Fine. But is this the conventional meaning? I doubt it.

These are interesting issues and I don't purport to have the difinitive answer. Problematically for my comments above, I think there are probably a range of conventional meanings of 'depth' floating around in different sub-communities. However, I really doubt whether _anyone_ thinks some 'objective' musical feature/technique (counterpoint, etc) is 'deep' if it leaves the them _feeling_ cold.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

EdwardBast said:


> Shallowness means everything that makes a piece work is obvious and immediately apparent, for example, graceful melody, harmony that keeps it moving, euphonious blending of instrumental sounds, well-rounded, tried and true formal design, and so on. Close study will reveal details about how the immediate effect is achieved, but it won't lead to a fundamental reevaluation of the work or its structure.
> 
> Depth means there are underlying relationships among the parts that aren't obvious and are impossible to digest on a first, or perhaps even a tenth hearing, yet when they are finally grasped they put the whole structure in a new light. Sometimes such relationships are sensed or felt long before the listener can explain them. For example, the finale of Shostakovich's Fifth string quartet retrogrades bits of the first movement. One is likely to feel some kind of relationship between the two movements before one realizes there are thematic connections, but the difference in mood between the movements belies the relationship. Grasping it puts the apparent differences in a new light and in a more intimate relationship. The whole becomes a unified psychological progression rather than just a series of contrasting moods.


This could be an explanation of depth in music, but is that the only way music can have depth?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

RogerWaters said:


> Getting back to my first post, this, of course, depends on your definition of 'depth'.
> 
> If your definition of 'depth' is 'a greater range of chord progressions', then Pink Floyd will be probably be deeper.
> 
> ...


What kind of depth is in that chant over a Dvorak symphony? I think the emotional reaction you get from it may be the deepest part about it, not any inherent depth in the chant itself. Something simple can be profound. But that has a lot to do with a certain perspective, when it elicits a view not normally considered or something. It may not be deep in itself, like a kid saying something simple that surprises an adult and makes them think, which is beyond what the kid is capable of understanding the impact.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> What kind of depth is in that chant over a Dvorak symphony? I think the emotional reaction you get from it may be the deepest part about it, not *any inherent depth in the chant itself*. Something simple can be profound. But that has a lot to do with a certain perspective, when it elicits a view not normally considered or something. It may not be deep in itself, like a kid saying something simple that surprises an adult and makes them think, which is beyond what the kid is capable of understanding the impact.


Like I said in my original post in this thread, music doesn't have literal depth in the way a pool or a bucket does. What kind of depth _does_ it have? In other words, what is _musical depth_?

Only after we have all cleared this up does it make sense to say that Dvorak has more or less depth than the chant.

However, I wagered that the concept of 'musical depth' that we use as a language community(s) *does not* pick out objective features of music as opposed to feelings.

Test: ask a representative sample of the population whether they find the chant or Dvorak deeper.

Moral: it's not about what arbitrary/individualistic notions of musical 'depth' each of us might employ. It's about the conventional meaning of the concept of musical 'depth' and what features of the world (musical technique or feelings) this picks out. Only after knowing what these features are can we then decide what music is deep.

Of course, if it turns out that the conventional meaning of musical 'depth' refers to the elicitation of sublime feelings etc, one is then free to try to _change_ the meaning in the language community to refer (say) to sophisticated compositional technique. But that's big task.

Postscript: It's possbile that TC members, as a linguistic sub-community, use musical 'depth' to refer to compositional technique as opposed to sublime (etc) feelings. But to know this we'd have to do a poll.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

RogerWaters said:


> Like I said in my original post in this thread, music doesn't have literal depth in the way a pool or a bucket does. What kind of depth _does_ it have? In other words, what is _musical depth_?
> 
> Only after we have all cleared this up does it make sense to say that Dvorak has more or less depth than the chant.
> 
> ...


I'm thinking there is no objective measure of depth then. Tdc thought Brahms more deep than Wagner, I felt the opposite. I don't think either view is wrong. EdwardBast thought something not immediately apparent is deep, which I can agree with. But his example of a retrograde of some bits from another movement doesn't seem especially that clever to me. It's just like figuring out a puzzle, or just stumbling onto something by accident. I like listening to Webern's music for the sort of transformations he does, but I don't consider it deep. It just more satisfying to me since it's atonal, and less recognizable at first to me. Maybe for someone with a highly trained ear for atonal music, it's just baby talk.


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> On Pink Floyd vs Backstreet Boys. I was a little surprised by MacLeod's example.


What was it about the example that surprised you?

Just to reiterate, I know none of the BSB's works, so had to select a song title from their Wiki entry that was a best seller. I had no idea at all what lyrics it contained, but it was the first one I chose - I didn't go looking for pretentious or profound. In the case of Pink Floyd, I picked a song that I knew of, had heard, but only knew the chorus line.

As for what is meant by 'deep' in the sense the OP enquires about, I think it is most likely used to mean neither musically layered nor sublime, but 'meaningful' (the two often go together in apposition).

Pothead 1 "That's really deep, man." [draws on spliff]
Pothead 2 "Yeah, man, deep...and meaningful" [takes spliff, draws on it]
Potheads 1+2 "Wow man!"


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I think there should at least be a benchmark of depth we can investigate and assess. To me this represents the epitome of "depth":


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I meant a lack of depth.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

What "depth" are you guys talking about btw.? Does listening to certain pieces of music made you solve centuries-old mathematical problems? Did you invent something? Did you come up with great ideas to improve the Constitution? No?

Let me quote something:


> "And as for the others who assemble there,-the cultured crétins, the blasé pigmies, the eternally feminine, the gastrically happy, in short the people-they also require the sublime, the profound, the overwhelming. All these people argue in the same way. "He who overthrows us is strong; he who elevates us is godly; he who makes us wonder vaguely is profound."---Nietzsche


_wonder vaguely
_
That's the essence. I recall no instance where someone speaking of "profundity" in music would specifically point to a wise philosophical thought they have gained while listening to it. Maybe they just kept all that wisdom to themselves. Or maybe they merely wonder vaguely.

Some talk about lyrics being the source of profundity. Isn't that cheating in this context?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

I think EdwardBast makes a reasonable statement for a particular interpretation of the use of the terms. In my experience, however, the actual use of the terms tends not to strongly correlate with those interpretations, although he may be more scrupulous in that regard himself.


----------



## Guest (Sep 9, 2020)

Fabulin said:


> What "depth" are you guys talking about btw.?


Well, if you've read the whoe, thread so far, you can see none of us is sure, though some of us have had a go at explaining what we take it to mean - though there is as yet no unanimity.



Fabulin said:


> *Some talk *about lyrics being the source of profundity. Isn't that cheating in this context?


I think only one did that I could see (tdc #56), though others have responded to that post, including me, objecting that lyrics isn't music.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> What was it about the example that surprised you?
> 
> Just to reiterate, I know none of the BSB's works, so had to select a song title from their Wiki entry that was a best seller. I had no idea at all what lyrics it contained, but it was the first one I chose - I didn't go looking for pretentious or profound. In the case of Pink Floyd, I picked a song that I knew of, had heard, but only knew the chorus line.
> 
> ...


Musical depth, as I understand any possible view of the term, can only mean something musically penetrating, or consisting of some musical layers. What those musical layers are is up in the air. I found Mandryka's post early on good, that polyphony is one way of being deep, with layers of voice. Another is harmonic layers which I sort of suggested with Wagner, another is Edward's idea of interrelationship of a works' parts not immediately apparent. Roger Waters' was the penetrating effect on the listener. Another, like in lyrics or poetry, is the layers (I view as simultaneous instances) of meaning. There may be many others.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

JAS said:


> I suppose that our big difference is that you are so enamored of the pattern seeking role of the receiver that you want that with little or no consideration for the intent of the artist who creates a work. For music and visual art, I am primarily interested in what I can detect and follow of the patterns established by the creating artist.


No, that's incorrect; I am very cognizant of idea of inter-subjectivity, as long as we bear in mind that the artist's intention and experience, which are translated into the art medium in an agreed-upon "language" that is understood by observers, is essentially still "subjective" and connected to the artist's experience; not "objective."



> I am primarily interested in what I can detect and follow of the patterns established by the creating artist. (If, as a receiver, I am creating all of the patterns, then I have little need for the artist.)


If, for instance, you are "creating the patterns of meaning" in a work by John Cage, then that's his intent, to leave his experience out of it. He has provided a framework, however, for whatever patterns of meaning may arise for you.

Much modern art and music is like this; it rejects an _already established common ground_ of intersubjectivity in favor of an _experience with the medium itself;_ but the medium is "moderated" and "regulated" by the artist, using the medium.

So the net result is that a common "subjectivity of Man," with all its accompanying baggage of tradition, is rejected in favor of a "mystery" or "labyrinth of experience" which is presented. This is what John Cage and Boulez were trying to do.

This doesn't transform what was once "subjective" or "inter-subjective" into some sort of new "objective" art object which is devoid of subjectivity; 
...rather, this becomes more like an Eastern or oriental approach, in which the viewer's experience is primary and "self-generating", and not the result of an artist's specific vision, ideas, "ego" or subjectivity imposing itself on you.

This is more like observing nature.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

^^^ Your eyes say "no, no, no," but your lips (and actual words) say "yes, yes, yes." The one little rhetorical twist you added was to say that seeking your own patterns is the intent of the original creating artist, which is a distinction of no significance from my viewpoint.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

Is anticipating the profound experience shallow ?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

JAS said:


> ^^^ Your eyes say "no, no, no," but your lips (and actual words) say "yes, yes, yes." The one little rhetorical twist you added was to say that seeking your own patterns is the intent of the original creating artist, which is a distinction of no significance from my viewpoint.


I think it's very significant, in that modern art has often used the idea of the work of art as a "labyrinth" which the artist creates, and might get lost in himself. Examples are James Joyce (Ulysses, Finnegans Wake), Mallarme, John Cage's music, Boulez, Stockhausen.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Is anticipating the profound experience shallow ?


no, but experincing the anticipation of shallowness is profound


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Is anticipating the profound experience shallow ?


He's a cute little bunny rabbit, isn't he ?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Jacck said:


> no, but experincing the anticipation of shallowness is profound


Profound enough to make you walk out of a John Cage concert?


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

When a musician experiences an epiphany concerning Time - this is profound , memorable , and may be abstractly shared .
Blessings , may you have a three of these in your life-time .


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Tikoo Tuba said:


> When a musician experiences an epiphany concerning Time - this is profound , memorable , and may be abstractly shared .
> Blessings , may you have a three of these in your life-time .


Thank you, cute bunny rabbit. May you be blessed with a big, long carrot.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

adriesba said:


> This could be an explanation of depth in music, but is that the only way music can have depth?


I have no idea. It's just a way that makes sense to me.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> Thank you, cute bunny rabbit. May you be blessed with a big, long carrot.


Spirit animals do not eat .


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Profound enough to make you walk out of a John Cage concert?


As I would never walk into a John Cage concert I wouldn't know.


----------



## Guest (Sep 11, 2020)

EdwardBast said:


> I have no idea. It's just a way that makes sense to me.


I watched the BBC Prom last night where Tom Service, with Nicholas Collon and the Aurora Orchestra deconstructed Beethoven's 7th. It was a really useful way to see how it had been built, with layers, to create 'depth'. Of course, deconstruction needn't be taken to be the exact reversal of LvB's actual method, but I found it an interesting analysis


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

This discussion is profoundly deep in a shallow sort of way.


----------



## adriesba (Dec 30, 2019)

A concrete definition of depth in music has not been established, yet so many when discussing music are ready to use the terms "shallow" and "deep" to describe music. And several see the same pieces or composers the opposite way. I just don't see how depth or profundity is a relevant concept in evaluation of music. Perhaps comparisons of extremes can be used as justification for depth, but I don't know. As any two pieces in question are similar to each other, distinguishing which is "deeper" is nearly impossible and way too subjective a process.

What I do see is differing ability among individuals to find an interpretation from a piece of music. It seems that those who don't find an interpretation in a piece would classify the piece as shallow. In actuality though, perhaps it is not the piece itself, but the listener. The music just doesn't do anything for that listener. What speaks to each person is different. What would make more sense would be to say "This piece doesn't do anything for me." This would seem to be a better reflection of reality. In this way, one does not have to appear to criticize a work that doesn't deserve criticism, but instead acknowledge that one is not into the piece enough to find much meaning in it.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Spirit animals do not eat .


Spirit Bunnies eat spirit carrots. And once they start, they keep going, and going, and going . . .


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

adriesba said:


> "This piece doesn't do anything for me." This would seem to be a better reflection of reality.


Could it reflect realities like ' this evening is uninspiring ' or ' my sound-system is stupid ' or ' damned bunny is beyond understanding going nowhere sorrowfully hungry ' ?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

This is starting to get fun! Let's talk some more about bunnies!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DavidA said:


> As I would never walk into a John Cage concert I wouldn't know.


Ha ha! BANG! Aww, you got me!


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> This is starting to get fun! Let's talk some more about bunnies!


Well , as you have made me as a spirit bunny ... I now may say two things profoundly . Spirit bunnies do not eat ! And you are all invited to the Rabbit Dance . What music could you bring ? It's in the springtime blooming .


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

Oh , when the rabbits dance they jump and prance like two-legged like people in the grass . The
music you bring to this should not be frightening .


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

Minimalism . When soulfully it strives it sees the profanity of zero .


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

adriesba said:


> I've noticed quite often that when discussing music, people criticize pieces, composers, or performers as being shallow or praise other things for their profound nature. It happens with non-musical things too sometimes. I won't mention examples right now, but I often find that I like a piece/musician only to see others calling it/them shallow. It seems that works or musicians get a bad reputation or are ignored because they are seen as lacking depth.
> 
> It seems to me that people will see depth or lack thereof where they wish. Often, this type of critique comes across as a pseudo-intellectual way of saying "I like this" or "I don't like this". It seems to be used as a method of presenting one's own preferences as factually better or others' preferences as factually flawed or lowly. It can also put someone in the position of feeling as though they need to justify their preferences.
> 
> Does anyone else feel this way? What makes something profound or shallow? Is there any substance to the shallow-profound appraisal of art?


Study music theory. All the answers are there. That's all there is. What isn't 'answered' is merely the human projections which listeners can't reliably share, because they're personal projections.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Fabulin said:


> What "depth" are you guys talking about btw.? Does listening to certain pieces of music made you solve centuries-old mathematical problems? Did you invent something? Did you come up with great ideas to improve the Constitution? No?
> 
> Let me quote something:
> 
> ...


Wondering vaguely is what a pot smoker knows every time he imbibes. But if he writes it down or plays it (records it) he'll later recognize immediately that he was merely temporarily impaired. BUT even that experience can be somewhat profound for his life, because it's so different than daily thoughts. It opens new possibilities.


----------

