# How do you define superficiality in music or one's work?



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I'm curious how you might say a certain perception of something, like a composition, or a certain outlet and taste, is superficial compared to others. All composers for instance had to make due earning a living with their work. Was not the end goal wholly subjective to their needs? the craft they expected would yield the best results (whatever result they had intention on)? If we can measure the universal greatness of different composers, like 'the Top 10 greatest,' is there an objective standard to measure the Top 10 most genuine composers? as well as the most superficial?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Superficial in art to me is trying to do something beyond one's capabilities. Art itself is superficial. So an artist that takes himself or herself too seriously is superficial in thought. Ravel was considered "artificial" in his time. What would those same critics think of atonal music now?

I used to think Ferneyhough and a lot of contemporary music is superficial, but he and others do what they intended to do, and get the point across. I still find 4'33" superficial. It is a gimmick. There is some value to the idea, but it's just an idea.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Whether a work of art is superficial or not is something best asked of the artist. Aside from the creator's perception, or response, all other judgments may well be conjecture at best. And subjective conjecture as well.

Works made for specific occasions may well often fall into the "superficial" category. While works made for no specific reason other than the artist's deep, compelling urge _to create_ may well fall into the non-superficial list. Of course, a work made for a specific occasion may well prove an important contribution to art innovation and form and definition, three definers of what may well be non-superficial art. And, as well, a work created solely because of deep inner urges to create may well prove less valuable than, say, one made for a specific occasion. And, as you have already implied, any work of art that sustains an artist is likely not superficial to that artist.

A lot here depends upon one's definition of "superficial" as it applies to art. And also one's definition of "art". To my way of thinking, that is a book-length topic, which, after all _is_ paged down, will not much solve the problem anyhow.

Good luck receiving a definitive answer to your question. I'll look forward to reading it.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Ethereality said:


> I'm curious how you might say a certain perception of something, like a composition, or a certain outlet and taste, is superficial compared to others.


It has something to do with the way the music engages people. When the music is profound it incites people to use their imagination. If it's superficial, when you listen you can only enjoy the sounds.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

This term seems often paired with extensively melodic works, of composers such as Saint-Saens and Tchaikovsky, yet memorable melody is at least one of the features in most of our favorite pieces, that it begs the question if a work that feels superficial is also really good.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Good thread, I consider musical works shallow, vulgar, tasteless if you can feel the following motives:

1-Patriotism, homesickness or other negative and vulgar ideas, ideologies, emotions. 
2-Personal grudges, trivias, or serving personal attention seeking from opposite sexes or people to satisfyan ego full of oneself, self-importance,self-love, self-adoration. 
3-Too much of individualistic statements, putting oneself`s bad tastes in the music, like political, societal affiliations. 
4-Rebel for rebels sake type of works which are tended to showcase some hatred, intolerance toward tradition. or something.
5-Atheistic music, such music is often too diluted in harmony, like an 80 years old talking about his youthful memories, or like some unstable teenager.
6-Tryng to appeal to the general public without dedicating to any core audience, without commitment to the music, or the art itself.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

Good music:

1-Selflessness, dedicated to the betterment of music, the art themself, clear of personal trivias and mundane concerns, but full of passion for music and art. 

2-Faithfulness, music seems easy in practice, but hard to achieve fineness, personal quality can be seen through the work of the composer, like faithfulness, penitence, honesty. A composer with good characters must be also faithful, therefore, only faithful composers can compose good music. 

3-Truthfulness, humility toward music itself and audiences. Sometimes, trying to making up for some personal weakness in education, religious situations with endeavour in musical compositions can also motivate to creat good music, in such works, you can feel composers peserverance, honesty, passion, humility in his compositions.


----------



## anahit (Dec 10, 2018)

fine said for "good music", ariasexta, but i don't agree completely with your opinion on "bad music": "you can feel composers peserverance, honesty, passion, humility in his compositions" even if they are patriotic, like in sibelius, verdi, bartok, stravinsky...
it is hard to define "superficiality", becasue it very much is outside of what we can perceive. 

for me, if music is "boring" than it is - superficial. boredom is a poison for art.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Can you say a piece of music is superficial if it only aimed at being a trifle? I suppose you can but it only really becomes a criticism for works that aimed to be more major .... and even then would be a comparison with other works (like saying "Mendelssohn's symphonies are superficial ... compared to Beethoven's"). 

I don't think superficial is a useful word for us. It implies that the word "deep" can also be used ... but is it clear what either word actually means when applied to music? The words are vague and if you find yourself using one you should maybe try to find a more precise word to express your view with.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

anahit said:


> fine said for "good music", ariasexta, but i don't agree completely with your opinion on "bad music": "you can feel composers peserverance, honesty, passion, humility in his compositions" even if they are patriotic, like in sibelius, verdi, bartok, stravinsky...
> it is hard to define "superficiality", becasue it very much is outside of what we can perceive.
> 
> for me, if music is "boring" than it is - superficial. boredom is a poison for art.


Patriotism is the last disguise all boredoms summed up in the world can have, patriotism is one of the vulgarest emotions including mob violence and drug addiction. As long as people can not discern the vulgarity of patriotism, people will never truly understand the beauties of music and art. Patriotism is not peserverance, but servility toward powers of money and violence, humility is also against it, humility should teach people to respect every single foreigner and will thus keep you from becoming patriotic enough to show it in music. All patriotic music is stupid, especially atheistic patriotic music, lower garbage than a fart.

Bartok is one of the worst composers I ever know, including Prokofiev, although I have sievered my romantic fandom, I still think Rachmaninoff remarkable among his contemporaries, he was a defector to the USA. Everything proves my point, those who express patriotism in his music must be a mediocre composer at best.

So is it guilty to be patriotic? it is fine as long as it stayed put of serious music. Like peoples daily defaecation and sex life, it must not show up in serious literature, paintings, music. Since music has little to no barrier to appreciation, not like a genuine Da Vince you need to go to Louvre, people could feel at liberty to smear the classical music. No, patriotism and other ugly ideas, mundane motives should stay out of serious music. No tolerance, as you must not touch a classical painting as a casual visitor.


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

People feel no awe and sanctity toward good music, it is why people do not understand where to stop while messing up the music. Even good literature also criticizes patriotism, but does allow some homesickness. 

Baroque and early music should start to attain the same level of sanctity of any piece of ancient paintings and start to induce awe and admiration even if people do not yet understand. The accessibility of music has made itself a victim to all vulgar interests. At least, there should be a clear barrier between serious classical music and frivolous modern music. Any composer who ever expresses vulgar ideas in music, must be ignorant of good tastes or he/she simply does not love music, they only use music as a tool for personal lowlife interests.

As an audience, if you listen to serious music, you should also treat the music seriously, and think, and act seriously around it. People almost feel nothing besides some gaity and levity while listening to the music they love, that explains why many people can also love bad music as well as good music. But if you treat good music serious enough, you will automatically start to avoid some music and ideas. 

It is ok to love bad music, but you should keep it to yourself while not making up the confusion with the good music, I do still listen to some bad modern music which I never talk about here, I know they are bad, not trying to making any confusion up, you know it is some curse of being born into modernity, I am still not a saint I try to be.  To make a clear distinction between the seriousness and frivolity is what I can achieve so far.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I have a feeling that I have failed utterly as a lifelong listener of not only CM (no BM, or BS, please!), but of every other kind of music. As for my taste in art and literature.....


----------



## Dorsetmike (Sep 26, 2018)

For me, superficiality in classical music can be summed up in one word - einaudi


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

I'm going to try and focus the discussion.

Here's an example of superficial music -- the bit I want you to hear starts after about 20 seconds






and here is in a way the same piece, but deep


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

Mandryka said:


> I'm going to try and focus the discussion.
> 
> Here's an example of superficial music -- the bit I want you to hear starts after about 20 seconds
> 
> ...


No way, bro, listen to that deep swinging bass.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Ethereality said:


> I'm curious how you might say a certain perception of something, like a composition, or a certain outlet and taste, is superficial compared to others. All composers for instance had to make due earning a living with their work. Was not the end goal wholly subjective to their needs? the craft they expected would yield the best results (whatever result they had intention on)? If we can measure the universal greatness of different composers, like 'the Top 10 greatest,' is there an objective standard to measure the Top 10 most genuine composers? as well as the most superficial?


Interesting that you're asking this question when you seemed to be an expert on the subject previously:



Ethereality said:


> If there are objective parameters you identify as qualitative, yet they're arranged in a way that is unpleasant to you, it seems to me to suggest your identification of parameters in this circumstance is quite limited and superficial. By that I mean, you're ie. noticing certain repeated patterns here from other music, but they in no way indicate a correct usage or understanding of what makes a whole composition work. It's scarce to say you could achieve this holistic understanding.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Mandryka said:


> It has something to do with the way the music engages people. When the music is profound it incites people to use their imagination. If it's superficial, when you listen you can only enjoy the sounds.


Which category do you think this belongs?







Mandryka said:


> Here's an example of superficial music -- the bit I want you to hear starts after about 20 seconds


I can't play the video. (It might be blocked in my region or the uploader set it to private)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Superficial music is music of obvious and immediate appeal. It offers nothing new the second time around, it suggests no mysteries or problems to be solved, and it provokes no reflection on WHAT IT ALL MEANS.

There's nothing wrong with superficial music. Most of life is superficial. Just relax and enjoy it.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

IMO superficial classical music is relatively rare outside of a lot of avant-garde. On the other hand there's been a lot of it in pop music:


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

DaveM said:


> Interesting that you're asking this question when you seemed to be an expert on the subject previously:


I sort of understand what you mean, though cryptic


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

I long considered Mozart to be superficial. I would characterize his music as elevator or shopping mall music, or superficial pleasing music written for the aristocrats to enjoy at their afternoon tea parties. The reason is, that while his music is melodic and pleasing, it did not touch me emotionally.


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

Jacck said:


> I long considered Mozart to be superficial. I would characterize his music as elevator or shopping mall music, or superficial pleasing music written for the aristocrats to enjoy at their afternoon tea parties. The reason is, that while his music is melodic and pleasing, it did not touch me emotionally.


Even though I have/had completely different feelings/opinions about the music of Mozart, I share your 'definition' of superficial: if the music/performance doesn't touch me emotionally, I experience it as superficial. 
But, since I'm a very emotional guy… well... fill in the empty space(s).  
In short: I love loads of music. 

It's always hard for me to describe a piece of music as superficial. I'm not sure what 'objective' criteria I should use for that. But, in (mostly classical) music that I like and normally do not experience as superficial, it's sometimes less hard to describe a certain performance/recording as superficial. Meaning: before listening to it, I did have huge expectations of the performance of this particular piece, but, during listening, it left me rather unmoved. Example: in general I find Marie-Claire Alain's performances of Bach's organ chorales more superficial than Ton Koopman's. (Don't get me wrong in this though: I admire MC Alain as a Bach performer.)
Sometimes, this (slight) disappointment can also be caused by my own 'mood of the moment'. Which, in the end, means that my experience of superficiality is very much... subjective.


----------



## Marc (Jun 15, 2007)

DaveM said:


> IMO superficial classical music is relatively rare outside of a lot of avant-garde. On the other hand there's been a lot of it in pop music:


Feeling 'love in your tummy' can be a very deep experience, though.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

One must be careful to somehow define "superficial" so as to be able to carefully separate out music that we used to love when we were younger, and so played too often such that it is now superficial, from music which just fails--and always failed--to grip our imaginations at all, and hence we might regard also as superficial. There are quite a number of CM Masterpieces (as determined by popularity polls right here on TC) that I derive little or no nourishment from today due to over-hearing over the decades, yet others heard just as much remain ever-fresh though still totally familiar. This topic, like so many others of similar focus, again illustrates the subjective and individual nature of each of our approaches to music and art (of all sorts). I will not unnecessarily upset others by naming the great classics that no longer interest me, but instead will note that, for example, the utterly familiar concertos of, say, Rachmaninoff, the symphonies of Schumann, even Vivaldi's _Four Seasons_ continue to work upon me while a number of pieces at or near the top of the tree long ago lost much of their magic.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Jacck said:


> I long considered Mozart to be superficial. I would characterize his music as elevator or shopping mall music, or superficial pleasing music written for the aristocrats to enjoy at their afternoon tea parties. The reason is, that while his music is melodic and pleasing, it did not touch me emotionally.


I respect your preference, but this is sort of what I feel about Schubert. I can't really think of a moment Schubert has great contrast or development. I sometimes play his song cycles to see if there's something interesting, but every time I end up thinking they're all just sentimentally pleasant. I admit Erlkonig has some drama, but it too has that horribly constant va-va-va-va-va-va-va-va-va-va-va-va-va-vamp bass (what I call "Schubertficiality"). I feel no "Romantic subjectivity" in Mozart, but I can still sense moods of pain through the contrast he makes, such as the chromaticism of et incarnatus est from Missa Trinitatis K167, which he wrote at 17. The closest Schubert gets to this is perhaps et incarnatus est from Mass No.4, but way weaker than the Mozart.
The fugue from the credo of Schubert Mass No.5 is just horrible with its constant string figures having no sense of balance. It would be safe to say this sort of constant 'vamp' is his trademark. I'll even go as far as to say this is where his individuality lies, because you can immediately recognize "it's Schubert!" by hearing it. And Schubert himself knew it was his deficiency, and it's probably why he kept getting lessons til the end of his life. Just looking at the way he went about doing stuff, had he lived til 40, he would still have got lessons. He was a very good semi-professional. You might not think it's that big of a deal, (thinking that he was still an "artist", and that's what's most important) but to me, this is fatal. I just can't admire him to the same extent I do Beethoven, for example.
I also think it's kind of unfair that Schubert was for the lieder in a similar way Vivaldi was for the concertos (not exactly in a good way), but Vivaldi gets criticized FAR more often.
This is like Schubert Wanderer Fantasy in gesture and effect, but without all the needless padding:


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

If you're familiar with the wonderful Naxos series British Light Classics, that's pretty much 100% superficial. There's no profundity, no deep meaning, no angst - it's just pleasant music that doesn't demand your attention and doesn't grate on your nerves. There's another series once on ASV, and I frequently have those disks out - they make great background music in the morning when I'm reading the paper and having my coffee. It's invariably well-written, often brilliantly orchestrated. Sometimes it gets a bit too sugary. Leroy Anderson in the USA also wrote superficial music - great tunes and such, but not much else. It also made him a very wealthy man. Then there are the "serious" composers who wrote very superficial music despite their thinking otherwise: Cecile Chaminade and much of Liszt.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_How do you define superficiality in music or one's work?_

Id' say this is one of the more difficult to answer questions I've seen on this forum.

If you take a simple round or fugue, such as the song "99 Bottles Of Beer On the Wall," then it's easy to say something like that is superficial since it does little more than repeat itself endlessly. But it still a lot of fun and can be satisfying ... so how can that be supreficial?

Besides, the late 20th and early 21st century found a new way to do this in classical music called minimalism.

I have sympathy for people that think simplistic ideas undeveloped are superficial; this is the concept of sonata format -- that development will be complex and take both the player and listener on a journey from the exposition (or beginning) to the recapitulation (or end.)

But classical music hasn't been wholly based on traditional sonata format since the end of World War II and people moved farther and farther away from it over the years.

If I had to define superficiality over a term it would be the state of classical music right now. There is hardly anything being written that is memorable to more than a few people and nothing has been written that was a worldwide hit in decades.

Some people say it is dying; even if not it is in a slump no one has seen in 500 years.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Absolute music is rather superficial to me. Be it Johann Strauss II or Johannes Brahms.

Such works may contain more or less Sudoku potential, but don't strike me as art.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> I respect your preference, but this is sort of what I feel about Schubert. I can't really think of a moment Schubert has great contrast or development.....


it took me couple of years, but in the end I was able to connect with Mozart and I am able to enjoy him now and no longer feel he is superficial. So maybe one day you will be able to connect with Schubert. Schubert was easy for me, I never had problems getting into him.


----------



## Caryatid (Mar 28, 2020)

I think the listener involuntarily perceives some harmonic styles as more emotionally earnest than others. To me the slow movements of Beethoven and Schubert seem earnest - they seem to express the composers' personal feelings. On the other hand, I hear artifice in (for example) Mozart and Schumann. But these impressions are illusory. A piece of music doesn't tell you what the composer was feeling when they were writing it. Perhaps Beethoven was in a jolly mood when he put the last touches on the Adagio of the _Hammerklavier_ - I'd certainly have been feeling smug.


----------

