# What Makes Music "Deep"?



## MelloHero (Jul 20, 2012)

So I showed my fiancée a piece of music that I wrote nigh two years ago. Her opinion was that it lacked depth, which got me to thinking. What is "depth," anyway? Artistic merit? Subject matter? _Lack_ of subject matter? Vivid emotion? Insightful statements on the human condition? Or is it just something one recognizes intuitively--"I know it when I see it"?

I guess I'm in the "I know it when I see it" camp _de facto_, since I've never really thought about it much before, but I never like to view things that way; I always want to define things, and I'm not really sure what one could use to call something "deep" or "profound."

What makes music "deep" to you?


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

Rainer Maria Rilke put it better than most in the poetry of Duino Elegies when he describes it...."drawn from the fountain of being".

When I think about the composers whose music I enjoy - what is striking about their lives, is that they have lived. Whether that be Janacek's celebration of his love (infatuation) for his girlfriend [Intimate Letters]; or Smetana's patriotism for his country [Ma Vlast]; Myaskovsky's war-torn shell-shocked past; Shostakovich's repression in the Soviet Union; Palestrina's celebration of his religious faith; Szymanowski's opulent mysticism drawn from his travels in the Middle East; Moeran's love for his countryside, Debussy's love for orientalism etc....

Perhaps none set out to be deep; this would only lead to pretentiousness. I suppose mastery of the compositional language is a requisite in order to express oneself, otherwise Baudelaire's caution, that emotion without art when expressed, is mere sentimentality.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

1) certainly the absence of the initially obviously predictable
2) the presence of a microcosmos reflecting makrokosmos, a kaleidoscopic and contrastful content
3) the absence of a recorder - or countertenors


----------



## MelloHero (Jul 20, 2012)

joen_cph said:


> 3) the absense of a recorder - or countertenors


I think you've hit on the most important criterion of all, right here.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Deep is a mirror.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

quack said:


> Deep is a mirror.


But one could about just as well argue the opposite - that: "deep means a hindrance".


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Exactly, if it reflects that for you. Some see the world while others see their pimples.


----------



## MelloHero (Jul 20, 2012)

So if my music lacks depth, it actually means that I'm rather a shallow person. Have I got it?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Composers often add "depth" as a final step in composition, like "adding lightness" in airplane design. Others bypass depth and add "importance" instead. Both are readily available in a range of sizes and qualities...


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

MelloHero said:


> So if my music lacks depth, it actually means that I'm rather a shallow person. Have I got it?


That's true, insofar as you can lay claim to have complete mastery of composition.

Otherwise, like the rest of humans, learning those compositional skills is a requisite before learning to express yourself, just like learning a language is a requirement to express your innermost thoughts.

On the other hand, you could write recorder music like Colin Hands


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

First of all, as anyone knows, it MUST be in a minor key!! It should also have a slow tempo, and a thick, ponderous texture to give the illusion the piece is about to collapse under the weight of its own brilliance. Lots of repeated diminished 7th chords in the bass are also appreciated.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Depth in music is having more than simply what is visible on the surface. If a piece is nothing but big battles and big climaxes, like Wellington's Victory, then it is shallow. If there is brilliance, whether technical, emotional, or otherwise, it will generally not be found at the very top layer, so to speak. All pieces have some degree of depth, except the most superficial.

I think the association between Germanic music and depth (I suppose that's what the above poster is trying to lampoon) has something to do with the surfaces in composers like Brahms, Mahler, or Schoenberg either being deceptive or not terribly appealing compared to Russian or French music. Of course Ravel has plenty of depth, but his surfaces shine so well that you can easily ignore it. Schoenberg has depth, but you have to get past a surface that's often rather opaque to find it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Depth means _"resonance of meaning."_ 
_Resonant,_ resounding with the sound of something;
Bringing about resonance in a circuit, _atom,_ or other object or _being;_
Deep, clear, and continuing to sound or ring;
Having the ability to evoke or suggest enduring images, memories, truths, or emotions; 
Sympathetic vibration; _empathy;_

When something is deep, it _resonates_ with truth. It has become more, because it _resonates_ with other beings and with their "truth;" it is not just its own self-contained meaning. As such, it _reflects a state of being_ which _resonates_ with other beings.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

MelloHero said:


> So if my music lacks depth, it actually means that I'm rather a shallow person. Have I got it?


No. It means you have an interest / taste for 'lighter' music -- or it means you lack interest in deep music -- or you are writing within your limits, perhaps in a more generic style of some sort, or that you lack the technical ability to write something 'deep.'

There are more than a few who develop a fair amount of technique, can successfully write music, but who have absolutely nothing at all to say! Most anyone who has gone far enough to be able to write hopes they are not one of those, but as long as you, as a composer, are not setting out to be intentionally frivolous, I wouldn't worry about it....

P.s. you should post the piece in the today's composers category -- see what others than your girlfriend think


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Composers often add "depth" as a final step in composition, like "adding lightness" in airplane design. Others bypass depth and add "importance" instead. Both are readily available in a range of sizes and qualities...


One cannot 'add depth' anymore than one can 'add expression' to either a performance or a composition: both are inexorably intertwined with technique, that technique in use while composing or practicing and performing,

The way you've written it, it sounds like one just spreads icing on an already baked cake.... I.e. 'stir in' or 'spread on the outside of'' -- within the last moments of making. roflmao


----------



## MelloHero (Jul 20, 2012)

Head_case said:


> That's true, insofar as you can lay claim to have complete mastery of composition.
> 
> Otherwise, like the rest of humans, learning those compositional skills is a requisite before learning to express yourself, just like learning a language is a requirement to express your innermost thoughts.


o
That was my initial impression as well. I have to be able to write "The Cat In the Hat" before I can think about doing "The Sound and the Fury." I suppose that's what I need to spend more of my time on: making my current work better and fixing the weak spots.


----------



## Stargazer (Nov 9, 2011)

I personally think that music has depth if it has a perceived meaning beyond the notes, and beyond simply what's written. Additionally, it has to be able to express that meaning effectively. You see with many pieces of music, how people try to analyze what the composer was trying to illustrate when they wrote something, Tchaikovsky's 6th is a good example that plenty of people have tried to decode. What is actually considered deep can vary from person to person. As a funny example, my younger cousin considers Justin Bieber's music to have a deep underlying message, while I can't exactly say the same lol.


----------



## WavesOfParadox (Aug 5, 2012)

Lots of double basses


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

When you throw the score of a Beethoven symphony into the ocean and it sinks to the bottom, it's
"deep" music .








:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Guest (Dec 7, 2012)

Did you ever ask your fiancee? After all, she's the one that said it didn't have depth. What does she mean by depth?

Without showing any of my work, here's my conclusion: get a new fiancee!:lol:


----------



## Jimm (Jun 29, 2012)

Layers of meaning, richness and complexity in the musical result .. depth of thought. Historically, it's always been these sorts of things that ensure future interest and longevity. And the western classical 'legacy' in particular has a breadth & depth to it, with all it's 'eras' where you can find very many concrete examples within this written and thought out musical artform. You can reach a point where 'you know it when you come across it' over time, but also .. over time all of this is sorted out for us. So bottomline, look back at history (a great teacher) carefully & thoughtfully for your answers - it's not that hard. I mean .. Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Debussy, Stravinsky, Bartok, Webern, Ligeti etc. .. these are all 'deep' artists and their work illustrates that.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> The way you've written it, it sounds like one just spreads icing on an already baked cake.... roflmao


Yeah, it's kind of like that. And a helpful hint: If you have a piece of "deep" music and get tired of it, you can boil it to extract the depth and use the broth to effortlessly make holes in the ground. This can be handy for building fences, etc.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Stargazer said:


> I personally think that music has depth if it has a perceived meaning beyond the notes, and beyond simply what's written. Additionally, it has to be able to express that meaning effectively. You see with many pieces of music, how people try to analyze what the composer was trying to illustrate when they wrote something, Tchaikovsky's 6th is a good example that plenty of people have tried to decode. What is actually considered deep can vary from person to person. As a funny example, my younger cousin considers Justin Bieber's music to have a deep underlying message, while I can't exactly say the same lol.


I saw that new video with Justin Bieber sitting in with Rascal Flats, and I must say I was entertained; and, yes, somewhat moved by the singing and the emotion conveyed. I felt it, and resonated with it. Is there something wrong with me? I'm a 60 year-old man...


----------



## Jimm (Jun 29, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> I saw that new video with Justin Bieber sitting in with Rascal Flats, and I must say I was entertained; and, yes, somewhat moved by the singing and the emotion conveyed. I felt it, and resonated with it. *Is there something wrong with me?* I'm a 60 year-old man...


Yes. 

If you're as old as you say you are & have lots of exposure to high quality music & musicianship (to judge by comparison, having reference) than you should know better than to be suckered in by such 'cheap emotions' & 'entertainment'.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

quack said:


> Exactly, if it reflects that for you. Some see the world while others see their pimples.


My point was that the simple trick of shifting perspective away from the work of art to its beholder doesn't do much as regards trying to answer the OP´s initial question - unless of course you think that all utterances we face share the same amount of "deepness". And that something initially undeciphered or enigmatic, a hindrance, is a part of the quality of deepness, a stimulation for thought, rather than the presentation of something that is just mere self-confirmation or common convention.


----------



## Llyranor (Dec 20, 2010)

I think as long as you can listen to the same composition at different moments (or at different phases of your life) and keep drawing new things/appreciations out of it, that should suffice. Despite being the same notes on the same sheet of music, it may invoke different emotions in you, and may lend your ear to pay attention to different aspects of it (perhaps it's some of the counterpoint one listen, the harmonies another, or perhaps the orchestration or interplay of instruments in a subsequent listen).

In other words, it has the potential to transform you into a different listener every time. If you listen to a piece (even if you really like it), but derive the same thing from it every single time, it's probably not very deep (for you personally). Of course, it's incredibly subjective, so it's more a case of a composition being deep for a specific person (or a group being in agreement), since each person can derive different things from the same composition (and some people will derive the same thing every single listen).

I love it when I go back to an old favorite that I enjoy for some reason, and then spot something new. "Wait, I never noticed this before..... that's amazing!" It's such a great feeling.

I also love it when I decide to give a piece I didn't like too much a second chance years later and realize how much I appreciate it (because I am a different listener this time). That's why it's unfair to write off some pieces as not being deep sometimes; perhaps the problem is in the listener! (or his/her state of mind when listening, anyway)

Take Bach's Chaconne, for example. Some days I listen to it first thing in the morning, and it gets me upbeat and ready to take on the world. Other days I'll be tired/a bit down after a long day, and it provides a sympathetic mood. Some days I'll just be in awe at the double/triple stops and how they produce multiple voices on a single violin. Some days I'll wonder what Bach must have been thinking when he was written a part in a particular way - what inspired him?. Once in a while, I'll compare different interpretations and how they can evoke different feelings in me. Sometimes I'll just focus on the difference in the raw sound of Baroque vs modern violin and how that impacts the piece. Some days I'll be completely obsessed with a few specific bars of the piece; whereas on other days it'll be a completely different section. Ultimately, I'll just end up being amazed at how he was able to do all these things to me with just one single composition for just a simple violin. Sorry for the wordy paragraph, I just really love Bach's Chaconne.

EDIT: Fun fact - I fell in love with the Chaconne the first time I heard it. What I *didn't* hear were all the double/triple stops. It took me over a year of listening to classical music to even *know* it was possible to play different strings of a violin at the same time. You can imagine how blown my mind was when I finally realized that. I think the first time I really consciously noticed it was while listening to the Andante movement of Bach's 2nd violin sonata. There, I finally clearly heard the two melodies playing at the same time. But... it was a sonata for solo violin! HOW? I had to check out a performance video on youtube to confirm that I wasn't insane, haha. It was such a ludicrous notion that I had to show it to a friend (who had the same reaction). It's funny how what you pay attention aurally to really changes over the years.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Llyranor said:


> Sorry for the wordy paragraph, I just really love Bach's Chaconne.


You'll like this Brahms quote: "On one stave, for a small instrument, the man writes a whole world of the deepest thoughts and most powerful feelings. If I imagined that I could have created, even conceived the piece, I am quite certain that the excess of excitement and earth-shattering experience would have driven me out of my mind."


----------



## Guest (Dec 7, 2012)

Jimm said:


> Yes.
> 
> If you're as old as you say you are & have lots of exposure to high quality music & musicianship (to judge by comparison, having reference) than you should know better than to be suckered in by such 'cheap emotions' & 'entertainment'.


Sorry, Jimm, but that's shallow!



millionrainbows said:


> Depth means _"resonance of meaning."_
> _Resonant,_ resounding with the sound of something;
> Bringing about resonance in a circuit, _atom,_ or other object or _being;_
> Deep, clear, and continuing to sound or ring;
> ...


Difficult to perceive much here that enlightens with regard to music. It seems like one enigmatic word exchanged for a load of others!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> When something is deep, it _resonates_ with truth. It has become more, because it _resonates_ with other beings and with their "truth;" it is not just its own self-contained meaning. As such, it _reflects a state of being_ which _resonates_ with other beings.


Oh wow. No, on second thought I'm not going to reply to that!


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Trombones... and Cellos


----------



## MelloHero (Jul 20, 2012)

Thanks for all the responses, everyone. I think one of the more salient things I'm gathering out of this thread is that I need to develop my musical language skills, first and foremost (lest I become the musical Amanda McKittrick Ros ). And hopefully, then, I'll also have more to say in my new language, too! I'll have to get the piece posted here for some technical critique sometime.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

unpredictable, profound, thought provoking, stirring, academic, genius.


----------



## Jimm (Jun 29, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Sorry, Jimm, but that's shallow!


Tearing up to a Justin Bieber video doesn't mean to musical depth whatsoever .. its just a clear cut example of emotion clouding better judgement/knowledge.


----------



## EqualMoneySystem (Aug 17, 2012)

joen_cph said:


> 1) certainly the absence of the initially obviously predictable
> 2) the presence of a microcosmos reflecting makrokosmos, a kaleidoscopic and contrastful content
> 3) the absence of a recorder - or countertenors


You obviously haven't heard the recorder concerto "Pipes & Bells" by Daniel Börtz


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

EqualMoneySystem said:


> You obviously haven't heard the recorder concerto "Pipes & Bells" by Daniel Börtz


Thank for the tip. Swedish Börtz is indeed difficult to find, even in Denmark. His symphonies are said to be quite ambitious.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

When you still discover new things about it after listening to it for years.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Is there something wrong with me? I'm a 60 year-old man...


There is. I'm 90 and I like it just fine.

You just have to listen to it with an open mind.


----------



## Guest (Dec 7, 2012)

Jimm said:


> Tearing up to a Justin Bieber video doesn't mean to musical depth whatsoever


Eh? Sorry, don't understand your banter old chap.

In any case, I'm not arguing for the depth of Justin Bieber, but against your shallow view of what 60 year olds are entitled to like.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

This is deep music:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

clavichorder said:


> This is deep music:


God, look how cute Brahms was! He really let himself go later on, with that friggin' beard.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

R-e-v-e-r-b-b-b-b


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Mysterious orchestration i.e. sound that is difficult to parse into individual components.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> R-e-v-e-r-b-b-b-b


Some mysterious clings and clangs help sometimes. Or you can take the Hovhaness approach...


----------



## presto (Jun 17, 2011)

WavesOfParadox said:


> Lots of double basses


I was going to say that............but you beat me too it!


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

definitely deep.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I like the answers "double basses," "trombones," and "cellos," but I want to know what a tuba has to do to get some respect. 

But seriously, I'm not sure I can recognize musical depth well, so I'll float a definition that might apply to all art: depth is potential for rewarding thoughtful analysis. The more a work rewards thoughtful analysis, the deeper it is.

I've been turning that idea over in my mind for a few years now, and I'd like to know what y'all think of it.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

science said:


> I like the answers "double basses," "trombones," and "cellos," but I want to know what a tuba has to do to get some respect.
> 
> But seriously, I'm not sure I can recognize musical depth well, so I'll float a definition that might apply to all art: depth is potential for rewarding thoughtful analysis. The more a work rewards thoughtful analysis, the deeper it is.
> 
> I've been turning that idea over in my mind for a few years now, and I'd like to know what y'all think of it.


As far as definitions of deep go, that's a pretty good one.

But you haven't mentioned the sarrusophone, or my favorite bit of percussion, the tam-tam. Now _that's_ deep!


----------



## Guest (Dec 8, 2012)

It should have many layers of dense, chromatic counterpoint so I hear new things every time I listen.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

Depth, to me, is when it feels like a piece is able to transport you inside itself.

It's also able to erect a "reality distortion field" around you. When you listen to a piece like this, you can't understand why you ever thought any other piece you ever listened to was good, and you can't foresee yourself ever listening to another piece again, unless it's this one.

When I listen to Don Giovanni, I can't understand why I ever thought something like Beethoven's 9th was worth listening to. When I listen to Beethoven's 9th, I can't understand why I ever thought Don Giovanni was worth listening to, etc. etc.

When I listen to the Rite of Spring, I can't understand why I ever liked purely diatonic music. When I listen to the Brandenburg concertos, I can't understand why I ever liked modern music.

Then there are pieces that just exist, such as the majority of Haydn's and Ries' symphonies. I can appreciate and enjoy them very much, but they don't take me anywhere. (This is subjective though. I'm sure some people find depth in Haydn's symphonies.)


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

"Depth" is a relative thing. Tchaikovsky's 6th symphony has great depth. Beethoven's Opus 106 has great height.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Re "depth" in music, I am irresistibly drawn to Justice Potter Stewart's view of pornography: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it."


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

"Depth" in music takes place when the work is connected to works from other media, experiences, etc.


----------



## PhileasFogg (Dec 7, 2012)

The emotional depth of a piece isn't something quantifiable just from analyzing the notes



MelloHero said:


> So if my music lacks depth, it actually means that I'm rather a shallow person.


No, you might just be a bad or inexperienced composer


----------

