Itt: musicians that normies think are deep

itt: musicians that normies think are deep.

not deep, just a great wordsmith

it's just lots of interesting stories and imagery, not deep or profound - unless you find it to be yourself -which is always a good thing.

meaning is subjective

I listen to Tom Waits when I want to have a fun time and that's probably exactly the way he likes it.

I'm not sure too many normies even listen to Tom Waits.

what is an example of music that is actually deep? does deep describe the music or just the lyrics?

muse though, and mars volta

tom waits isn't really, i mean, i don't think i've seen whatever inspired you to make this post. tom waits is one of those guys where everyone who knows his stuff thinks it's great, and i guess some 'normies' (anyone op doesn't get along with) probably like his stuff but it's not like a cliche that normies think tom waits is deep, the way it is a cliche that backpackers think immortal technique is deep

lmao at the insecurity here. what do you guys count as depth? why wouldn't being a great wordsmith who tells interesting stories with great imagery not have any depth?

Not either of those anons.

You're the one making the claim that Waits isn't deep OP. Burden of proof is on you.

not those guys, but it is definitely possible to teel an interesting story with great imagery that doesn't have any depth. you really disagree with that? what about your favorite fun stupid novel or movie? whatever depth is supposed to be, it definitely requires something more than interesting stories and great imagery

He's a better songwriter than your favorite songwriter

he isn't trying to reveal anything about yourself, he doesn't preach and has no agenda other than making music he likes to make.

idunno, when op says "deep" i think highschoolers talking about pink floyd's the wall.

...

Trent Reznor. Thom Yorke. Twenty One Pilots fag(s)

>implying I'm OP
lmao

my favorite stupid movie or novel doesn't use consistently interesting imagery or is great with words. they may be fun, but they aren't as deliberate or "artistic"
do you think James Joyce is shallow just because he tells interesting stories with clever wordsmithing without directly preaching a life lesson to the audience?

but all of his stories reveal something about the people in the stories. they really aren't shallow at all. just because he isn't Ingmar Bergman trying to make some grand statement on religion doesn't mean that he's shallow. you don't need to preach or try to reveal something about the listener to be deep.

Aleksander Vinter?

death grips
grimes
animal collective
xiu xiu
neutral milk hotel
bjork
the swans
sufjan stevens
bones
arca
ariel pink
lil ugly mane
radiohead
my bloody valentine
liturgy
nick cave
beach house
kate bush

Nice.

>do you think James Joyce is shallow just because he tells interesting stories with clever wordsmithing without directly preaching a life lesson to the audience?
that is a stupefying misconstrual of what I said. my point is that interesting stories and consistently great imagery are not sufficient for being deep. you think that the only reason readers think joyce is deep is because he tells interesting stories and uses great imagery? not because of the moral nuances of his characters or the way joyce finds the universal in simple mundane life, blah blah blah?

I'm no literary scholar but what I am saying should not be controversial: depth in art is more that just quality. high quality art can fail to be deep.

Put it this way: do you think that, if you just edited your favorite stupid novel so that the imagery was more consistent, that would instantly transform it into something deep? because that is what you appear to be saying: literally all it takes to be deep is to tell interesting stories with great imagery.

All I am saying is that there is more to it than that.

musicians with deep lyrics doesn't exist

...

Is there any other real answer?

Not him but deep is pretty vague. Deep in terms of some sort of moral relevance to real life, or wisdom? Something can be deep in imagery and lyrical wordplay. Deep can easily be traded for "rich" based on your understanding of what the word means.

Yeah, forgot to remove trip tho

Why not?

>bait

there are but this is the most accurate and relevant answer at the moment

yeah got to agree. if you follow this back i actually starting off by asking what deep was supposed to mean. but even if i don't know exactly what it is supposed to mean, still i think we have an intuitive understanding. and at least according to my intuitive understanding depth outstrips being pretty and interesting. to the extent the argument it about anything it was about our intuitive understanding of 'depth'

FREE YOUR MIND AND YOUR ASS WILL FOLLOW
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS WITHIN

It's true though

Pretty much this.

>puts bands he knows most people on Sup Forums like
>waits for keks
>bait

all horse trash except for bones and lil ugly mane.

'depth' is a gimmick and a cheap, generically branded myth.

Woah, fuck off, The Wall is one of the greatest albums ever created

Kanye

If this is 21 Pilots than this by far.

>moral nuances of his characters or the way joyce finds the universal in simple mundane life, blah blah blah
this is exactly what I equate to an interesting story though. I don't think I've experienced a story I found interesting without at least a tiny amount of nuance to character.

> if you just edited your favorite stupid novel so that the imagery was more consistent, that would instantly transform it into something deep
I'm saying there's more to depth than just moralizing or philosophizing. do you think that abstract art has no depth to it? people extract meaning differently. to say that great imagery has no depth to it is a shallow way of looking at what imagery can do.
but what it all adds up to in the end is that Tom Waits uses imagery and interesting stories to craft nuanced characters and explore depth of topics. saying that his stories and imagery have no depth in general is a grave misunderstanding of what Waits does.
is he the deepest musician? no, probably not, but just saying that he only tells interesting stories with interesting imagery is failing to perceive what those two do together.

>'depth' is a gimmick and a cheap, generically branded myth.
>mfw trying to parse this sentence

>I'm saying there's more to depth than just moralizing or philosophizing. do you think that abstract art has no depth to it?
I have no idea where you got the idea that I am looking for some kind of message. Like I just completely missed the boat on the last 130 years of art or something. Generally I am actually biased against art with a 'message.' All I'm saying is that there is more to depth than... like I've been saying. I don't know what you'd say to put that 'more' into words but I am not talking about Ibsen or something. Art is deep, maybe say if if makes you experience profound emotions, plus maybe some other stuff. That is the kind of thing I have in mind.

Anyway this might all just be verbal because it looks like you have loaded a lot of the stuff I think creates that profound whatever into your notion of interesting. If what you mean by interesting is great deep complicated characters and profound issues then sure okay, being interesting like that is enough to be deep. I can get interested in Mission Impossible so that is the kind of low bar I was setting

tom waits is deep imo, btw. i disagree with OP, that's what got me into this thread

...