Bill Pirkle writes in reply to me:

>>And I do find the use of the P word ("not profound") to justify personal
>>taste unhelpful, even where it's as gently brandished as here by Bill
>>Pirkle.  Would it not be better to speak of "love"?
>
>I was referring to my personal opinion of the modern stuff as being
>interesting but not profound.  Is it OK with you that I describe music that
>I like as profound and other music as interesting [to me]? - Webster
>PROFOUND 1) having intellectual depth and insight 2) difficult to fathom
 or understand 3) extending far below the surface.

No, I fear it's not OK.  "Profound" is judgemental, over and above personal
preference.

Then again, given your dictionary definition, let's hope your desert island
ship doesn't suffer the same fate as your argument; for in the light of
Webster your characterisation of the "modern stuff" as "not profound" holds
no water at all (c.f.  Janacek's "Intimate Letters" from my first posting,
which fits your bill totally).

I suggested you might be better using "love" to describe your reaction to
the music you like.  (I was not talking about the subject matter of the
music, only your reaction to it).  So - to rephrase my query - why do you
not talk about "love" rather than "profundity", which you are by your own
definitions hauling in as a meaningless value judgement?

Christopher Webber,  Blackheath, London,  UK.
http://www.nashwan.demon.co.uk/zarzuela.htm
"ZARZUELA!"