Translation:Is the song profound or shallow?
I agree that this sentence is very confusing for elementary language learner. If in a specific context, I understand that it makes sense but on its own as it is here, I would suggest to remove it. For elementary learners the sentences for study should be pretty straightforward, avoiding double meanings. Otherwise it can create confusion. One sentence is not a tragedy, but let's strive for the best ;-)
I think it makes sense in both languages. In some languages, like English and Dutch (my mother tongue), "deep" or its equivalent can be used figuratively to basically mean "profound". ("That's deep, man!") Esperanto has the same freedom to use things figuratively.
I believe I read somewhere that this is even more general of a phenomenon in Esperanto, where even more things can be used either literally or figuratively, and that's why there are no words like the English profound, that can only be used in the one way in that regard. That way, in Esperanto, you never have to worry whether you've got the figurative or the literal word.
Depending on the context i could say that sentence, but without a context I would add the word "enhave" (contain), "esence" (=) or "signife" (by meaning):
Ĉu la kanto estas enhave profunda aŭ malprofunda? ĉu la enhavo/esenco/signifo de la kanto estas profunda/pripensiga aŭ ne? (pripensiga is "that makes you think about it)