[gotostatement]

if you don't want that type of comment on HN, feel free to remove it - it's not a big deal to me. But it's not a shallow critique - this article makes grand claims about how the brain works that are not backed up by any experiment or reference; it's reducing an extremely complex phenomenon - music and subjective experience of music - to a simple cognitive processing and meaning-making framework; and none of this makes any reference to work that other people have done on the matter. If you consider this a shallow critique, then I have to think that the only thing you wouldn't consider shallow is engaging deeply with the content, but that's not fair - for the reasons I gave, my contribution is claiming that this not worth engaging further with - it's crankery

[dang]

I don't want to remove it! But even if you had just said what you said here, the comment would already have been less shallow:

this article makes grand claims about how the brain works that are not backed up by any experiment or reference; it's reducing an extremely complex phenomenon - music and subjective experience of music - to a simple cognitive processing and meaning-making framework

The difference is here you say something a bit more specific about the content and topic of the article, whereas the GP comment didn't. Also, the style of what you wrote here is more conversational. The GP comment felt more like a pedantic putdown to me, although admittedly that is more of an interpretation.

[gotostatement]

I see your point, especially about tone