What the hell? I never made any such comment on the subjective experiences of listeners.
You can enjoy music and know it's "junk food." I like listening to plenty of bad music. I don't judge anyone for what they enjoy.
To call Philip Glass a master of his domain, a rightfully-celebrated contributor to Western art music, or any of this other crap - that's what I take issue with. Enjoy his music all you want - it's all available and in print, and his various corporate music labels make sure of that. Just don't mislead others who may actually take HN users at their word.
post-Cage I think it's gotten a bit hard to pin down what it means to be a significant contributor to "Western art music." How do you define that? Has Glass been influential (yes), popular (yes), and tried things compositionally that others hadn't (arguable). Is Steve Reich's music "better"? I think so, both as a listener and a performer, but Glass being potentially more popular doesn't really do any harm to anything. It just is what it is.
But I've had as many (and honestly, more) arguments with "anti-contemporary music/art" folks about Berio and Feldman, for example. What is late Feldman doing compositionally? Just shifting around simple chords surrounded by loads of silence while stuffy audiences in turtlenecks nod sagely and compose tweets in their mind for later about how "serene and haunting" this performance was? (I love Feldman, for the record)
What the hell? I never made any such comment on the subjective experiences of listeners.
You can enjoy music and know it's "junk food." I like listening to plenty of bad music. I don't judge anyone for what they enjoy.
To call Philip Glass a master of his domain, a rightfully-celebrated contributor to Western art music, or any of this other crap - that's what I take issue with. Enjoy his music all you want - it's all available and in print, and his various corporate music labels make sure of that. Just don't mislead others who may actually take HN users at their word.