This is gratuitous negativity. It adds nothing to your post except to emphasize disdain for the author. It's especially uncivil in response to the author's own statement of humility.
This post would be better (and much more constructive) if you explained (or linked to an explanation of) how C major and A minor are different, or how the concept of modulation dispels the author's confusions.
I disagree. The article is not of high quality, and I am compelled to point that out. It is one thing to admit not knowing anything about a subject, it is something else entirely to suggest that the way things are in that subject don't make any sense. That is arrogance hiding behind a pretence of ignorance.
If the author truly wanted to explore this subject, rather than suggest the key of A minor is superfluous and redundant, he would make an attempt to answer, not ask, that question. Western music theory has not existed for centuries without reason, and some of the attitude in this post suggests the author has superficial appreciation for how music works, as if the author could do it better. There are many more examples of this in the article.
I found the article questionable in its intent and content, and the general tone throughout is worthy of my response.
> You got that right.
This is gratuitous negativity. It adds nothing to your post except to emphasize disdain for the author. It's especially uncivil in response to the author's own statement of humility.
This post would be better (and much more constructive) if you explained (or linked to an explanation of) how C major and A minor are different, or how the concept of modulation dispels the author's confusions.