It seems like the author is referring specifically to the style of choral music found in churches, although the same thing can be said about other choral genres like barbershop.

However, Backstreet Boys or many of the Korean idol groups do music that could be classified as choral that's highly accessible.

The main difference is drums. Music without drums or some rhythmic equivalent is less accessible.

The other main difference is not in accessibility, but economics. Is cheaper and easier to make a band with only one featured vocalist, so most professional bands do this. It's what people hear, and therefore what they identify with and therefore what they go out of their way to listen to.

On the drums: Not entirely, I find folk tradition choral music (without drums) wonderful, but also struggle with classical and church choral.

There is, actually, a not insignificant repertoire of secular choral music although it’s lost a lot of its popularity. The liner notes for one collection of Aaron Copland’s music made a comment about how it was strange that Copland had written very little choral music given its indigenous popularity in the US in the first half of the twentieth century.

But yes, solo vocalists have been the primary mode of vocal music in English-speaking culture which presented a challenge in creating post-Vatican II liturgical music which was intended to echo the local culture (something that Dennis Day noted in his book, Why Catholics Can’t Sing). Folk and rock both tend not to work well as a format for congregational music although the former works better in my opinion. Certainly, I don’t buy Day’s argument that the obvious liturgical choice is old-school hymnody (I lean more towards incorporating more of Black gospel instead).

I wouldn’t call the various harmony-based groups like Backstreet Boys or K-Pop as choral music. What makes choral music choral is the fact that there are multiple voices singing each part in the piece.

[dead]