The author misses this:

Choral music is boring because the tempos tend to be slow. The instruments used are generally incapable of fast passages in which notes have a sharp, clear attack. Not just fast passages, but interesting passages. Choral melodies tend to be uninteresting, because they have to be singable. If there are too many awkward leaps, only some rare genius with a perfect ear and vocal control can pull it off; yet the same melody would be nothing to a violinist, pianist, or flutist, at twice the tempo, who would have all the notes crisply articulated with good intonation and a quick attack.

In a nutshell, some people like their Western Art music when it shreds.

Otherwise, not so much.

Which is not to say that vocals as such are unexciting; far from it. The problem is that choral works often just have too many people singing. Exciting vocals mainly have one vocalist, or at most a very small number, doing something powerful with their voices, not just hitting the notes in a score.

I'd rather listen to a good barbershop quartet than some Baroque chorale---even if it's by Bach! However, if the latter were reduced to an ensemble of just four people, it could work a lot better.

E.g. this actually sound pretty cool: five ladies singing the Toccata and Fugue in Dm:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKI9VThPB4w

Much more fun than any random Bach chorale, sorry J. S.

But still, only to a point. Though they are hitting the notes and the harmonies are crisp, there is a lot of portamento (gliding from note to note). The attack of an instrument isn't there.

In terms of vocal power, it's a joke compared to swing, blues, rock.

In another adjacent example, I'd rather listen to art song rather than choral music. More emotional impact, usually easier to comprehend, and the singer's personality comes through.