The article fails to consider the matter in the round. Every long-lived social grouping has its folk songs, within the correct meaning of the term. It is these authors, who define their notions by reference to two white middle class (or upper middle-class) collectors, and who ignore all other collectors and all other collections, who are guilty of bias.

It also applies another assumption without seeking validation. Indeed, an assumption with two layers. First it assumes that "pop" music is democratic. It is not. It reflects only "effective demand" as any economist would regognise. Second, it assumes that merit lies in common acclaim - a fallacy that may in time be seen to have been the defining error of the C20th.