Seems to me he traded one assumption for another. He used popularity and consumption as the arbiter of repetition as good.
I don't think that's the conclusion to draw from consumption choices. McDonald's sells more burgers than anybody here in the US, and yet practically no one would say they make better burgers than anybody else. Rather when an individual has to choose between value and personal time, they choose McDonald's over others. The time to retrieve and the money spent is much lower at McDonald's than going to a higher quality burger joint that will likely cost more and take more time to make.
Pop music provides the preferred value and time investment over quality music. You can get a pop tune the first time you hear it. You get immediate pay off and immediate gratification - melodies and beats are instantly processed and understood. The time investment in quality music means it will likely take longer to get that same auditory gratification from beats and melodies that are more rich, intricate and unique, take longer to understand and familiarize.
So, yes repetition is good in the way that McDonald's is good - sometimes you need a cheap burger really fast. And maybe that's the preference the majority of the time with the majority of consumers. But that doesn't mean those same consumers would turn around and say that McDonald's makes the best. Pop music is fast food music, to me. And it's good and bad for mostly the same reasons.