There is much to discuss here. My immediate reaction is that the problem isn't so much the 'facts' (such as they are - or seem to be), but the slant in which they are couched, and the all-too-apparent adjectival bias in their delivery. The basic premise (which is an all-too-familiar one) is that such and such in the Catholic Church was/is bad (and indeed it was/is), therefore whatever replaced it was/is good (which indeed it isn't, categorically). This is, of course, an all-too-common and little examined non sequitur. It is, also, and exercise in illogic which, furthermore, suggests none too subtly that there was/is no good in the Catholic Church and no ill Protestantism. This is a very complex matter which isn't clarified by blind and ill-tutored polemics on either side.

Equally disturbing is the implied use of music as a polemical tool. True, music has many times, by both Catholics and Protestants, been shackled to play this role, functioning as a mere carriage for messages and memes. It's use by Luther was hardly an historical first. Even Ambrose's hymns played a similar role in the combat with Arianism. Regardless of who uses music to further which goal, the kidnapping of such a sublime art for adversarial purposes is a sad and cheap degradation of so noble an art.

More later.

oh brother.
Fake news indeed. would it be so hard for a reporter to make a simple search... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Renaissance_composers