I would imagine that the mindset when it comes to music here a ASR tends toward "if you like it, it's good; if you don't like it it's good for somebody else". Given that, some bands that have technically great players produce music that is boring to me, and other bands have a lack of technical competence that keeps me from enjoying their stuff. Has anyone else thought about this over the years? Been ruminating on this for thirty years-- really interested to hear any thoughts!
Occasionally, yes.
First I should say that a lack of technical proficiency per se doesn't bother me at all. It all depends on what type of music it produces and whether I like it or not.
But I have noticed that, though I love prog rock, my interest really tends to start, I dunno, roughly around '75 and beyond I guess. Before that it was like prog musicians and rock musicians were still getting a handle on their instruments, exploring what they could do, but not reaching technical proficiency, and being sort of limited by that as well. So for instance I can't bear to listen to endless jam sessions of rock or prog bands in the later 60's/early 70's because it just seems so limited...just tons of noodling that may have been mind-blowing for the time, but which I find tedious.
For prog, early Genesis, King Crimson etc - pass, later stuff, bring it on. And in 60's pop lots of the guitar playing and solos seem to me almost hilariously constrained in technique, like the guitarists can just barely get through the solo.
Oh, and passing diss: Carlos Santana is the single most over-rated "guitar God." Yeah, he has a "feel" or a "sound," but his technique seems so restricted that releative to other great guitarists, it's like watching someone eking out solos in the late stages of arthritis. So he just chooses a spot on the guitar, a few notes to bend around "with feel." Not enough, for me.