All fair points, and perhaps I was being a little pointed. My argument is more against the kind of people who will actively discourage technical skill.
I severely dislike that kind of argument, on the basis that they percieve anything where great technical skill is required, to be devoid of merit purely because of that fact. Its almost as if anything comprised of more than slow benRAB and archaic blues progressions is anathema to these people, such is the fervor with which they will descend upon any great musical technician solely to spout their own jaded viewpoints to him as if their thoughts on music are the one true gospel.
As for your comment about not getting another beatles or another clash out of 'neoclassical fretwankers', I disagree entirely with the ideas behind that statement.
The Clash and The Beatles were fantastically successful for a great nuraber of different reasons, the primary one in both cases was timing and the most important secondary one was public perception.
The Clash wrote music that contrasted punk while retaining many of its values and aesthetics, in an era where political tensions within music were FANTASTICALLY powerful subject matter and gave them great current appeal. The historical significance of those same political times has also lent itself to their longevity as they remain etched in the public conscious and so still retain significance. Compare this to songs that reference chain gangs or pirates, and obviously the general public will empathise more with the clash, but that isn't to say powerfully emotional music can't be written about those subjects.
They mixed this with a great array of styles and influences that gave them a very broad and lasting appeal, in much the same way as David Bowie is largely ubiquitous because his work is so varied and anyone can find SOMETHING they like.
The Beatles wrote music that built on the ideas and conventions of much earlier styles, but presented it with interesting twists and fresh faces that very quickly became iconic. At the height of their earlier success, when they were still regularly playing live concerts, the beatles were pioneering not only their own musical progression, but requesting some of the first custom amplification to breach 100 Watts in a guitar amplifier, and custom venue arrangements because their fans were so uninterested in the music itself, and more interested in screaming in expectation of such popular public figures, that they had difficulty hearing themselves play. The subject matter wasn't greatly engaging in the earlier songs, but it was fantastically pointed and engaged a large nuraber of predominantly Female teenagers who propelled them rapidly to a position where their huge amounts of later experimentation wasn't at risk of damaging their wider success.
In both cases, there were fantastic nurabers of things working in their favour apart from the music. Such has always been the case with any highly popular band you can think of. Its a bad indicator of musical worth, and implying as such doesn't just discount the virtuoso players of the world, many of whom write perfectly fantastic and beautiful music that can be enjoyed on any nuraber of levels, but also discounts fantastic nurabers of experimental musicians, such as The Mars Volta, Frank Zappa, Porcupine Tree, Yoko Kanno and The Seatbelts, Jethro Tull, Paula Cole, Vibrasphere, Amethystium, Patrick Hadley, ETC, who we are all well aware will NEVER have the lasting appeal of a Clash or Beatles or Sinatra, but who are all absolutely fantastic in their own right and have wildly different approaches to personal expression encompassing all manner of stylistic, virtuosic, philosophical, and even spiritual musical theories and techniques.
And to be blunt, even all of them are far more commercially viable than anything a dyed in the wool musicologist might point you in the direction of, such as Phil Thomas, Christian Wolf, John Cage, Martin Blain, George Gershwin, etc.
: