Well technical brilliance is of course a major factor, if that's the way these things usually go (and these debates are a means to no end). Without being able to play your instrument with at least some degree of skill, you are effectively nothing. The rest is filled in by personal taste.
I personally don't treat all music with the same blanket critical opinions. It often comes down to what tickles my fancy at any given time. I get a great deal from Eddie Van Halen's skill, but to be honest, not everything he does therefore interests me. Similarly, there's a chance I could probably get a kick out a monkey playing the spoons, and only half decently at that, but it'd be folly for me to compare this monkey to Frank Zappa because they're not worthy of comparison - not because one is better than the other, but because I don't care enough.
Now the big problem is, saying someone has 'more feeling' in their music is effectively a copout. It's usually hurt pride and making up for what the musician lacks in agility of the fingers. But this might only matter to someone that considers technical brilliance as the only real indication of how worthy a musician is of acclaim. Seems to me though that both views are as blinkered as each other, and by themselves prove little. Personal taste matters. Besides, everyone has their own guilty pleasures that are at odds with what they promote.
I basically like music. I'll like one band or performer more or less than another from time to time, depending on mood or alignment of the stars, but my opinion on their technical ability tends to not change as much because it's less subjective. The point is though, my enjoyment of certain music isn't always a direct function of virtuosity, unless I feel that way inclined at that moment. If someone played 3 minutes of A# minor arpeggios at 500bpm I'd be impressed, but would probably dislike it. They might as well just play one note for 3 minutes, because even if they play it really, really well, there's no guarantee that I'd like it. Appreciate it, maybe.
It's all very interesting. People just value different things and, further to that, to different degrees. People generally also have agendas whether they know it or not. In something as fluid as music, it's very tricky to say what's objectively better than something else. When it comes down to it, yes it's plain as day that John McLaughlin is a much better guitarist than Jose Feliciano. But - so?
Hmm, rant.
) having to justify that one is better then another because one has feeling is a copout, i've always tried to justify this.
