Stewart, my musings on this subject are once again not understood. My point is not that technique is not a factor (or even requirement) in being a superior musician, but rather that technique is often the sole (or at least main) criteria with which musical talent is judged. Should it be?
Let me make a broad statement: All the technique that a musician needs is that which allows him to play with his body what he hears in his head. There are some musicians greatly admired for their talent and/or skill whose music I don’t care for, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that isn’t true for just about everyone.
Here’s a very good example of how I look at the subject: Steve Smith was the drummer in Journey during the height of their popularity. He is a very accomplished player, now playing Jazz, what he was doing before joining Journey. Richard Manuel was the pianist/singer in The Band (one of Eric Clapton’s favorite singers, and a musician Clapton recently called a genius), but also played drums on quite a few Band songs (primarily on their 2nd, s/t "brown" album). Smith’s drumming in Journey was largely what I consider pedestrian---very unimaginative, stock "Rock" drumming. But he played it flawlessly, thanks to his advanced chops. Manuel’s drumming is very unique and unusual, his parts very imaginative and interesting (and sometimes intentionally humorous, rare amongst drummers). They are also very musical, his parts always in service to the song. But Richard was pretty limited in technique, and a little awkward on the drum set.
So, on the one hand you have a technically advanced drummer playing forgettable, routine stock parts in songs that are nothing to write home about (does anyone consider the guys in Journey good songwriters?!). On the other, a pianist playing drums as a second instrument, whose drum parts are fantastic---very creative, unique, interesting, and above all musical. And they are played in the context of some of the best songs ever played by a Rock ’n’ Roll Band. So, who’s the "better" drummer?
