>Do you feel that if this trend continues that there may be some sort
>of rebellion or 'backlash' to it? That we may place a much greater value on
>music that is actually 'played' for us, as it will allow us firsthand to
>know if the person, or ensemble, actually has any musical merit?
This, I think, is only a big issue among those of us who make music. Sure, nonmusicians may jump all over somebody like Milli Vanilli who turns out to have no actual input into their music, but by and large they take what they hear at face value. This is not necessarily a bad thing--if you like what you hear, then listen and be happy. Just as a good photographer is (among other things) a person who can recognize which out of a roll of shots is the "good one", someone who winds up with very compelling music can be considered an interesting musician, regardless of the process used.
This leads me into what is for me a bigger issue: musicians (definitely including myself, I'm sorry to say) playing for musicians. I often have to consciously remind myself to play only what the song requires, as it sometimes feels "too simple to be interesting". I think this may be somewhat less of an issue for the people on this list, who often loop very simple droning bits to get a specific effect, than for most musicians. (OK, that last line is fairly on-topic.)