I don't have much of an opinion on the main topic though, but I have an opinion that is probably going to go against the "norm" in a similar subject - instruments (not voice).
Technological limitations were behind the fact that playing most instruments was something hard to master, IMO. Making sounds "on demand" could only be accomplished with strings (guitars, violins, pianos) of specific sizes, striking surfaces of specific sizes (animal skins or similar in drums, metal or wood in stuff like xylophones, etc.) or making air pass through holes holes of specific sizes (flutes, organs). This is a bit of a simplification and I might be missing some specific type of instrument. In order to have the sounds come out truly on demand, the performer had to be well trained. Is that really that important? If a computer can get the same exact effect why should that make the effect worth less to the listener.
For some instruments, that has been the case for a while - some instruments were harder to emulate accurately and probably there are still some unique sounds coming from some semi-archaic contraption
).I think relieving composers from these laborious requirements can be good. More time actually creating music, and less effort wasted on something someone else can do. Similar to what happened with factories and automation of menial, repetitive tasks - humans can do things that robots can not , so lets leave to machines what they can do.
