Larrok

I'll give you my personal example: I have never taken serious guitar lessons, so it can be said that I am self-taught; it is through listening to records that I formed my approach to the instrument. However, over time I realized that in order to play what I desired and appreciated, it was necessary to understand the method underlying it so that I could later walk on my own, filtering with my sensitivity and taste what I wanted to keep and what I wanted to leave out.
Second aspect: chords are not invented, as every possible combination is already written in music books, so any sound that comes from an instrument may go against the rules of harmony, but it is still something that is the result of technique that can be learned didactically or DISCOVERED and not "invented" by ear from a self-taught individual, without involving the interpretive sphere that differentiates one person from another.
Third point: I can agree with you that groups like the Velvet Underground had a non-technical approach, only if by such an approach you mean that they shunned the dominance of technique while still using it (like everyone) as a starting point. Therefore, the assimilated patterns are fewer than those assimilated by other groups, but they do exist and still constitute an integral part of the compositional process, obviously more focused on the expressive aspect than on the technical one.
One last thing: you didn't respond to the discussion about the Blues and the Rolling...

As the Litfiba said: "You can win a war with two and maybe even alone; you can extract the heart even from the blackest murderer; but it's harder to change an idea."

ops typo: I meant that it has never SPURRED me to judge them as inferior artists.

The discussion about what constitutes great rock works could go on... for instance, the Rolling Stones have made incredibly important albums using stylistic elements from the worlds of blues, country, and rock 'n' roll, but that has never stopped me from judging them as inferior artists...

Apart from the fact that it's precisely in the musician's skill to avoid that rigidity, your reasoning seems to suggest that there's either technique or culture, when in fact they can very well coexist, and it's even better! Regarding the topic of self-taught musicians, let's remember that, for example, on a guitar there are 6 strings, 22-23 frets, and even using odd tunings, the fingers still have to be placed on the neck, and the combinations to make a two-note chord, a chord, a note, or a pair of notes—whatever you want—are always the same, there's no way around it; even with extraordinary inventiveness, a self-taught musician learns by ear something they hear on a record and reworks it, and this operation is nothing more than assimilating fragments of technique, perhaps in a disorganized manner, but it is exactly this (unconsciously learning patterns)... if then this self-taught musician has a sensitivity that allows them to internalize the expressiveness of the artists they inspire themselves with, that's to their credit, but what does that have to do with excluding a priori that they use technique? Conversely, don't you think that someone who has taken lessons in harmony and music theory can also listen to their own taste and sensitivity, or do you exclude that? Because it seems absurd to deny it.

Hey dreamwarrior, I’m a fan of Tesla too! They’re legends!

"Late for the party" is pure show! Like the entire album... I have several dozen hard rock records, but this one is among the best for its tightness and grit; it’s everything a hard rock album should be, even though it’s obviously not a milestone. Still, it radiates energy from every groove.

I’ll try to summarize my point of view: technique is not just sufficient, but indispensable. Let’s be clear, when I say indispensable, I mean at any level; that is, one can perfectly well create the most artistically valuable album in history using minimal technique, but that little technique is still employed and serves as the bare container for the feelings and emotions that really represent the most important part of music. To give you a cheesy but effective example, it’s like someone wanting to make the best ragù for a local festival, but they don’t have a pot to cook it in, so their skills can’t be demonstrated because they lack that essential something, even though they are incredibly skilled at making ragù. Furthermore, and I’ll conclude here, just to be even clearer, the more or less advanced use of technique does not undermine the artistic value of the final result.

Kitchens? Perhaps you mean Forges...

I reiterate, Easycure, that with this concept of the devaluation of the technique taught and passed down, genres like Blues are automatically placed lower in importance, as they exist musically as a result of that transmission from generation to generation.