Purists of all types are, of course, entitled to their opinions and preferences. However, with the huge numbers of software programs to assist in composing, processing, recording, mastering and manufacturing music, not everyone is refusing to deal with "sequencer music." Like any kind of artistic endeavor, you can choose how much work you want to perform to achieve a desired result. This small rant is the result of a thankfully short exchange (one in which I decided not to become involved) on the Ozric Tentacles and PMS Yahoo groups about the direction of the Ozrics and the general subject of one-person-band type recording.
Of course, I have a bit of time and money invested in working this way myself and it occasionally receives some unfair criticism, so I sometimes feel duty bound to defend it as a viable method of music creation. I haven't played in a live situation since 1985. I had a good run from 1971 until 1985, but the whole band routine got old by then. Working in a small home studio can be very rewarding even if the output is small when you're working by yourself. It can be done carefully and well. I'd like to think I take the pains to program the dynamics in my pieces meticulously enough to be expressive. It is quite easy to do it poorly, though.
I am a huge fan of Frank Zappa's music, but some of the music he composed for Synclavier was done a bit carelessly, in my opinion. Jazz from Hell is one of these albums. It sounds as though all the "note on" velocities were set to 127. The programs used these days, like Cakewalk's Sonar 5 that I use, have the ability to produce very expressive music if you use at least some of the features the programs provide you. It takes a lot of time and effort to do things this way, of course. Not everyone has the patience to sculpt sound. 
Debates about what is "real" music or art or whatever solely because computers are an integral part of its production are pointless. If the result satisfies the listener, then the recording is a success, however relative.