In the case of music and recording, often times better and more creative records were made by people having to devise complicated solutions to having technology with huge limitations - a famous example being that Sgt Pepper by the Beatles was made using tape machines that were limited to four tracks. Hence those involved had to think deeply and be inspired to find solutions to “defeat the machine” (in the words of Paul McCartney). Compare this to the state of affairs today where people are virtually “gods” in terms of power - the number of audio tracks, sounds, editing capabilities of someone using Logic
is essentially unlimited, and yet music hasn’t responded very much to the technology because now the machine is incredible and powerful to the point where it basically cannot be defeated - almost nobody can even come close to utilising the power and capabilities offered. We haven’t had an explosion of novel forms and a wealth of newness, people just use them to clone what was produced in the past but cheaper and more quickly. The horizon of the canvas of a DAW is really too huge to ever get to the end of, and it’s almost overwhelming for most artists to rise to the challenge of, so they just stick with the limitations and live an easier life. There’s been no great flourishing of 21st century music with the emergence of this power, we’re mostly stuck in forms and genres created in the 20th century.
There’s also an analogous situation in hip-hop with the very limited SP-1200 and MPC 60 samplers. They don’t do much but what they do, they do well, so it’s up to producers to work to that and try to transcend it. Having an unlimited workspace in the computer to replicate the same doesn’t lead to better hip hop.
So you’re right to invoke metaphysics, because the machines have a kind of ontology, same as the mode of life of the artists using them. It doesn’t have to be a metaphysical quest, but there can be better and more interesting ways of creating on limited tools, particularly if you’ve used them for a long time. Some writers such as Jean Baudrillard stuck with typewriters as a writing tool long after the introduction of the desktop computer (he died in 2007) because he found it was simpler and better, less distracting, more focussed on the word and him. You could invoke the same “omfg you could be pasting in hyperlinks and doing referencing and surfing at the same time you’re just doing it for your own sake!” toward someone like that, but actually it’s not for its own sake, he only needs to think and produce text and it’s the perfect tool for that, the computer is only ever pretending to be a typewriter and comes with a load of noise and headache alongside.