To my sensibilities, this strikes me as an odd question, as I've almost ALWAYS preferred "raw" music to its stylized counterpart within any genre.
I'd maintain that what we call "music" is at least two entirely distinct phenomena. Much (perhaps most) sonic enterprise employs the use of melody and rhythm as a means to some other end. That end might be "Get up and dance!" "Protest the government," (or "Fight on fearless soldier!") " Believe in Jesus," or "I need to tell you how lonesome I am without my baby." Whatever. It's all good, except in those cases when the end is about nothing except "Buy my CD." I tend to take a dim view of that.
With what we'd call art, or serious music, on the other hand, the end is the sonic experience itself, although this too may have messages buried within it, such as Mahler's paintings of nature and mortality, Wagner's incessant bellowing about fate and death, or Hendryx's calling for a new consciousness.
Not that one is better than the other. They're just different. And in the first instance, virtuosity or professional stylization is not only often unnecessary. It can even be a distraction, getting in the way and crowding or polluting the experience.
Did you see the movie O Brother Where Art Thou? The scene where they sang Man of Constant Sorrow into the tin can came closer to capturing an authentic raw sound of that time than anything else I've ever heard from Hollywood. I happened to see the guy who sang for George Clooney (can't recall his name) on a PBS Allison Krause special, and he sang that song on the stage. But instead of just the guitar player like in the movie, he had a full compliment of outstanding country music players, and all it did was take the edge off. It was still good. It just wasn't as good. It was beginning to tread along the path towards style without substance, virtuosity without vision, a path that leads to the stale, gimmicky suburban car-radio sound that no one with an ounce of good taste really likes.