That said, I've used the tools of electronic music. I've composed with sequences and samples. I find physical instruments to be more directly expressive (I play guitar and drums myself, but I get the same vibe from keyboard, horn, and string players).
More importantly, though, I find restriction to be essential to playing interesting music. The more "unrestricted" the instrument, the more problematic it is. As a musician, I often use deliberately-imposed restrictions to narrow my choices and channel myself in certain directions. That's especially important in the improvisation world, where you don't have musical conventions to serve as boundaries.
I agree that it's extremely important to understand why musical conventions came to be, and experiment with structures that either generate or break those conventions. The flip side of my own music is playing with folk and "world music" forms. The contemporary music I find most interesting these days is cultural fusion music coming out of Israel, and out of the western Sahara desert. The "desert blues" of the Tuareg and other western Sahara tribes is an incredible reinterpretation of centuries-old tradition with modern instruments (mostly, electric guitar). And in Israel, there are second and third generation Arab Jews discovering the music of their grandparents and filtering it through their own Millennial internet-driven sensibilities. Musicians like Riff Cohen and Yemen Blues just boggle me. So, so cool.
And their reply to mine found computers "unrestrictive" and that they "find restriction to be essential to playing interesting music"
To be more clear, though, I think I should have used the word "expressive" rather than "restrictive". I find it difficult to be expressive with computer-based music. And this is personal - I'm typing this while listening to a friend play an amazing live show with nothing but a Roland MC-808 beat box.
Given a guitar, I can do a lot with just one note, by modulating the timing and tone of that note. But I'm dependent on the direct physical feedback. The indirectness of computer interfaces dismays me. This isn't to say all computers are bad... certainly, I play with digital effects in my chain. My sound passes through computers and still sounds like me. But hopefully you see the point here.
I played for years in a free improvisation duo. One of the constraints we used (only for gigs) was "set lists". We would write titles for "songs", and interpret the titles. This helped us have beginnings and ends and moods.
If you're interested in this stuff for serious, seek out the book "Improvisation", by Derek Bailey. He was a famed improviser himself, and wrote a moderately academic book on musical improvisation in a wide variety of different contexts around the world.
I'd link you to some but I don't really care about convincing someone with unknown tastes.
Synths and sequences are tools, and are no more limiting than fingers or strings. Throwing away every musical convention might be interesting, but so is experimenting to see why those conventions developed in the first place. What parts of the structure can be removed? When and why?
Computers are generally very unrestrictive--they can be used to put together virtually any sound one can think of, as opposed to physical instruments which have physical limitations (although there are exceptions - the people doing pop music or the boring wub-wub-wub of dubstep or the endless 4/4 oontz of Eurodance have different goals in mind than mere experimentation, and they enforce their restrictions with their tools to help produce their ideas more effectively).
One of the best modern music performances I've ever heard was a live electronic performance where a single tone was generated and then manipulated on the spot beyond recognition. It was complex, dynamic, exciting, and above all, musical - but it worked only because of the availability of electronic musical tools.