It's fine to have a preference for live musicianship, but the 'real music' argument has been leveled against every new musical technology (remember the furore around Dylan going electric?). It dismisses contemporary creativity based on a traditionalist bias that elevates one form of execution above all others. There's also a huge amount of skill in producing good electronic music. It's always hard to make good music no matter the means.

It's like saying a novel isn't real speaking, but a speech is.

Like animating an image isn't real, but recording a video is.

If that's your preference, then that's alright. But it's a silly distinction to make.

If you dial the dial high enough you can say that that amplifiers aren't "real music" because you are no longer hearing the "real instruments", but "a machine that is distorting the sound". If that's your line, then only listening to classical music at a concert hall would count as "real music".

You could dial it up even higher. Using a musical instrument at all is not "real music" any more, because human voice can have more nuance than any instrument. Then going to a church to listen to gregorian chants would be the only "real music".

I personally think that Daft Punk rocks, and for a lot of artists I very much prefer listening to their studio recording rather than listening to them in a concert. (Surrounded by ... people. Ugh.)