RE: the heavy metal rant video:
I used to have a rant down pat about the damaging effects of vinyl vs. CD on the music 'scene' in general.  It was a rather similar argument that basically more mediocre bands could be signed and make money for the record company because CD technology was dirt cheap but cost fans half again what they would pay previously for tape and vinyl.  It used to be that when a record company signed a band and put out a record, they were taking a risk that damn well had to pay off, or people would be fired and bands would get dropped.  After CD technology became the norm, the risk factor ceased to be an effective 'talent filter' and the quality of music in general went down (to my ears, anyway).

A similar thing going on in his rant, that basically bedroom jukebox heroes can take up a few plugins and a DAW and become superstars overnight, with the corollary lack of talent and experience suddenly being the technology's responsibility.  I don't think (and neither does the guy in the video) that bedroom production is generally bad (I do this myself, without the 'overnight superstar' part  :-[), but he's right that if someone or group of someones has the audacity to call themselves 'musicians' they had better well be able to pay off the risk to fans buying tickets or paying cover charge, and entertain the folks who bothered to show up.  If you're dashingly interesting or laudably skillful you'll be probably do well.  If you need your bedroom get-up to do anything at all, you're not 'there' yet (IMHO).  

The bottom line is, talent (whether the abundance or lack thereof) will shine through no matter the medium.  Ginger Baker will never need time-sync, whether on tape or bits (though he's probably good enough he'll be accused of it), and the average bedroom finger-drummer with 24-bit stereo samples will be exposed the first time he gets handed the hickory and skins.  

Technology has taken the place of quality

Yep, I believe it.  I remember the 'demo tape' days of the '80s when a jam session recorded on a boombox in the middle of the basement practice space would be enough to get attention if the band was good enough.  Not so much as a 'click track' to be found, but the talent was still glaringly obvious.  Seems these days, "plugins covereth a multitude of sins"  ;)

they are fantastic writing tools

Yes.  I first started recording myself when I got a Tascam Porta-05 cassette 4-track at a pawn shop in 1991.  I must have written about 25 or more songs in the 4 years after.  However, no way would any of those tracks see the light of day without an accompanying band and proper studio treatment.  I feel the same way today even with my modern DAW, finely-coded plugins, and carefully-chosen amp and speaker simulations.  I'm even excited about projects like LANDR that seek to automate the mastering process.  Polished though it may turn out to be, I had better have the talent and chops to back up the polish that modern tools allow me to aspire to before I release a single note.

would autotune make bohemian rhapsody better?

Queen was at the top of their game with plenty of steam left when they made that track, and it sounds like the recording process was the result of top talent struggling with technological limitations as well: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1995_articles/oct95/queen.html
Modern recording techniques would have made it cleaner perhaps, but then it would have lost much of it's charm, 'grit' and what-have-you that made it such a landmark production of it's time.  Put a mediocre talent, inexperienced, modern 'artist' in front of the raw tape and live backing they had back then, and it would fall apart quickly.

machines push sound. people make music

An echo of my sentiment when replying to somebody pointing out the potential technical difficulties of using Linux as a digital recording platform: "I will ALWAYS say, however, use what works for you.  Killer tracks are made by people, not operating systems. ;)"

BACK ON TOPIC:
The argument can be said much the same about film vs. digital