In our time we are used that a certain composer has his own distinguished style. We read in books: “in this period composer “A.” was still searching for his style. Ten years after he found it.”
If there was not so much variety in early music, then more towards the Romanticism we see more distinguished styles (due to the land discoveries, liberation from the church etc): Chopin… Cage, Varese.. Pärt…
Staying in a same style, tools, principles and frames is more like ornamenting what you already have, but not really developing much anywhere. I find it a bit boring to stay in the same language and make “discoveries” within it. Human’s mind can figure out millions of different “styles”.
Music (on a par with dance and poetry) has a special place. It is always pretty abstract, has so many functions and meanings. The only criteria for me would be that it should be practical, attractive, captivating. If we need an acoustic guitar for that purpose – use it, electronic devises – use it. There is a lot of great acoustic as well as electronic music out there. There is nothing bad about making better what we already have, but I think one could work on two things at the same time: make new things and make them well.
In the beginning of my music studies teachers (school) where limiting me a lot in what I should listen and what I should play. If I went a bit left or right I was attacked with strong destructive criticism. Deep inside I believed that it is not the way school should function – create narrow minded parrots.
So now, after studying with great masters and widening my knowledge, I encourage all classical musicians to play all the music available: blues, jazz, pop, rock… These styles are the result of all those land discoveries, “greetings” from different cultures. Though it is important to study where what comes from, so we also preserve these precious sources (one of the composer’s duties).