Many musicians argue about technicality vs simplicity. They work themselves into a lather over one side of this idea or another. And there's been no resolution one way or another. After five decades of listening to this, I have come to an inescapable conclusion.
If a specific piece of music works, it works.
John Coltrane's solos on A Love Supreme have a lot of notes, and they all create a singular transcendental beauty.
I was watching a video of a BB King concert. At one point he played one note, just one note, and it stopped me dead in my tracks.
Ustad Shaheed Parvez Khan can play a gazillion notes, and it all makes a deep and sublime statement; but once, when I attended one of his concerts, during an alap in Raag Bagheshri, he played a single note over and over for almost two minutes, and he got more music out of that note than most people get out of a year of playing.
You get the point.
Look first and foremost to the psychoactive properties of music. Look to what music does, and what it means. Start at the end of the process, I.e., start with what you're hoping to achieve with the music you make. If you need to play a lot of notes or just a few notes to achieve a specific result, there's your answer. And if you're just improvising and allowing the music to unfold, don't concern yourself about any of it. Allow the music to happen as it happens.
Have technique? Develop your knowledge of music? Yes. It's impossible to do anything without some measure of technical skill. But this is not the end, it's a means to an end. These arguments about technicality vs simplicity are ultimately irrelevant.
As far as I'm concerned, people who engage in this argument and take one side or the other are wasting their time and insulting my intelligence.