When your goal is to send something for mainstream publication, you don't just need to please readers. You need to be able to get your work past the gatekeepers also who decide what goes into their publications. But when it comes down to it, all good editing is based on what impact things will have or could have on the reader.
It is never possible to please everyone and always up to the author in a peer review workshop to choose what feedback they use and what they don't, but it is useful to be sure your are having the impact you intend on the reader and to be sure that if you break "rules" the effect is worth the risk.
But just because someone has had something published or, as in your example, is a musician performing professionally, it doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement and to do better. As writers our goals should be to continue to improve, not just to reach milestones like professional publication.
Additionally once you have a name and professional credit, people become more forgiving of things that are less than ideal in your work. You can "get away" with more things that in a newcomer is perceived as sloppiness or haphazard rule breaking because your name compensates for a lot.
RE: Floundering in Feedback (Part 1 of 3)