I think of artists who do painstakingly photorealistic paintings or drawings. Yeah, it's super impressive, but is barely representative of the range of expression capable on that particular medium.
Recorded music is generally very unnatural. Think of a rock band, with mics an inch or two away from the speaker cones of a 4x12, a mic inside the kick drum, etc. Nobody is putting their ears there to listen while the band plays, with their face pressed to a cranked amp, or up against the bottom of a snare drum. Yet, it's what we hear when we spin the records, and what's coming through the PA when we go to the shows. Nobody can hear the orchestra from atop the decca tree and at several distinct spots throughout the hall all at the same time. Yet, that's what we hear when we spin the records.
We have come to accept an inherently unrealistic sound as real, in terms of recorded music at least. I dare say "A New Hope" score sounds nothing like hearing an orchrstra in a hall in person, for the most part, especially with those close ribbon mics. Thus, it is unrealistic in a sense. That doesn't make me love it any less. Arguably, that actually enhances it.
It's great if you can make a painting that looks like a photo. Lots of respect, as that in itself is a unique talent. But painting can be so very much more interesting and expressive than that. And I think that's how I feel about samples, too. Realism is just one very specific use case of a tool for which a major selling point, in my opinion, is its ability to go far beyond the scope of "conventional reality."