This doesn't sound to me like you're talking about preferring good production over bad production, which anyone else should prefer as well if they've got a decent set of ears. It sounds more like you're just not a fan of overproduction. Isn't the effort to make the guy's voice sound better deliberate? Some might consider that to be good production, because at least it's accomplishing its intended goal.
Anyway, I don't think I'm quite the same as you are. Like, I can listen to a Chili Peppers ballad and there's a part of me that knows Anthony Kiedis's voice isn't actually as good as it sounds. But, I can just kind of tune out that thought and enjoy the record. I guess live music isn't all that centric to my life, so I view the ability to make a good-sounding album, even if that involves some trickery, as a huge part of being a recording artist today. It's probably why it was fairly easy for me to transition into appreciating more electronic music in my late teens, after listening only to rock early on.
Though I do see your point. I have been to concerts of bands that I thought would be more talented and been like "dude wtf, this sucks." And about the guy's voice changing halfway, yes. That drives me crazy too. The main reason I could never get too into STP is that Scott Weiland sounds like about 3 completely different people at different times. It's like he has a grunge alter-ego, a butt-rock alter-ego, and a sensitive alt-rock alter-ego. And even though I'm pretty sure he's actually singing like that, unlike the Scary Kids guy, it annoys me because they sound more like imitations than anything organic.
"LIVE OR DIE, MAN??"