I don't think anyone was being elitist about cover bands. The theme was more how it can be artistically despiriting. Some people are into it, and that's fine. But any cover band that 'makes money' is not playing music that I wanna play to begin with. You've got 2 choices: current top 40, or classic rock (apparently now includes grunge FYI). I was in, what could be construed for a time, to be a Clash cover band. Almost ruined The Clash for me. It sucked so much out of me, and like gearhed, did it in an insidious way that I didn't even notice until it was over. And yes, there was some rockstar attitude.
I'd take shitty originals, over poorly executed covers of songs I'm not hot about in the first place any day (as an audience member I mean). I know that I would be in the minority on this, and that's fine. There are good cover bands, but just like there are shitty original bands (as one-sidedly mentioned a few times above) there are also shitty cover bands; shitty bands are shitty whether or not they play originals. Also, most original bands I've been in (some exceptions) have done a few covers here and there. I find that a better balance. To me, a "cover band" is one that plays no originals whatsoever (or maybe, sneaks 1 in toards the end), sometimes specialising in the repertoire of a single artist or group ("tribute band" being a subset of "cover band") and sometimes more genre-based.
I did enjoy a (mostly) Johnny Cash cover band the other month down the local pub with my wife. Bassplayer was perfect (besides the lack of an Embassy/Newport).