> renegade stringbenders were forging the sounds we now know
Quite true. But few of them opened-up their amps to swap things around.
Leo Fender and cohort did "tune" sound. But mostly by beefing the POWer stage.
The invention of "fuzz pedal" was a revolution. Now you could get distortion _before_ tone-shaping _and_ after it. So while you hear some overdrive in the 1950s even on "mellow" stuff like Texas Playboys, the very strong tones came later and mostly by add-on boosters, then by building boost INto the amp. Marshall's switchable extra stage, Master Volume taken from mixers and mis-used to good effect.
> many devices that claim to be "tube-like" don't really follow time-honored topologies when perhaps they should
I can't help but agree.
Many of the things done after 1980 look "stupid" to an old stick-in-the-mud like me.
OTOH... axes and playing technique have changed a lot since the old days. The Old Guys started with giant acoustics and obviously had strong arms to fill a room big enough to pay OK. The early amplifiers lessened the strain but they still hit hard. Guys who started on HOT pickups and HIGH gain amps don't have that muscle/stamina.
So have amps. In all but the most mondo-grind gigs, an amp must have a pretty-clean sound. You can do a LOT with an amp that is clean to 50W and simple-clipping beyond that, with some bass and treble boost to widen-up the nasal tone of a naked string. Transistor amps have totally filled that need. So a tube amp is mainly about "strong flavor". And kids who grew-up with transistors and fuzzes may not be attuned to different kinds of flavors. So to SELL a higher-price tube amp (or elaborate simulation) a design/marketing team has to include some over the top WOW! sounds.
> do some breadboarding to prove
Yes.
I would suggest that "some" breadboarding may not be enough. Many of the Classic amps were evolved over many years; some have "happy accidents". Hey, it keeps us busy and out of other trouble.
And what Darron said.