I think that, while the melody and lyrics are what the non-musician notice first, there is a LOT of subconscious evaluating going on. The difference between success and failure is not as simple as just the melody/chords/lyrics. We have ALL heard many great songs with great lyrics and melody that fail to chart.

People are listening to MUCH more than that, even if they can't articulate it. Untrained listeners even like classical music, without having the slightest clue to form, structure and orchestration. And they will be able to say that they like one piece over another. But rarely WHY (other than 'I know what I like' ).

The devil is in the details. And so is God...

Personally, I think that when you are trying for a legacy style (this one still sits firmly in that early 70's ELO/Beatles camp) it is wise to look at how the original productions were structured and performed. Because those tunes have already gone through the washer of public opinion. Mess with that formula at your own peril...

If you really LIKE the repetitiveness of machine production on the song, you might want to look at a more 80's style production, where the general public has already shown a liking for that kind of approach, but only married to that kind of sound. While there ARE mavericks that can manage to successfully cross stylistic boundaries, they are few and far between. For every Beck, there's a thousand who fail to click. Far easier, IMO, to stick to what has worked in the past. And pay attention to those things that the 'average' listener doesn't even know they are hearing..