Complex and inventive, yes. I would also add that most of the time (for me at least) it goes too far. For example, there are a fair number of synth UIs modeled after (or inspired by) real analog synths, and for people who are familiar with the real-world counterparts, I suppose that makes the software more approachable. For someone unfamiliar with that hardware, however, the UIs just feel like over-the-top skeuomorphic eye candy with little functional advantage in pixel form.
Then there's an infinite array of virtual instruments, synths, effects, etc. that don't have any real-world counterpart, and they're styled to look like super-advanced alien sci-fi machines... I mean, the UIs certainly look cool (at least in the context of visual art), but they're a frustratingly convoluted mess to actually work with using a mouse and keyboard.
I've never quite understood why pro audio software is so strongly coupled with that design aesthetic. If it's truly driven by functional necessity, I guess I wasn't born with the necessary set of alien tentacles to take advantage of it.
 As I understand, certain controls in these UIs are often linked to knobs, sliders, and buttons on real audio gear, but that still doesn't answer the question. The on-screen representation undoubtedly looks nothing like the real gear, and the heavily-stylized form doesn't exactly seem to serve a purpose beyond what could be achieved with a more conservative aesthetic.
On one end is the skeumorphic approach with interfaces that directly resemble audio hardware. At the other end is total flexibility only achieved using path markers / bands. Product designers often choose one of these extremes to maximize approachability or flexibility.
Also, non-skeumorphic doesn't have to maximize flexibility. It could just as well be designed for ease-of-use.