You say, “There’s nothing inherently evil about any particular style of music.” It sounds like you’re defining “holy” negatively here; anything that is evil is by definition not holy. Therefore that which is NOT evil has the potential to be holy. Whether or not something is “holy”, then, is essentially a moral statement – either it’s good (and therefore holy) or evil (and therefore unholy). In this case suffering is surely not holy, and I’m not sure you can find anyone who would say that it is.

But if you define holy by the presence or absence of God, then suffering if surely holy, if not the holiest of all.

Yes, but we mustn’t forget that our God is fully present in suffering as well, and indeed fully relates to humanity in suffering (through Jesus). So I would say that God’s presence isn’t an immediate indicator of holiness or non-holiness, but rather a representation of God’s solidarity with humanity in both suffering and joy.

Also, I’m not sure about including Wal-Mart in the list of “neutral” objects. Wal-Mart (as a corporation) is FAR more complicated than, say, the color blue.