In what way (or ways) do you feel your panorama is "not nearly as beautiful as the actual scene"? And by 'technique', are you asking for advice on camera technique or on processing technique?

I can only say how I'd have shot and --subsequently processed-- a scene like this, but I can't say that what I'd have done differently would have resulted in anything necessarily 'better', or would hopefully capture the perceived beauty of the actual scene. I can, however, say why what I would've done would've been true to my aesthetic, but I can't say it would've been true to your aesthetic. That said....

Leaving off mention of the obvious 'black edge' area where nothing was exposed and Stitcher (which I know nothing about; I use LrC and/or Ps instead) didn't fill that blank for you (which could easily be 'filled' --or eliminated altogether-- through any of several means, two visual issues come to mind. Both involve the foreground area of your image; the near-ground lies short of the depth of field/focus, short of the aperture/focus point you'd chosen (the camera 'fix' should be obvious --focus closer or use a smaller aperture) and the foreground might be a bit 'murkier' than might be optimal (the processing 'fix' should be equally obvious--raise the shadow values slightly and increase contrast and color values selectively, but doing so would be dependent on your processing skills and/or whatever editing software you may have).

Personally, I'd have focus-stacked a pano like this, and I'd likewise have processed the result as I mentioned above. But that would express my aesthetic, not yours.

<edit/addendum> Contrary to the comment above, I would NOT eliminate the little Joshua tree in the foreground center. If it had been better defined and been brightened somewhat, it's placement would've provided a subtle anchor for the remainder of the image. But doing so would require a re-shoot, so....

Occasionally shooting in a breeze will cause the cannot stack error prompt.

I just need to do more practice. And, Blenheim Orange, I will view the video. But I have found much from all your suggestions and observations. I found only five of the ten images were actually used to make the final image. And it did not even use the first one of the stacked images. One of the camera choices is the spacing of the images. I forgot the depth of field gets very thin at close to 1:1. It would have been much more interesting to see if I would have changed the spacing such that it would have used all ten images to make the final image instead of just five. Also, it looks like using even more images (15) on stationary closeup subjects might help. I will have to test the new settings and see if the internal software works better than it does with five images. A new lens to learn along with learning the proper focus stacking settings. C'est la vie.

Why mess about with effects such as the Adamski? I enjoy experimentation and working with different effects ends up teaching me more about the post-processing tools I have available.

Once the sun returns to Oregon I plan an "assault" on infrared photography. Not that every photo needs this application, but it will require me to use different techniques both with camera, iPhone, and software. Call it an educational experience.

I have software tools that convert photographs to paintings in the style of famous painters. While this is not appealing to many viewers, and many conversions are failures in my opinion, I still enjoy the experimentation.

The above explains in part why I plan to push my photographic limits.

Lowell

"Artsy-fartsy" isn't for everyone. Also, I don't think the Josh Adamski effect is about using a bad photo. More using an isolated element from a good photo to create a piece of digital art. Who is Josh Adamski? Tel Aviv born, living in England and Tel Aviv photographer Josh Adamski has specialized in colorful, surreal photo impressionism art. With a fanciful image processing technique is he primarily coastal landscapes to create a fabulous mix of photography and abstract line drawings, Josh Adamski lives near the sea, his greatest inspiration. love art, and focuses mainly on unique seascapes and landscapes, which he transforms into distinctive images using his unique processing technique. This special style was devised by Josh Adamski himself and has attracted many followers worldwide.

As far as I know, the effect isn't created by using any "Preset" rather it takes some Photoshop/Post Processing software skills to achieve the look. Here is a video presentation by well known Photoshop expert:
Nicole S. Young showing how it's done. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuVibZdLoIM
When done correctly, you will produce a piece of surreal photo impressionism art.