I'm not one of the techno freaks who has to have a music system so sensitive, and expensive, that it faithfully replicates live; although I can only know this with diagnostic devices, more expense, because g-d didn't calibrate my ears to detect the minute differences. I like live. I like live concerts. I don't have to make the choice now between buying expensive music and get psssd off because I can't play it on my computer, or car player, portable player, et cetera or going to concerts. I can buy the one song, or two or three songs I like, and still afford to see the act live. I will be so piddled off at the record label and the act (misdirected I know).
I have on cd just about all of the music I like prior to 1990. I notice that the farther back I check the more songs on cds and albums I like.
Great White's "Great White" album has only one song I like and it is the only that they didn't write. Great White has only one song worth listening to and that datum surprised my first cousin even so.
Some groups after awhile stopped appearing live. It is too much work to please live bodies.
Members of the Grateful Dead became millionaires. They gave free concerts, provided connections so that dead heads could record the concerts, and I don't believe any would support DRM.
I like live. BUT when a friend shares a song from a group I ask for the download link. I invariably end up buying other songs. My friend and I do not share identical tastes; close, maybe, but not identical. I agree with your final conclusion to a point.
Note this. Musicians do not need record companies. The record companies know this and fought the losing battle so that they could stay in the loop. Why should a group go through a record company nowadays. The next, here now, agency in the new economic model is the concert promoter.
They produce live.