Convenience and quality aren't mutually exclusive. 

Also, done correctly, I don't really have a problem with a DRM "pay-per-listen" type of arrangement.  People find the idea offensive, some kind of invasion into their "freedom" to what they like with "their" music but it depends how you look at it.  For a start with pay-per-listen on demand you'd have vastly more choice.  You'd effectively have at your disposal almost every recording ever made.  I have about 5-600 CDs and there are many I've only ever listened to once and will probably never listen to again.  I'd bet that for most people if they had to pay £1 each time they listened to an album (or, to make it more flexible, 70p per track) it'd end up costing them less than the cost of all the CDs they've ever bought.

Why does DRM imply "robot artists"?  Artists would likely make more money this way and if done correctly such a system could benefit artists.  If everyone had the end-user technology then there'd be nothing to stop artists setting up their own distribution channels and cutting out the greedy record company middle man.  DRM doesn't imply "control" either.

It's only because DRM and pay-per-listen ideas were first floated by the record companies that people associate them with being evil and controlling.  They're part of  a completely valid (and in many ways better for listeners and artists) alternative distribution method once the technology (ultra high bandwith internet) becomes available.

Michael.