The theory of this makes a lot of sense and for many people it might even work. However, specifically with music, I don't feel your proposition is valid for a great deal of people. Music is something that is often consumed in VAST quantities. A song is a few minutes long. Most people don't just listen to music for a few minutes at a time. Many people listen to music, even if just in the background, for hours at a time. Over days, weeks, months, and years that turns out to be a LOT of minutes. If you are a type of person who can listen a very select amount of music minutes that are owned over and over again, then maybe this idea works for you. However, for MANY people, this is not a winning proposition. It is absolutely WORTH the money to have access to the variety. For many many many years this was radio. For many people this can still be radio. However, radio without ads cost money. That can come in many forms, satellite radio, Apple Music, YouTube Premium....pick your poison. But it costs something regardless.
Many things in our lives are becoming a subscription and I don't think that is good. However, paying to have access to vasts amounts of music with no ads is worth it to me and many people for whom music is a daily part of their life. I still purchase music ON TOP of paying for the subscription service. Why? To further support the artists. To make sure if I like something I will always have access to listen to it even if distribution rights change. To easily play offline or when I am traveling in other countries without fear of network IP issues. Etc.... But there is zero chance I wouldn't also pay for my ad free vast music catalog.
Many paths bring about happiness in life. Saving money can be good, but so can spending it, even if you are "renting"