I don't necessarily agree. Text and screen are completely different media; nothing translates directly, but there's a common misconception that the source/book is always infinitely superior to any adaptation.
IME that's not the case. In some instances, film adaptations are better. In some nothing can beat the books, but the adaptations do them a creditable service (the recent His Dark Materials series being an example). Tolkien purists tend to hate the Peter Jackson adaptations but for me, the ways it's been done translates better to screen than the way the original books are structured. The third and fourth instalment work better for film as one parallel-cut instalment: the protracted Fangorn forest bit and journey to Mordor get pretty drawn-out and protracted; done this way it helps maintain interest for longer. Plus there's a lot missing from the ending of the books, but the end of the 'Return of the King' on film was already drawn out enough.
As to Daisy Jones and the Six, I thought the sense of pathos/failure that comes from a phenomenal, but flash-in-the-pan, success, seemed pretty well done in both the series and the book. In the series (superficial I know) I loved the clothes and 70s sets.
But whoever heard of a rock front man who was into recovery before hitting the bigtime?
As to the believability of this troupe and their album as a musical juggernaut, I quite liked the lyrics in the book, imagining what the sound would be like. The screen version of course had to include the music, which in my estimation was pretty shit. It's hard imagining that this was one of the biggest bands in the era to listen to that!