YouTube is many things—not all of them good. There are perhaps better platforms for music discovery, better platforms for sound quality, and better platforms for artist payouts per stream. So why do I choose to link to YouTube for music references on this site?
The public link problem
The short answer is: it works for (nearly) everyone.
Follow a YouTube link and you hear the full track. No account required, no subscription wall, no “sign up to continue.” That sounds like a low bar, but it rules out most of the competition. Apple Music, Tidal, Spotify—all of them require you to be signed in before they’ll play a full track. Which means when I hand someone a link, I’m also putting a signup form in their way. Not what I want, really…
YouTube is a major platform where a public link just works (for most folx).
Following the money
The streaming royalties picture is messier than it looks. Any claim that “XYZ pays artists best” risks being too broad. For example, Apple Music and Tidal pay significantly more per stream than YouTube Music — around $0.008–$0.013/stream compared to YouTube Music’s $0.002–$0.008, depending on subscription tier and region. On this basis, YouTube isn’t at the top.
But YouTube has multiple revenue models. There’s the YouTube Music audio stream rate, AdSense revenue from views on your own channel, and (the much maligned and oft-abused) Content ID revenue when other people use your music in their videos.
In high-CPM markets—Australia, the US, UK, Japan—those revenue streams can add up significantly, potentially closing the gap with platforms like Spotify or Apple Music.
It’s variable and geography-dependent. So it’s hard to quantify. As an artist, YMMV.
That said, what this means is that even a not-logged-in listener on YouTube can generate ad revenue. That anonymous person who clicked the link from my blog? They’re contributing something to the artist. On other platforms, that path doesn’t really exist, AFAICT.
Where I’d rather point you
All of the major platforms have issues. YouTube (owned by Google) is no exception.
I think a better answer is platform co-operatives. Subvert is one that I’m engaging in for my own music—artists keep 100% of what they earn, and members co-own the platform itself. No outside investors. No acquisition risk. No policy changes designed to extract more from the people who built the thing.
It launched publicly in May 2026, and it’s not a streaming platform—it’s a marketplace where people buy and own music directly from artists. Think Bandcamp, but structured as a co-op with a governance model designed to last decades. The founder has talked about it as the “Mondragon of music,” which gives you a sense of the ambition.
My music isn’t all there yet, but I’m migrating. And it’s still a nascent organisation that has yet to prove traction. But that’s where I’d rather point you.
Let me know if I should reconsider
This post outlines my current thinking, and why I’m doing my current practice. But let me know if there’s any alternatives I should be considering, or if my reasearch + logic isn’t sound.