Platforms like Spotify, YouTube, etc, are a marketing channel - not a revenue channel. They can be used effectively to develop an audience, but not to monetize it.
For example see Pusheen the cat. Started off as a tumblr web comic/character and now generates millions in merchandising revenue:
Revenues from US digital recorded music sales steadily rose from the introduction of iTunes up into the billions through at least 2012. Maybe 2013/14-ish. I think at one point it'd actually matched 90s CD sales revenue, though I may not recall correctly.
That was hardly "dead." There's this narrative that goes around "oh, yeah, the internet happened, copies are cheap, no one was ever going to buy music again" ... and it's not true.
The truth is that there was a thriving digital recording sales growing up to take the place of physical recording sales. And buffet streaming kneecaped it.
At best that's like saying it's a triumph of capitalism when Walmart hollows out local retailers, or industrial agriculture hollows out smaller operators and with it communities. Sure, you get cheaper goods, but there are less pleasant externalities that go with it.
As someone once said about another triumph of capitalism: when you value McDonalds, you get McJobs.
Not true for Spotify, if you are regularly racking up millions of plays ie you are hitting editorial playlists, then Spotify is very lucrative. Good Spotify stats also signals to promoters that you are a good to book, so it boosts live income.
I'd agree on YouTube however, artists I work with see very little income from YouTube, which is quite sickening and problematic for artists given how much of the younger demographic use YouTube as a primary source of music.
For example see Pusheen the cat. Started off as a tumblr web comic/character and now generates millions in merchandising revenue:
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/how-an-internet-cat-craze-be...