Review: YouTube Music App
In addition to being the platform of record for homemade talent auditions and dancing animals, YouTube made a name for itself by being the platform where one could find obscure concert videos, long-out-of-print imports, and other musical treasures that had been uploaded by users, rather than officially published by record companies. The November 11 release of YouTube Music, a mobile application available for Android and iOS devices, now makes it easy for music lovers to take this content with them in a audio-only mode, while also providing an ad-free video viewing and offline play.
Furthermore, the app is a welcome tool for mobile users, because YouTube Music will keep on playing even if the screen is off and locked. Once the device is unlocked, you’ll see the video playing at its current position. It’s like having a miniature version of MTV in your pocket.
YouTube Music is available for free for a 14-day trial, after which the service will cost $9.99 per month (though the iOS version is $12.99). Of course, if you’re a YouTube Red subscriber, the enhanced app is free. If you choose to forgo the enhanced version, you’ll see ads, and the app will lose some of the features that are standard in the enhanced version, such as the ability to easily customize and tailor what music is served up to you.
A familiar interface
After downloading the app from the Google Play store, YouTube Music quickly installed on my Samsung Galaxy Note III. Upon signing into YouTube Music with my existing YouTube account, I was presented with a screen detailing three stations that were created for me.
The stations appeared to be built from video content I had previously watched on the desktop version of YouTube, though the definition of the genres didn’t always seem to match up with the content contained within. For example, in the “Punk Rock” genre, the video contained in the channel is one of my own bands, which I can guarantee is not punk rock. Still, high marks to YouTube for trying to assess and categorize my eclectic musical tastes.
Once you’ve chosen a song, the interface appears to be an optimized version of what you’d see if you were watching YouTube on a desktop – there’s a familiar video window on top, with two tabs below – “Playing Now” and “Explore.” You can toggle between the two, and quickly make new selections.
The “Playing Now” tab provides access to the video and/or group of videos that is currently playing. It’s also possible to make your own playlists (called mixtapes); clicking on the thumbs up button on songs will mark them and append them to a list of things you like. YouTube uses 
these likes to “learn” what you’re into, and then serving up content it thinks you’ll dig. You can choose between less variety, balanced, and more variety among artists and content via a slider control.
Leaving the setting at “balanced” produced some fairly random content. For example, I had selected a Dave Brubeck/Paul Desmond album (very traditional, combo jazz), and worked my way through the entire album, after which the next video that came up was an acoustic Winery Dogs (hard rock power trio) performance. This was followed by a random Eddie Cochran (rockabilly) guitar lesson. While I enjoy all of these groups and musical styles, I’m still not sure how YouTube made its selections, as I have a lot of other jazz artists in my viewing history which would seem to be a more logical choice since I started by selecting jazz content.
However, the seeming randomness of the related music selections may be partly due to the fact that much of YouTube’s content is uploaded and curated by its user base. For example, a given artist may have its entire catalog uploaded on YouTube, but that does not preclude users from uploading their own content that is either an exact duplicate of the official version, or any number of variants, including live versions, bootlegs, cover versions, or instructional videos (such as the “how to play like Eddie Cochran video.)
Depending on your personal point of view, this is either YouTube’s greatest strength or biggest weakness. For users who are continually seeking out new music, or whose interests span a wide range of musical genres, the “learning” algorithms currently deployed by YouTube make the app a great way to find new music with very little effort. But users looking for a fully curated, mix of a specific genre likely will need to wade through some irrelevant content, or they’ll need to build their own mixes.
Another key strength for YouTube Music is the ability to leverage the huge library of alternative music content that has not been released in an audio-only format. For example, bootleg copies of the un-doctored version of Martin Scorsese’s The Last Waltz, have been floating around for years, and an un-edited feed taken from one of the cameras hit YouTube a few years ago.
The audio is not as polished, but the mix is true to what happened that night, warts and all. Band aficionados will be happy to hear that Richard Manuel was, in fact, on stage that night and in pretty good voice, thanks to the untouched audio mix. The best part: YouTube Music lets you watch or listen to this content on the go, without being chained to your computer.
So is YouTube Music worth the $10 a month, which is on par with Spotify and Pandora? It really depends on the way you like to listen to or discover music. For those looking for pre-selected, specific content (like the 50-something song curated hair-metal mix), Spotify still appears a bit easier to seek out and access this content in a flash. But for users who want the semi-randomness and wide library of alternative content not found in official releases, YouTube Music likely will be well worth the subscription to either the app itself, or as part of the YouTube Red service.
Keith Kirkpatrick is founder and principal of 4K Research & Consulting, LLC (www.4kresearch.com), a market research and consulting firm. By night, he’s the co-founder and lead guitarist for Creative Juice (www.creativejuiceband.com), a New York City hard-rock cover band.