It's wandered some way from the original topic... but...
Your proposal sounds entirely like someone who doesn't rely upon music to keep a roof over your head or food in your family's tums. What you are describing is pretty well a hobbyist or semi-pro scenario at best, because very, very few could live on what you suggest. All the more so when many venues want small bands to play for nothing or in some cases pay to play. Certainly making a living on such a set up would be very difficult. For non-performing songwriters, even more so. As it is the industry is biased towards artists and labels, in comparison to the almost non-entity of songwriters.
As a disabled writer I am very much limited to recording music. Any performance is very, very limited for a number of reasons.
The thing is, streaming sites charge listeners, and charge advertisers, and then pass very very little on to the band. Songwriters get even less.
you mentioned one thing... several times " I control the value of my music " That should apply to whether I want to give my music away for free or not. People can then decide if they are prepared to pay for it or not. I as the seller can adjust my price accordingly.
Why should I not be paid? If you were a plumber you wouldn't come to my house and do the plumbing on the basis that it would give you exposure. You would be very unlikely to say "plumbing free to the general public
i do not disagree that it is your right to give away anything that is yours (I encourage any chefs to come cook for me, and I need some building work and decorative work done. I promise to pass on your name if you do!), even though it undermines the professional industry (particularly the lower end) but it is your music, your choice.
But to kill the pro industry and essentially make it all hobbyist or semi-pro is to lose a whole stack of experience. Indeed, with that scenario, there are many household names that we just wouldn't have heard of... because they needed to keep a roof over their head and put food in their family's tums! Working part time or hobbyist we then lose a lot of the dependent industries, from graphic artists to session musicians to sound engineers and producers.
There are non-essential roles, but lets not forget what ASCAP and BMI etc do. They collect monies from people who make money from your music. The sources are diverse and numerous. They exist because at a certain level of success it becomes untenable to manage it all.
You might think that setting a price to get paid by film and TV programme makers, or from advertisers is ok, but those costs just get passed on to film goers, TV subscriptions and product purchasers. I understand you can set the price here, because those people plan to make money from your music... how is that different from a streaming site making money from your music, even if it is based on advertising income alone? How is taht different from venue owners who attract people to buy alcohol in part based upon the music they play? Are all these people allowed to make money from music... but the musician? Even more so the case for a songwriter.
One more thing. You say your music not limited to only those who can afford it. Isn't that the point of radio? they can access your music. Using free streaming they can get access to songs on deman too. Apart from that... the average album has cost thousands to make. Artist graphics, buying equipment, if you have a band, then rehearsal time too. Buying recording gear, software. Marketing and promotion... even if we do it ourselves. If you do a traditional pressing it costs about $400 for a glass master, then printing, cellophane wrap etc. Distribution too. If you don't want many people to hear your music you can do your own promotion and distribution.... isn't that limitation even MORE limiting than cutting people out who cannot afford your music?
That aside... you can always do specials that are free. Free gigs. Free online gigs. TV appearances. Radio appearances.
The average CD costs the price of 5 cups of coffee. Not exactly huge.