Why I Probably Won't Become Verified by Bluesky

If I were them - the deciders - I would start with a search, not find much, then quickly click the button to send me the boilerplate "denied" notification (if they even offer that courtesy), and move on to the next applicant.  They might even have a database to determine if you're signed to a label (vs. self-releasing), which I wouldn't be in.  Whoever these folks are, they're likely in a hurry to deny.  Their productivity is being measured, and like with customer service departments, they are probably told by management to not spend too much time reviewing each form.

I previously macro-blogged about Twitter verification here:  https://blog.scottcooley.com/2023/05/twitter-blues.html in which I expressed initial frustration about not getting verified by them, and then sort of concluded that the whole thing is pretty ridiculous, and not something to be bummed about.  Why fill out a form in the first place?  Credibility?  Is that what I'm after?  

When you're an established independent DIY solo artist, already past mid-career, yet still aspiring/emerging/hungry for more recognition - hoping for a larger audience for your music (more streams), you want to give the appearance of legitimacy, and so you want to look official.  You are those things already, but anything that helps makes you look established and popular already, makes you even more so.  You think that will help, but the thing is you need a bunch of reputable online sources to write about you.  I suspect that if reviews of my music were to materialize online, they might contain some negativity that could stifle my spirit, so I've never submitted my albums to any bloggers or publications.  I should point out that I don't perform live very often, so I'm really just a recording artist.

I'm a verified solo artist with Spotify, Apple Music, Amazon Music, YouTube Music, regular YouTube, Pandora, etc., which means I have an account to sign in to their "for Artists" parts of their websites because I've claimed my own profile in them.  Some provide a prominent check mark icon of some kind, some don't.  I also have my own domain.  I've been mentioned in a podcast by another artist, had people post nice things about me in social media a few times, but there are no news articles or blogs about me as far as I know.  I've tried to establish somewhat of an online presence.  The TLDR is that's probably not enough.  

I recently put a prominent link to my Bluesky profile page on my website because so far, I'm thinking it will become my primary social media and microblogging platform.  I also recently filled out the verification form for Bluesky, I guess so people will see the coveted badge and trust that I'm the real Scott Cooley, not a fake impersonator or something.  So, I'm authentic enough, but likely not notable enough.  "Official" but not "high-profile".

While they review my credentials (or lack thereof), I thought I would do a little reviewing of them.  I basically dread having to deal with any social media (or self-promotion for that matter), but so far, I like Bluesky better than any platform I've tried.  I was fortunate to "join the early conversation" back in 2023 when it was fairly new, and I can report that it has improved significantly since then.  Originally, I went with the standard scottcooley.bsky.social, but then changed it to this:

https://bsky.app/profile/scottcooley.com

Things you should know:

With your own domain, you just paste in a record on your registrar's site, two minutes and you're done (meaning you don't then have to host your own Linux server on a Rasberry Pi in your basement or something just to be able to log back in to Bluesky).  They could make that clearer.  I'm now questioning whether @scottcooley.com as my handle is better, but I'm not going to worry about what people think.

Things I didn't like about Twitter:

-they replaced the public profile page view with a sign-in requirement

-they never verified me with the blue check despite the notability evidence I provided

-the name change to X made no sense, the name was one of the coolest things about it

Things I like about Bluesky:

-public profile page

-simple, uncluttered user interface (retro vibe is similar to early Twitter)

-they didn't do the mobile-first thing, or mobile-only thing, and I prefer the early and decent web availability (don't use the app on my phone at all)

-fairly easy to find like-minded people

-human+auto moderation focus seems effective, is reassuring

-use the same account for other apps, future apps

Things I'm still not sure about:

-more extreme, in-your-face left wingers than I expected (which is still way better than the opposite)

-the full extent of why owning data I post publicly anyway is such a big deal

-remains to be seen if I'll become verified or not

-seems to be dominated by software developer types so far (there went my checkmark)

I previously blogged about "notability" for indie DIY solo artists who never seek out press coverage:  https://blog.scottcooley.com/2014/07/from-nobility-to-notability.html

I used the Wikipedia "notability" guidelines to create my detailed Biography:  https://www.scottcooley.com/biography#h.p_ID_285

Bottom line is I don't really want people to review my music or write about me publicly, so I don't look for such opportunities.  If someone reached out for an interview, I'd grant it though.  Various quotes say things along the lines of music being 10% creative and 90% marketing.  My popularity (or lack thereof) reflects the fact that aside from a few social media announcements when I release new music, I engage in no marketing whatsoever (and I prefer it that way).  My music has been on the dark side lately, which doesn't lend itself well to the New York Times discovering it and calling to interview me about it.  Surprise me, Mr. Bluesky! Be my sunny day.

From Nobility To Notability

As I’ve said many a time and in many a way on this blog previously that it would be nice if my music could gain more recognition, awareness, reach a larger audience, etc.  As long as I don’t have to be a famous celebrity where people would recognize me in public and bother me.  That wouldn’t be much fun.  It’s not that I’m after popularity for popularity’s sake, but rather, I think what I do is in some ways sort of a noble pursuit (writing and recording songs), and perhaps deserving of being more notable somehow.  I’ve looked into what that means recently.

People are actually buying my music here and there lately, which is exciting, and makes me think more of that would always be welcome, but then it makes me think of how and what I could be doing to make more sales happen without too much effort or investment on my part.  My new album, which I released just over one month ago, has sold quite a few copies lately!  Surprisingly, there are some out there who have purchased the physical CD directly from Amazon, and unsurprisingly, there have been a lot of single-song MP3 purchases from Google Play, Spotify, Bandcamp, and of course, iTunes. All great, and more would be even better. Makes me wonder what, out of the various free things I've done in my free time to make people aware my music exists, has been most effective in terms of conversions. I use some analytics and get some data from online music stores, but it's not much to go on.

I sometimes wonder how to rise above the sales barely covering my costs, release after release, every two years.  I don’t just consider the nominal distribution costs, but also the upgrading of recording equipment and instruments from time to time.  Nowhere close to making enough money to cover the new Martin acoustic guitar….yet.  You never know if some happy accident might catapult me into profitability….or better yet, from nobility to notability.

I cite the following definitions from some online dictionary:

• noble:  music has outstanding or excellent qualities and lofty ideals or character, coming from personal qualities that people admire (such as honesty, generosity, courage, etc.)
• notable:  music is unusual and worth noticing, remarkable, distinguished, prominent

When it comes to noble, I read it and say to myself “check” I’ve got those covered.  When it comes to notable, however, I’m not sure I can honestly say it’s distinguished or prominent yet.

The reason I wonder about notability is because if you want to get reviewed by or listed in certain well-known music-related online publications and databases such as AllMusic or Wikipedia, they require you prove you’ve already been written about in other publications or websites.  Reference documents that indicate a level of prominence to gain more or higher prominence.

You hear about people faking their number of social likes and friends and shares and tweets and adds and follows and that sort of thing.  They do it because it works.  The basic concept at play here is that perceived prominence and popularity whether deserved or real or otherwise, breeds actual increased, real popularity, thereby increasing real prominence.  I won’t lower myself to those types of tactics, but I’m told they are effective. What it boils down to is spending my hard-earned free time bugging people to write about me and my music, so as to show documented importance and significance.

Here’s a small subset of summarized information I got from Wikipedia that provides guidelines of what you need in order to be considered for a listing in a few of their appropriate categories:

Indicate...important because...(document it is true)significant because...(document it is true)

Musician
1.  multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician himself (newspaper articles, books, magazine articles)
2.  single or album on a music chart
3.  certification of gold or higher on a chart
4.  national concert tour
5.  major record label
6.  notable members of ensemble
7.  prominent representative of a notable style or scene
8.  been nominated for (or won) a major award
9.  won or placed in a major competition
10. TV or film placement of song
11. national radio rotation or music TV station
12. been featured subject of radio or TV

Composer/Lyricist
1.  writing credit on notable composition
2.  writing of musical theatre notable run
3.  wrote work used as basis for another notable work
4.  won or placed in notable non-newcomer competition
5.  listed as major influence on notable person
6.  appears in reference books about genre

SongsShortcuts: WP:NSONG, WP:NSONGS
Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work.[3] Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created.
Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

The following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria.

• Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts.
• Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
• Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.

Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions. 

Articles about traditional songs should avoid original research and synthesis of published material that advances a position. 

• Note: Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song.
• Note2: Sources should always be added for any lore, history or passed on secondary content. Wikiversity and WikiBooks have different policies and may be more appropriate venues.

Resources
Good online sources for recordings are the Freedb search engine or the Allmusic search engine. To find ownership information on song texts copyrighted in the US, the ASCAP ACE Title Search and BMI Repertoire Search utilities are invaluable. When looking in depth, a Google book search may turn something up. For material that has captured the attention of academics, a search on Google scholar may work. 

An experienced editor also provides a guide on ensuring that articles meet criteria.

Wow, so after reading all that carefully, and summarizing it in my own notes I’ve now shared with you, the world, it is overwhelming.  It’s one thing to find a list of online publications and blogs who write about independent music acts like me.  That’s hassle enough.  Then you need to email them a cover letter and link to free streaming samples of your music, or even mail packages of information and CDs to them.  Now you’re talking about a lot more of your free time, plus some some potential cost for materials.  After you find their submission policies on their websites, which is often difficult, they almost always say something to the effect of 1) we get tons of these every day, and can never review them all, or maybe we have someone briefly read/listen to your submission, but we can not possibly write about them all, and 2) we don’t ever return your stuff.  

So, no guarantees, and you start to wonder, “who has time for this stuff?...especially for most of us with day jobs and personal lives?”  The answer is probably along the lines of don’t give up trying, hard work eventually pays off, lots of irons in the fire increases your chances, etc.  It would be cool if you had money to pay someone else to do all this for you, wouldn’t it?  I guess when you get signed to a record contract with a major label you get an advance to pay people to do this stuff for you.  The Behind The Music or Where Are They Now types of shows on TV always seem to cover famous artists who sold millions and not only never became wealthy, but in fact ended up in more debt than before they were signed to the record deals.  On the other hand, there are artists who become so famous from major-label marketing budgets, when they get out of their contracts, they can still sell a ton of records on their own.  This has happened more and more frequently in recent years I would imagine due to the ways in which the internet has changed the music business.

I’ll stick to what I like - writing and recording songs in my basement, and selling enough online to cover most of my costs - except the Martin guitar.  I will keep hoping for a lightning strike of dumb luck or some phenomenon described with the word “viral” to accidentally occur.  This is like hoping you’ll win the lottery.  Not very good odds, but fun to think about it once in a while.  It would be nice to be more notable.