Smule: A Platform That Honors the Dead and Forgets the Living

Why Smule’s verification system celebrates ghosts instead of real artists.

Opinion • By Me • November 2, 2025

In a digital world that should celebrate creativity and activity, Smule has become a strange paradox. Many artist profiles that are no longer active—sometimes belonging to artists who have passed away—still wear the purple "verified" badge. Meanwhile, living independent artists who sing daily, interact with fans, and release original music find themselves without the same recognition.

Verification should be a straightforward signal of authenticity. For most platforms, the marker helps users identify official accounts and protects creators from impersonation. But when a verification system is frozen in time, its value erodes. A badge that points to a historical fact rather than current activity stops being a useful trust signal; instead it becomes a relic.

A system that stopped listening

Smule’s support response — that verification is no longer awarded and there is no application process — is short and final. That answer may avoid debate, but it raises a clear equity issue: if the platform is closed to new verification, why keep the badge at all? Why preserve an uneven legacy that favors accounts verified under different rules?

For independent creators who pour time and emotion into their profiles, the lack of opportunity is deeply frustrating. These are users who build communities, collaborate across borders, and introduce fresh talent. When a platform sidelines those contributors, it contradicts the stated goal of supporting creative expression.

"A dead account can’t sing duets, thank fans, or release new songs. Yet its badge remains—while the living are left unrecognized."

The credibility cost

Beyond individual disappointment, there is a credibility cost to Smule as a platform. Verification marks are shorthand for authenticity; when that shorthand stops making sense, trust in what the badge stands for weakens. Fans and users rely on visible cues to find reliable sources of music and community. When those signals are unreliable, everyone loses.

Platforms survive by evolving. Policies that were reasonable five years ago may not suit a growing and shifting creator base today. Refusing to revisit verification is effectively choosing a static archive over a living ecosystem—an odd choice for an app built around live singing and real-time interaction.

Fairness, transparency, and the way forward

What would a fairer approach look like? Smule could reopen verification with a transparent application process, clear requirements (such as linked official streaming profiles, MusicBrainz/Discogs entries, or distribution through recognized aggregators), and a path for re-evaluation. It could also introduce temporary verification markers for active creators that expire unless renewed—this would keep the badge meaningful and tied to ongoing activity.

At its core, this is about aligning incentives. If Smule wants to encourage active contribution, it should reward it. If it wants to preserve legacy profiles, it can do that without conflating legacy with current authenticity—two different categories can coexist without confusing users.

Conclusion

Smule remains a unique and powerful tool for singers around the world. But if the platform wants to continue being relevant to creators today, it must restore fairness and transparency to its verification system. Otherwise it risks becoming a museum of past voices while the living artists—the ones adding new songs, sparking conversations, and growing communities—sing on without recognition.