Nowadays, there is a surfeit of musicians due to a significant growth in the demography of the world. Some of them may just have a fame without having real skills in music, while others might show profound talents in it commensurate to their fame. Therefore, there is a belief that a real talent of a popular music can only be evaluated once the musician has been dead for several generations, so that his fame does not get mixed up with honest assessment. As for me, in some cases, the talent of the musian is honestly judged independent of its fame, however, in other cases, there might be some situations where musicians are not carefully assessed, since the whole public enjoy their music and they have earned fame through that. In this essay, I am going to give arguments for both sides of the point and develop it with examples.
One the one hand, it seems that the talent of the musician is carefully judged regardless of their fame. There are some musical competitions which are devoted to determining people who have profound skills and talent. As an examples of such competitions, we can think of Eurovision which is an international musical competition among contries of the world. As an example of local competitions, we can talk of SuperStar which was a popular music competities until roughly 2010. Those competitions do not really care of how famous are those participants. The judges are quite faithful and they usually try to choose someone who is brilliant in singing as a winner. Therefore, it is somehow difficult to assume that a real talent of the musician can be assessed once he is dead.
One the other hand, there might be some cases where a person gains fame and praise from the public, even though he does not really have a proper talent in it. For instance, there is a singer called Kairat Nurtas in Kazakhstan. He is a quite popular singer in the country and most of the denizens of Kazakhstan enjoy his music. However, his voice cannot be called to be a real talent. Also, whenever he sings, he does not sing with his natural voice, he just pretends to be singing naturally by putting on the audio which has been recorded and editted beforehand. As an another example, we can talk of Blackstar which is a Russian rap competition. In this competition, the participants are not really evaluated by the judges, the winners are just chosen depending on the amount of votes they have. This means that the winners are not really properly evaluated, their winning dependends more on how many supporters they have. Therefore, it can be claimed that their talent can only be judges once they are dead.
In conclusion, it cannot be straighly said that a real talent of the person is evaluated after his death. I guess it depends on the case itself. There might be some cases where musician is properly judges, while in other cases, they gain fame without having profound skills.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...point and develop it with examples. One the one hand, it seems that the tale...
^^
Line 3, column 224, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'an example' or simply 'examples'?
Suggestion: an example; examples
...who have profound skills and talent. As an examples of such competitions, we can think of E...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 568, Rule ID: AN_ANOTHER[1]
Message: One of these determiners is redundant in this context. Choose only one: 'an example' or 'another example'.
Suggestion: an example; another example
...een recorded and editted beforehand. As an another example, we can talk of Blackstar which is a Ru...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 755, Rule ID: AFFORD_VBG[1]
Message: This verb is used with infinitive: 'to depend'.
Suggestion: to depend
...the judges, the winners are just chosen depending on the amount of votes they have. This ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, honestly, however, if, may, really, so, therefore, while, as for, for instance, i guess, in conclusion, in some cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 36.0 19.5258426966 184% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.4196629213 113% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 14.8657303371 47% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 18.0 11.3162921348 159% => OK
Pronoun: 52.0 33.0505617978 157% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 60.0 58.6224719101 102% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 12.9106741573 39% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2401.0 2235.4752809 107% => OK
No of words: 507.0 442.535393258 115% => OK
Chars per words: 4.73570019724 5.05705443957 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74517233601 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61083941684 2.79657885939 93% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 215.323595506 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.4516765286 0.4932671777 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 766.8 704.065955056 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 17.0 6.24550561798 272% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 10.0 3.10617977528 322% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.4230602947 60.3974514979 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.041666667 118.986275619 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.125 23.4991977007 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.125 5.21951772744 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.313107846529 0.243740707755 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0894726875461 0.0831039109588 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.107876615884 0.0758088955206 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.201859804073 0.150359130593 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0847887809636 0.0667264976115 127% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 14.1392134831 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.8420337079 120% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.21 12.1639044944 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.82 8.38706741573 93% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 100.480337079 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.