The real talent of a popular musician cannot accurately be assessed until the musician has been dead for several generations, so that his or her fame does not interfere with honest assessment.
The basic human nature of empathy hinders the ability of one's mind to be completely objective. However, when faced with tasks such as fair evaluation of something as abstract as talent, all the reservations especially those of a devout follower, must be put aside. However, this is easier said than done. Upon the immediate demise of a musician, out-pour of emotions undermines the objectives of an unbiased evaluation of one's talent. Furthermore, when economical aspects of one's talent are weighed in, almost in every case of sales after a popular musician's death, the posthumous release of albums containing songs that were shelved and the artists themselves deemed not fit for the ears of their fans have been observed to do much better compared to those released during their lives.
A popular example can be considered as the release and response of Late Micheal Jackson's posthumous album. The album consisted of many of Micheal Jackson's unreleased songs that were just "too bland" for Micheal himself. Furthermore, considering how Mozart was reprimanded by his contemporaries for using the set of symphonies that are now considered revolutionary for the time. The curious case of Mozart's ephemeral fame during his lifetime and later rise to being the epitome generations later is a testament to the notion of true talent being objectively assessed after few generations. In his case, however, it was the defamation by his contemporaries that took generations to fade away and hence, the world came to know the real genius that was Mozart. What is clear from above examples is that fame, popular opinion and subjective perception of contemporaries can drastically change the way one's talent is judged. This generalized notion is as true for the music industry as is with any other popular media platform.
Fame subsides once these factors are dismissed and a consensus is fabricated to investigate into the true magnitude of one's talent. Musician often suffers from this dilemma of losing own identity because of ratings, record labels and many more factors. This leads to the misdirection of an investigation into one's talent. So in conclusion, to objectively assess one's talent, the investigation should be free of aforementioned factors, which is only possible once their fame defined to be the popular opinion, has subsided and gives way for unbiased evaluation
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 58, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...ature of empathy hinders the ability of ones mind to be completely objective. Howeve...
^^^^
Line 1, column 63, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'mind being'.
Suggestion: mind being
... of empathy hinders the ability of ones mind to be completely objective. However, when fac...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 423, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...objectives of an unbiased evaluation of ones talent. Furthermore, when economical as...
^^^^
Line 1, column 476, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...Furthermore, when economical aspects of ones talent are weighed in, almost in every ...
^^^^
Line 1, column 550, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'musicians'' or 'musician's'?
Suggestion: musicians'; musician's
... in every case of sales after a popular musicians death, the posthumous release of albums...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 907, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...poraries can drastically change the way ones talent is judged. This generalized noti...
^^^^
Line 5, column 120, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
... investigate into the true magnitude of ones talent. Musician often suffers from thi...
^^^^
Line 5, column 310, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...e misdirection of an investigation into ones talent. So in conclusion, to objectivel...
^^^^
Line 5, column 363, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...So in conclusion, to objectively assess ones talent, the investigation should be fre...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, hence, however, if, so, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.5258426966 128% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.4196629213 32% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 33.0505617978 70% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 58.6224719101 94% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2005.0 2235.4752809 90% => OK
No of words: 382.0 442.535393258 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.24869109948 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.42095241839 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93346187917 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 215.323595506 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.570680628272 0.4932671777 116% => OK
syllable_count: 663.3 704.065955056 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.2370786517 79% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 71.2440512868 60.3974514979 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.3125 118.986275619 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.875 23.4991977007 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.6875 5.21951772744 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 4.97078651685 60% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 9.0 7.80617977528 115% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.13820224719 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.246266411471 0.243740707755 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0711776082832 0.0831039109588 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0422952729168 0.0758088955206 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.157422992774 0.150359130593 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0190657348614 0.0667264976115 29% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 14.1392134831 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.8420337079 81% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.47 12.1639044944 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.74 8.38706741573 116% => OK
difficult_words: 120.0 100.480337079 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.