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
Music has always been an integral part of people and it plays an important role in their lives. Individuals relate to the music they listen to, and hence, to the musicians. So musicians are made huge stars all around the world. The prompt suggests that the actual assessment of the real talent of the musician can only be done once he/she is dead so that his/her fame does not interfere with the assessment. In my opinion, I do not entirely agree with this suggestion for three reasons.
Firstly, fame can be used as an actual tool to measure the popularity of a musician. Fame, in itself, means that the masses love the person and his work. Moreover, fame makes the person realize about his talent, so then, he can make optimum use of it. For instance, Arijit Singh of India, has recently become a huge star in India and is one of the most loved musicians in the country and, because of his popularity, he gets more and more shows and more work to showcase his talent. Consider another musician, Armaan Malik, who is also considered to be a very talented individual, but he is less popular than what Arijit Singh is, and hence gets lesser opportunities to showcase his talent. Therefore, the real assessment of talent can only to be done if we have substantial data in hand, that is, if the musician has done a considerable amount of work to be compared with his contemporaries.
Furthermore, we should always trust the people for whom the music is being made. If the people like it, it means that the musician is in fact talented since he is giving what the people want. For example, Sonu Nigam is considered one of the most versatile musicians that India has ever seen. All the credit, goes to his fame that just kept on increasing year by year while he is still working in this industry. It is the people because of which the musician is still working and we can not be oblivious to the fact that money follows fame.
Finally, some may argue that fame can not accurately tell you about the real talent of a musician. For instance, Shaan, used to do jazz music in the 1980s, and that point of time people were just not ready to accept that kind of music, so he did not gain popularity at all. But, today when jazz is a popular art, experts claim that Shaan's work is as good as any when compared today. People still listen to his work, and this gives us a lesson that though he was not popular in his times, he is still considered as the person who gave birth to jazz music in India, If we were only measuring a person's talent by the fame which he gets, we might have never known Shaan and his work. We did not get carried away by the little amount of fame that he had gotten in that period, but experts some how found a way around it.
Assessment of talent has never been a trivial task. This issue does not have clear cut arguments because of the reasons mentioned above. However, one should trust the people, and hence consider the fame that a musician gets over his life while assessing his talent, but only to a certain level.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 593, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'persons'' or 'person's'?
Suggestion: persons'; person's
...c in India, If we were only measuring a persons talent by the fame which he gets, we mi...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 785, Rule ID: SOME_HOW[1]
Message: Did you mean 'somehow'?
Suggestion: somehow
... had gotten in that period, but experts some how found a way around it. Assessment of...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, moreover, so, still, then, therefore, while, for example, for instance, in fact, kind of, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.5258426966 149% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 14.8657303371 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 23.0 11.3162921348 203% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 65.0 33.0505617978 197% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 62.0 58.6224719101 106% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 12.9106741573 54% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2486.0 2235.4752809 111% => OK
No of words: 560.0 442.535393258 127% => OK
Chars per words: 4.43928571429 5.05705443957 88% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.8645985582 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.30896378826 2.79657885939 83% => OK
Unique words: 256.0 215.323595506 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.457142857143 0.4932671777 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 791.1 704.065955056 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59117977528 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 8.0 1.77640449438 450% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.0071176334 60.3974514979 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.583333333 118.986275619 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.3333333333 23.4991977007 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.375 5.21951772744 141% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 19.0 10.2758426966 185% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.356541488014 0.243740707755 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.10971067801 0.0831039109588 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0910832067133 0.0758088955206 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.225584865901 0.150359130593 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0713180820128 0.0667264976115 107% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 14.1392134831 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 65.05 48.8420337079 133% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.1743820225 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 8.77 12.1639044944 72% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.31 8.38706741573 87% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 100.480337079 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 11.8971910112 67% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.7820224719 68% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.