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.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
It is now firmly established in psychology, and probably always has been in the intuitions of smart observers, that the effect of peer pressure is quite significant. When it comes to matters of social symbols, of which the arts are full, the phenomenon might be aggravated. Nonetheless, to think of popularity as the sole, or even the most significant source of bias is a bit of oversimplification. In fact, to even think of the effect of peer pressure regarding a social figure as terminating with their death lacks accuracy.
For one, the bias threatning the appropriate assessment might actually be doubled after a person's death, for it wouldn't only be generated by the inherent barrier of their symbolic value, but their very death might help spread a more romanticized and nostalgia-based narrative about them and their contributions. This is especially true when it is multiple generations apart, since it makes it more difficult to grasp the actual historical nuances of the times, and consequently weakens the very assessment.
Instead, the best shortcut to sincere assessment of artists in general and musicians in particular is to emphasize on the objective approach to talent. For example, given a mastery of the formal requirements of the field, it should also be ensured that the content does not merely reflect the spirit of the age so that it appeals to the most basic of the audience's instincts. Rather, there must be a creative angle from which the artist sees the world and tries to utilize aesthetic instruments to convey it.
Added to the previous in securing the position of synchronous criticism is the role of social dialogue in helping the very criteria of assessing talents be more mature and developed. That is, the type of intellectual exchange that results from the conflicting views about the issue would eventually aid in carving a more accurate view. As a matter of fact, the earlier the assessment takes off, the more probable it becomes for such dialogue to come about and the more engaging it becomes, especially in relation to its magnitude in the case of postponing it to multiple decades later.
To sum up, while we do think the impact of present fame on the honest and unbiased assessment of social idols is undeniable, we still acknowledge other sources of cognitive bias and consider it no less effective. Hence, a more holistic approach towards the issue of literary criticism is recommended.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 91, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'persons'' or 'person's'?
Suggestion: persons'; person's
...sment might actually be doubled after a persons death, for it wouldnt only be generated...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 113, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...e doubled after a persons death, for it wouldnt only be generated by the inherent barri...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 358, Rule ID: THE_EXACTLY_THE[1]
Message: Duplicated 'the' in the phrase: 'the earlier the'. Did you mean 'earlier the'?
Suggestion: earlier the
...ore accurate view. As a matter of fact, the earlier the assessment takes off, the more probable...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, consequently, hence, if, nonetheless, regarding, so, still, while, for example, in fact, in general, in particular, as a matter of fact, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.5258426966 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.4196629213 48% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 33.0505617978 82% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 58.6224719101 111% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2041.0 2235.4752809 91% => OK
No of words: 405.0 442.535393258 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.03950617284 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48604634366 4.55969084622 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96731162361 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 226.0 215.323595506 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.558024691358 0.4932671777 113% => OK
syllable_count: 647.1 704.065955056 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 20.2370786517 69% => 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: 28.0 23.0359550562 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 58.7363531697 60.3974514979 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.785714286 118.986275619 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.9285714286 23.4991977007 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 11.9285714286 5.21951772744 229% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.83258426966 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.172104862837 0.243740707755 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0506893982261 0.0831039109588 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0335092521578 0.0758088955206 44% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0841316909456 0.150359130593 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0337398105685 0.0667264976115 51% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.8 14.1392134831 119% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 48.8420337079 88% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.1743820225 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.54 12.1639044944 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.78 8.38706741573 117% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 100.480337079 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.2143820225 118% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.