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.
According to the author the real talent of musician should be assessed after the death of musician so that his or her fame does not interfere with honest assessment. I strongly disagree with the claim for following reasons.
It makes no sense in assessing the the real talent of musician after they are dead. One of the primary reasons we assess those talents is that we can acclode them if they really stand out from their competitors, this encourages them to create more musics. For instance, Lata Mangeskar a renouned musician in India was presented with several awards during her career. Her musics were carefully scrutinized by the reviewers before giving her the award. Not only this encouraged her but also influenced many young female musician to keep pursuing their interest. If we would have waited until her death she would have never realised how good she was.
Furthermore, Public interest is quite capricious it keeps changing with time and therefore it is imperative that the talent of musician is assessed before their death. For instance, In early 2000s many people in India prefered classical and slow music which gave birth to musician like Arjit Singh. However, now people interest has shifted toward rap songs. So assessing musician of early 2000s now will not yield an accurate result. Also change in trent does not imply the musician has poor talent.
However, Some may argue that artist with great fame may use their power to interfer with honest assessment. Well is'nt the fame itself a great indiactor of the artist talent? Musician work hard all their life so that they can produce music that is liked by the people and thats how they gain their fame. An artist with poor talent will not be able to produce music that would impress people and threfore will not gain fame.
In conclusion, It does not make sense in assessing the real talent of musician after they are dead as they would not be there to witness the legacy they have left behind.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 32, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...sons. It makes no sense in assessing the the real talent of musician after they are ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 32, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...sons. It makes no sense in assessing the the real talent of musician after they are ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 561, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...sician to keep pursuing their interest. If we would have waited until her death sh...
^^
Line 3, column 567, Rule ID: IF_WOULD_HAVE_VBN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'had waited'?
Suggestion: had waited
... to keep pursuing their interest. If we would have waited until her death she would have never re...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 435, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
... now will not yield an accurate result. Also change in trent does not imply the musi...
^^^^
Line 7, column 114, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...o interfer with honest assessment. Well isnt the fame itself a great indiactor of th...
^^^^
Line 7, column 272, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: that's
...e music that is liked by the people and thats how they gain their fame. An artist wit...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, may, really, so, therefore, well, for instance, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.5258426966 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 14.8657303371 40% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 43.0 33.0505617978 130% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 43.0 58.6224719101 73% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 12.9106741573 31% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1643.0 2235.4752809 73% => OK
No of words: 339.0 442.535393258 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.84660766962 5.05705443957 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29091512845 4.55969084622 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.27618158366 2.79657885939 81% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 215.323595506 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.536873156342 0.4932671777 109% => OK
syllable_count: 504.9 704.065955056 72% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.8237549783 60.3974514979 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.2777777778 118.986275619 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8333333333 23.4991977007 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.44444444444 5.21951772744 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 7.80617977528 90% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.433468563567 0.243740707755 178% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.136996865735 0.0831039109588 165% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.116983913636 0.0758088955206 154% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.265763952148 0.150359130593 177% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.117028005532 0.0667264976115 175% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.8 14.1392134831 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 48.8420337079 126% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.1743820225 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.85 12.1639044944 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.7 8.38706741573 92% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 100.480337079 68% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.8971910112 88% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.