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.
The author claims that the assessment of talent of musicians is always affected by the fame he has earned. I consider this a paradoxical statement. This can be explained with the help of talent shows and also the widely accepted generation gap issue.
A musician be it a singer or an instrumentalist can only rise in his profession and attempt to be famous if his or her music is good. Which itself proves the person's talent. Take for example talent shows like 'America's Got Talent' or 'American Idol'. These types of shows attempt to unearth talent and provide opportunities to discover the potential of many aspiring individuals. Many popular singers these days are brought to light by these shows. For example, Shreya Ghoshal is a popular Indian singer brought to fame by the show by 'Sa Re Ga Ma Pa' and so is Tochi Raina by 'Indian Idol' which are popular Indian musical shows.
Another reason I disagree with the author is because evaluating a singer much after his demise poses a problem harbored by age differences. Namely, the generation gap. You may ask why this may matter. Musicians of different generations cater to different audiences. And different audiences have different tastes. Especially more so when there is a gap of several generations as the author suggests.
Lastly the point to keep in mind while assessing the real talent of a musician is to have unbiased judges who are open to all forms of music. That I believe is a far more pressing factor to consider as compared to what the author suggests. I end with the thought that musicians should have a chance to be lauded while they are alive. It is only fair for them to be admired in their time.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... widely accepted generation gap issue. A musician be it a singer or an inst...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 139, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Which” 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.
... be famous if his or her music is good. Which itself proves the persons talent. Take ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 163, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'persons'' or 'person's'?
Suggestion: persons'; person's
... music is good. Which itself proves the persons talent. Take for example talent shows l...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 477, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...these shows. For example, Shreya Ghoshal is a popular Indian singer brought to fa...
^^
Line 3, column 551, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ht to fame by the show by Sa Re Ga Ma Pa and so is Tochi Raina by Indian Idol whi...
^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hich are popular Indian musical shows. Another reason I disagree with the a...
^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... generations as the author suggests. Lastly the point to keep in mind while a...
^^^^
Line 7, column 296, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...the thought that musicians should have a chance to be lauded while they are alive...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'if', 'lastly', 'may', 'so', 'while', 'for example']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.261146496815 0.240241500013 109% => OK
Verbs: 0.178343949045 0.157235817809 113% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0732484076433 0.0880659088768 83% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0445859872611 0.0497285424764 90% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0509554140127 0.0444667217837 115% => OK
Prepositions: 0.108280254777 0.12292977631 88% => OK
Participles: 0.0382165605096 0.0406280797675 94% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.63792721142 2.79330140395 94% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0414012738854 0.030933414821 134% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.0016655270985 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.108280254777 0.0997080785238 109% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.015923566879 0.0249443105267 64% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0222929936306 0.0148568991511 150% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1689.0 2732.02544248 62% => OK
No of words: 293.0 452.878318584 65% => More words wanted.
Chars per words: 5.76450511945 6.0361032391 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13729897018 4.58838876751 90% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.361774744027 0.366273622748 99% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.238907849829 0.280924506359 85% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.150170648464 0.200843997647 75% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.0955631399317 0.132149295362 72% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63792721142 2.79330140395 94% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 219.290929204 75% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.559726962457 0.48968727796 114% => OK
Word variations: 58.3929064778 55.4138127331 105% => OK
How many sentences: 19.0 20.6194690265 92% => OK
Sentence length: 15.4210526316 23.380412469 66% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.1192739847 59.4972553346 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.8947368421 141.124799967 63% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.4210526316 23.380412469 66% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.368421052632 0.674092028746 55% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.94800884956 81% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.21349557522 153% => OK
Readability: 39.3118376145 51.4728631049 76% => OK
Elegance: 1.48837209302 1.64882698954 90% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.37720350748 0.391690518653 96% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.121015377769 0.123202303941 98% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.141504625009 0.077325440228 183% => Ideas in sentences are similar.
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.45472060431 0.547984918172 83% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.157154460981 0.149214159877 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.119184782189 0.161403998019 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.072620218088 0.0892212321368 81% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.20463072476 0.385218514788 53% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0419113320212 0.0692045440612 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.237105695925 0.275328986314 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0399261408093 0.0653680567796 61% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.4325221239 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.30420353982 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.88274336283 123% => OK
Positive topic words: 5.0 7.22455752212 69% => OK
Negative topic words: 1.0 3.66592920354 27% => More negative topic words wanted.
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.70907079646 74% => OK
Total topic words: 8.0 13.5995575221 59% => OK
---------------------
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 to cover all aspects.