The real talent of a popular musician cannot be accurately assessed until the musician has been dead for several generations, so that his or her fame does not interfere with honest assessment.
The above statement postulates that the real talent of a musician cannot be assessed accurately until the musician has been dead for several years. The reason given for this assumption is that when the musician is still alive, any honest assessment may be interfered by his/her fame. In my opinion, this statement is reasonable to a great extend. With popularity, there comes a great power and dominance. There are several explications which could elaborate and justify this claim.
The primary consequence of gaining popularity is gaining a huge fan following. A huge fan following reflects the dominance of the artist in the market. More the people admire and like the work of an artist, more his value increases in the market. The same is a case with any music artist. As a result the critics are definitely impeded and hindered to give honest critical remarks, thinking that it might receive huge amount of resentment from the fans, which are in legions.
Further, to be popular among the youth, it is not necessary to be technically correct. Rather, the young generation prefers creative musicians. In their view, if the critics demean or give derogatory remarks about a creative artists, they are dogmatic and not ready to change according to the time to accept the new creative talent. Therefore, even if the critics give their honest opinions, they might receive contempt from fans of the artist.
Moreover, due to popularity and market dominance of the popular artists, even the contemporary artists give only limited opinions about the talent of any popular artist. However, once the artist's career has declined, or his fans have fallen in numbers or generations after his death, the critics do not face the fear of resentment and defiance. Therefore, they are more likely to give an honest opinion on the works of the artist.
In sum, I completely agree with the claim that the talent of a popular musician cannot be accurately assessed until the musician has been dead for several generations, so that an honest assessment is not interfered by his fame. The primary explications include the huge fan following of the artist and his market dominance which are the bane for critics to give any negative honest review. Also, the same reasons limit the contemporary artists to give any critical opinions about famous artists. After the death of artist, several generations later, these factors do not exist, making it very feasible for the critics to give honest assessment.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-11-03 | Gbangbala Usman | 58 | view |
| 2023-08-28 | Gnyana | 50 | view |
| 2023-08-17 | Jbrachael | 66 | view |
| 2023-08-05 | Ataraxia-m | 62 | view |
| 2023-08-05 | Ataraxia-m | 50 | view |
- The following appears in a letter to the editor for the West Lansburg News The tufted groundhog lives in the coastal wetlands of West Lansburg Ancient records suggest that the tufted groundhog once numbered in the millions Since they were declared a wildl 58
- The real talent of a popular musician cannot be accurately assessed until the musician has been dead for several generations so that his or her fame does not interfere with honest assessment 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 228, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'artist'?
Suggestion: artist
...ive derogatory remarks about a creative artists, they are dogmatic and not ready to cha...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, may, moreover, so, still, therefore, as a result, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.4196629213 48% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 33.0505617978 79% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 58.6224719101 84% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2092.0 2235.4752809 94% => OK
No of words: 412.0 442.535393258 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.07766990291 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50530610838 4.55969084622 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66101787262 2.79657885939 95% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 215.323595506 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.473300970874 0.4932671777 96% => OK
syllable_count: 688.5 704.065955056 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 51.7380021037 60.3974514979 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.619047619 118.986275619 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.619047619 23.4991977007 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.90476190476 5.21951772744 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.2758426966 136% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
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: 0.347593337485 0.243740707755 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0992749491543 0.0831039109588 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.153973818783 0.0758088955206 203% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.201627693965 0.150359130593 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.155263944165 0.0667264976115 233% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.1392134831 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.8420337079 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 12.1639044944 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.22 8.38706741573 98% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 100.480337079 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.8971910112 63% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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.