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 a

find myself in agreement with the given argument.People are generally moved by common opinion of a person without giving base to their own judgement. For example, a musician might have prolific talent but might be grouchy in real life. People always remember that one mistake and forget the several accomplishments. Moreover we would not miss a person if they are constantly present among us. We try to assess them correctly only when they are long gone.

I would also state that a artist's talent should not be compared with fame. True assessment of talent should be solely based on performance. But the inevitable fact is talent is associated with fame. A famous musician is automatically recognized as talented. This is because, a musician even though having only a modicum of experience in music, can get a crowd excited with flashy lights and proper staging.

A traditional orchestra playing Beethoven's music is thus less popular than 21st century music, even though the complexity of music by an orchestra is far superior and difficult to master. Fame can be achieved with money but talent cannot. This should be the base for a proper assay of musicians.

Another example is the band named "The Beatles". Even though the players of the band individually are not masters of music, but they together brought something new to the field of music. John Lennon, the lead singer defined rock music that makes us listen to us even after he passed away.