Reserve your spot now!
Real talent of a popular musician cannot accurately be assessed until the musician has been dead for
Hi Mr. jonathan
I was supposed to take the exam the last month, but I wasn't quite sure if I will be able to get the target score, so I've postponed it till the next month.
And here's another essay I hope you can evaluate and give me your comments.
Thanks a lot)
The author's claim that musicians' talent should be assessed only years after his posthumous lest his fame would interfere with such evaluation is entirely unfair.
He doesn't take into consideration that populous taste changes with time and the professional way to assess any talent should be within the same tenure. I'll state below some detailed example pertaining to this argument:
First and foremost, a musician becomes famous only if his/her work and composition are really outstanding. Let’s take an example from the real world, Amr Diab, the most well-known Egyptian musician. It cost him an arm and a leg to pave his way and become what we see now. His extraordinary talent, determination, charisma, and charming appearance are the reasons for the massive success he received. He was assessed by many local and international committees and no one could deny his God-given talent. Moreover, his albums were translated to more than seven different languages and sang by many artists worldwide. To say that we’ve to wait for his death and even many decades later to be able to judge his work impartially is complete nonsense.
Secondly, audience taste differs from generation to generation, I want to say that the contrary to the author’s assumption is totally true. If we wait till the death of the musician, his work will lose its actual purpose. In addition to that, the assessment criteria vary significantly from time to time. So, it would be much better if the musical talent is assessed and judged by the original listeners than by those living in another era. The prominent Arab singers of the late 50s like Abdelhalim Hafez, Um Kolthoum, Farid Al Atrash, just to name a few, are a compelling example for this. I used to see my father and people his age so overwhelmed and amazed by their songs and concerts, although I and my friends don’t like them at all. Can we say that they are untalented? certainly not. That’s why it would be an injustice if they were left for my generation to evaluate their work.
Also, if the above claim is practiced, then the acclaimed person won’t be there to witness the results of his hard work, dedication and the popular recognition. Just like Galileo who was censured for the so-called “bizarre experiments” at that time, nevertheless, he won the Nobel prize years after his death for the same criticized work. The famous poet John Keats and the father of Genetics, Gregor Mendel and many more to mention, all received appreciation and recognition after their death. Can you imagine how delighted they would be if they had been there to experience such approval? Thus, the aforementioned claim is implausible and unconvincing.
Ultimately, I respectfully and comfortably can say that we don’t need a musician to die so that we can appreciate his work. If the work is really extraordinary, then it will be applauded by the crowd anyway, fame exists where talent exists.