What does it mean to be “good” at something?<\/p>\n

Okay, well, for instance: Currently, I can find no better way to express myself than through music. And being some sort of artist-type person, I like to pretend I can play the guitar, and I like to think I am reasonably skilled in writing, as far as jotting random philosophical thoughts down on an internet blog. However, I am not a musician, nor am I a songwriter, so the results of my labored sonnetry are completely inadequate. And so, because of this, I often wish I was “good” at songwriting, and also playing instruments.<\/p>\n

Alright, now alternately, the Elton John\/Bernie Taupin team has been writing music and lyrics for songs since 1967<\/a>, and have put out arguably good material for almost as long. I can probably say without too much critique that, other than the regular singles from each album, most of the songs Taupin writes are pretty bad. I mean, purposeless and meaningless, and full of empty words. John is a gifted musician, and Taupin is definitely a gifted wordsmith, but he uses his gift to just…write music (and make gads of money). If something you’re “good at” isn’t used to its full potential, it really manges to go to waste, doesn’t it? Suddenly, despite being “good” at something, the outcome of that something can be bad.<\/p>\n

So now for the token question: Is it better to be really “good” at doing, or making, or being something<\/em>, and have a less-than-adequate product as a result; or is it better to be that guy singin’ off-key on his poorly-tuned instrument to badly-timed chord repetitions at your local coffeehouse, but actually meaning what he’s singing, and making you tear up anyway?<\/p>\n

I’m making a point here. Obviously, it’s possible to be both. Elton is a bad example.<\/p>\n

<\/a>