Sometimes it's hard to differentiate quality from personal preference. There are a whole lot of folks who are outstanding songwriters, but I'm not interested in their songs. There ARE some horrible songs by songwriters who think they can't do anything wrong who may not edit and may not listen to feedback. They might be nice people who just don't ask for or get good, honest advice. There are songs with dumb lyrics, mixed tenses, awkward rhymes, or nearly incomprehensible ideas. Those songs normally don't last long. If they do, we make fun of them mercilessly, so they're still of some value.

As to what I believe and what I like...
A good songwriter writes good songs. Cleverness that seems intended to garner attention for itself isn't impressive to me. I love poetry and imagery in songs IF it helps further the meaning and impact of the ideas in the song.

I believe "method acting" involves becoming one with the role - you get into the head of the person you're playing. Jerry's verse above is a good example, as is Rick Fielding's 'Angus Frasier'. If there's action, you have to see yourself in the scene.

The type of songs I like don't tell you what to think or feel. They show you. As a result, you might come up with a completely unexpected take on the song, but 1) thinking helps make a song enjoyable, and 2) if a person's able to interpret the song his way, there's a lot more chance it will mean something to him. It's hard to explain what I mean if you don't understand. It's the difference between painting a picture with words and describing it. I sing a song that contains "looking out seaward on molten gold." It sounds a whole lot more interesting than "the sun was shining on the water."