I haven't had a chance to give a thoughtful continuation in this thread. One thing I've been meaning to interject is the intended meaning of ego. I don't think ego in the conventional sense is required to be skillful at most things, particularly artistic endeavors. In fact, I believe it's quite the opposite. Stars may develop egos, and superstars in particular use ego almost as a business tool. But ego, as in awareness of self, dissolves when an artist is performing, playing/singing/painting/dancing/... Most people have this experience at some point, but fail to acknowledge it. It's the same thing that happens when you are totally engrossed in a book or movie, or fine piece of music. You disappear for a time. It's fantastic.
Somewhere back in the origin of this thread, I had intended ego as an inviolable contrast to what would seem more preferable, or desirable, and that is a truly shared experience. I was feeling, or had recently felt at that time, something intensely wonderful and was regretting the fact that, while I could describe it to someone, while I could imagine someone hearing the same sounds experiencing something similar, there was no way, there is no way, there can be no way to for two people to completely share one experience. It's even less true for that experience that is surely jumping into everyone's mind. That is, ironically, one of the most isolating experiences possible, despite the minimum requirement of two people. That closeness, incredible as it can seem, is the greatest distance measured by man.