What is Musicality?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me, that Monk was more interested in chord structure and chord changes, which he hammered out with aplomb, whereby his timing often made for a desired tension between his playing and his rythm section. An effect which to me always seemed an essential part of his "musicality".
Yes, he could be very fast indeed, but when he was, to me he did not seem to care much for his phrasing usually. As I said, to my understanding his emphasys were on his timing and his chords, which he put beneath the melodic lines provided by his co-players.

Detlof,

Monk was most interested in composition and the spontaneous interplay of musicians afforded by live performances. He allowed the creative process to take care of things.

I have seen many clips of Monk, saw him live once, though I had no idea what I was seeing .
Art Tatum was great, I just think Tristano must of went to school on Bach because he had that same quality of balance is which first thing I notice, or try to, in musicianship.
It seems to me, as lowly listener, music is like most things in life, talent is great but for most of us its a question of whether you do/did your homework or not.

Monk was a true genius. A true original; and like many geniuses, he was eccentric and this was reflected in his music. Underneath the eccentricism was a bipolar disorder that would eventually lead to his withdrawal from performance altogether. The genius of Monk's playing was in his ability to somehow make so many of the usual "musical taboos" swing and be musical. Like Detlof said, he often hammered chords on the piano instead of aiming for tasteful and well balanced voicings. The voicings he used were often very dissonant and he loved to lace his improvised melodic lines with dissonant major and minor seconds. Rhythmically, he didn't play with the usual smooth and suave sense of swing of many players and instead played with a rather "square", angular and fragmented rhythmic sense with accents in unexpected and unusual places in a phrase. Yet, it all swung like mad somehow.

The subject of his technical ability was equally eccentric. He studied classical piano and could play Liszt and Chopin so one can assume that he had some real chops in spite of whatever physical limitations he may have had. He loved Stravinsky and Bartok and I think this influence was reflected in his playing. However, his musical vision was not about technical flash. His musical compositions are unquestionably some of the greatest in the "Standards" repertoire and like his playing it is easy to recognize them as Monk tunes for their originality and individualistic stamp. Oh, and like his music, he was original in the way he dressed :-)

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xAz_t2Ybvmc

Hello Frogman,
I completely agree with your take on T. Monk,"swung like mad somehow" absolutely right! When I first developed an interest in jazz, Oscar Peterson was a major portion of my listening.As my exposure.knowledge and involvement grew ever deeper into jazz, my admiration for Monk increased. I find Monk far more interesting,emotional enjoyable and engaging than Peterson. This is by no means a knock on Peterson but Monk's playing(and compositions) just move me to a higher degree. Pure subjectivity I realize.
Charles,