the difference between being technically good and musically good

[oldy]

Hi folks, I'm Tom and I'm a student at University of York in England studying English Language. In the summer I passed my grade 6 piano - therefore obviously I'm no virtuoso but I would consider myself a technically good player. And therein lies the problem - to practise and play a piece well doesn't feel musically fulfilling when compared to improvisational skills and sight reading, my ability at the latter being just about okay and at the former mediocre. The case is the same with piano composition.
Is it fair to feel that I'm not musically rounded if I don't possess these skills? I guess I should just start tackling harder pieces in order to fulfil my musical desires, however my practise time is extreamly limited at the moment.
I apologise if I haven't phrased things adequatly or coherantly, I would be interested to hear people's thoughts on this.

[faulty_damper]

Oh crap.  My post wouldn't send and I lost it all.  I made a great comparison to Britney Spears, too.

Here's a very short overview of what I wrote.

What makes music interesting is its unpredictability.  Play music in this manner and it will keep someone's attention.

Play it in a predictable manner and you'll lose the sophisticated audience to a bunch of beeboppers.

I said in the lost post that I wouldn't mention how to make music interesting but I'll throw it in because this post is going to be crap without the Britney Spears conparison.  So...

To play musically interesting:

1.  Don't have a predictable beat.  Be flexible.
2.  Don't have a predictable beat when it is very obvious when the next note of the melody should come down.
3.  Make sure to accent the downbeat.
4.  Make sure to stress notes.
5.  Vary dynamics when necessary.

These are just a few tips.  There are many more.  Also, avoid overinterpretation.  That means utilizing the tips above in inappropriate places.  Keep in mind that many composers' music is already written in an unpredictable manner using techniques such as syncopation, dynamic markings and gradations, and expressive markings.

[faulty_damper]

Now for addressing your specific concerns,

"Is it fair to feel that I'm not musically rounded if I don't possess these skills? "

I can't sightread to save my mother's life.

Music isn't about reading notes.

I can't improvise well enough to get a girl in bed with me.

I can't compose either but there are hundreds of composers who have written enough good music to help me get laid.

[mosis]

Now for addressing your specific concerns,

"Is it fair to feel that I'm not musically rounded if I don't possess these skills? "

I can't sightread to save my mother's life.

Music isn't about reading notes.

I can't improvise well enough to get a girl in bed with me.

I can't compose either but there are hundreds of composers who have written enough good music to help me get laid.

That is absolutely hilarious.

To the topic creator, here's a nice way to think about it. Being a great *** means you have excellent technique. Making love that lasts is having excellent musicality.

[anda]

you can be very musical without having a good technique - they are not bound. however, a poor technique will stop you from learning some works you might really love and want to play. technique is a "tool" any pianist should own, and the better it is, the more you can focus on the music and you can play more relaxed. so, work on your technical problems, the ones required by the specific works you want to play and feel like you can't.