They might not have been intricate as some of her competitive programs and did not feature many jumps, but the sheer beauty, the expression and connection to the music, her (excuse the cliche) ability to take the audience on an emotional journey with her--all this was made possible or at very least facilitated by the superb control permitted by her mastery of the blade. She (and Kurt, for that matter) could really interpret and emote and do so many interesting things precisely because they can control their edges so well.
Technical mastery is indeed a prerequisite to expression and performance on ice. People often like to think of technique and expression as two discrete fields, with some skaters proficient in one and not the other, but I like to think of the two as inextricably bound. A program comes down to a laundry list of point-garnering elements woven into the artistic fabric of choreography. My distinction between a skater who performs well and one who can barely express comes down to exactly how well the entire bundle is put together - not just how well a skater can act a character in between scored elements, but the integration of every bit of the program. The elements themselves are embedded into the story-telling that unfolds as jumps accentuate beats, spiral sequences establish a stirring climax and spins set the tone. Stellar skating with deep edges, effortless crossing and curving and quick generation of speed can also set the mood. The greatest, most moving skates have been delivered in their entirety - with every single movement on ice building into the delivery.
Now this can be done by only the most skilled technicians. Michelle Kwan and Kurt Browning are perhaps two of the best possible examples possible because there isn't a single part to their skating that one could call a flaw. At their best, they transcend the judging.
For me, at least, a program that breaks apart fails to be a piece of art anymore. It degenerates into a contest of skills. It's like I come to realize that scores are being attached to these elements and that's when the elements fail to serve an artistic purpose.
What elevates a program to greatness is the perfection I've mentioned above (the one that allows programs to transcend technical bounds) and the emotions expressed by the skaters themselves (something that comes within). Of course, every move is learned and I'm sure choreographers teach their skaters just how they should feel on this part and that, but the addition of the skater's own emotions make moments particularly special (Lyra Angelica Nationals vs. Nagano). So for me, a program is essentially a learned piece with embedded elements and what makes a good skate is the perfect technical execution of it, complete with expression of the choreographer's projected vision (the right emotional outbursts at the right time) and, to add to that, to really make it special, an emotional input from the skater himself.
Well that's enough with my digression. To bring it all back to musicality, I don't see how other posters are detecting this "innate understanding of the music." That seems all very vague and subjective. Perhaps I've yet to train my neophyte's eye, but all I see is well-practiced choreography. I'm guessing some posters are referring to the "nuances" of a program - something that sets these "naturally musical" skaters apart from the rest of the pack - you know, a special tilt to one's head here or a wonderfully extended hand here, but I don't see how that's not choreography as well. It just comes across as better executed choreography. I see beautiful and better use of the body, but nothing that can't be taught by a skilled choreographer. If musicality is to imply an innate understanding of the music, how can a skater express this to learned choreography if he faithfully abides by what's prescribed (no clear improvisation)? Couldn't it just be a better understanding of what the choreographer wants? I would understand if a judgment on musicality was reached after a show of improvisation (with completely new music), but how can one judge what's innate and not when the material one's given to begin with is not the product of the skater but the choreographer? Yes, it is the skater who must make the choreography his/hers, but the interpretation of the music itself is the choreographer's. About the talk of being more "natural" in the use of body and face, how is that not more a judgment on one's bodily abilities? Some skaters are gifted with better and more fluid control of one's body, while others move more gracefully on ice because they have been trained in different dances, like ballet or jazz. How can you conclude that these more "natural" movements are not themselves a product of learned effort?
In other words, how do you determine what's a show of innate understanding of the music and what's a better show of technique - a more graceful and balletic way to position one's arms or to skate across the ice with fluidity? I sure can't tell them apart.
I don't mean to be aggressive with my questions. I just don't understand how everyone is deciding who's musical and who's not, except with the more obvious cases of skaters who are definitely miles away from musicality since they barely even listen to the music and just skate through it. I mean, if I had to choose, I would definitely put Daisuke as a musical skater because he melts into the music and lets everything come together to express it, but another poster says his musical expression is forced. Really. I just don't understand.
Well, now, please don't condescend (e.g. look here at THIS skate. The difference is OBVIOUS). I look forward to someone who will kindly elucidate on how they detect this innate musicality. I've been able to follow discussions on artistry and everything technical, but musicality still greatly confounds me.
.
p) 
.
