Is Music a Language?—part 6

                    Is Music a Language?—part 6

           Giving the music part of music a label that is inclusive of all that it “is” and is capable of doing to the whole-life of the individuals who encounter it is problematic. However, I believe that music, as an art form, is “meta” and the term metalanguage   may be used, more or less effectively, to explain that music is characteristically self-referential in that it has power within itself to communicate understandable meaning to the performer and the auditor.

          So, as I have mentioned in my writings and lectures many times, music is at least analogous to a language in that it is capable of communicating meaning and that the meaning it communicates is understandable to those who encounter it.  Although the music part of music i.e. music alone does not communicate verbally, it does non-verbally, and that since the time of Plato and Aristotle, various music philosophers have contended that music’s communication has the power to effect the whole- life of everyone who encounters it. Furthermore, the notion that the music part of music is not capable of communicating anything at all is a Johnny-come-lately theory that is not supported with conclusive evidence that music is a weak and benign art form without any ability to communicate anything at all, or that it has its own meaning that does not relate to life outside of music’s closed bubble.