James Tobin wrote:

>The notion of music as a language began when someone called music the
>"language of the emotions." Some music is eloquently expressive of some
>emotions, many of us would agree, at least for those within a common
>cultural community (an international one.) Perhaps if we speak of music
>as--in part--a form of nonverbal communication, rather than as a language,
>then the linguistic objections would fall away.  (Others will arise, I
>know.)

Mr. Tobin is using the language concept as a metaphor- language
communicates and music communicates something. Few would object. To push
the "music is a language" concept as a literal statement seems fruitless.
Even if music can be plausibly shown to be a language by some definition of
language, what is gained? Reductionism is a powerful approach in science,
because there is a payoff in understanding. I can imagine no similar payoff
from reducing music to a language.

Rossini is quoted as saying that he could set a menu to music- or some
such.Maybe so, but I bet that he would not be able to use his setting to
order breakfast.

Bernard Chasan