From the perspective of Ordinary Language, music lacks the core element that is required for a "language." Not that the term "language" can't be expanded metonymically to refer to the musical experience, but language requires a picture or image to be conceptualized that is a mutually shared conceptualization. It's difficult to imagine music producing a "picture" in any ordinary sense, much less the same picture in any sense that is communicative among all those who share the "language." One might argue that they "perceive" a "waterfall," but the perception is strictly appetitive and not really of a true waterfall, but an imagined one. Again, this isn't to deny that music can be evocative, but it is not of words which are the symbols of thought. The evocation is appetitive, not ratiocinative. Thus, despite metonymic analogies, music is its own sui generis, and not ordinary language as we usually think of it. Stephen Heersink San Francisco [log in to unmask]