music and language

Kant says music "plays merely with sensations".

ok i'm no expert on music or music theory... so the most i can do is theorycraft.

well i tink intuitively, music does more than just play with sensations. well some ppl claim that music is sensations. like this guy called 
Schopenhauer: "Music does not express this or that particular and definite pleasure, this or that afflictionk pain, sorrow, horror, gaiety, merriment, or peace of mind, but joy, pain, sorrow, horror, gaiety, merriment, peace of mind themselves, to a certain extent in their abstract nature." and i guess music with all its movements etc etc does present some kind of argument. like thesis, antithesis, synthesis... yea and the fact that it has the power to 
change moods arguably more so than any other art form should be worth noting (of course, i hv no evidence, but it sounds right ya). and i guess that to some extent, music is a language in itself. ive always wondered
how everyone seems to hv some kind of music scale built into them. like u
can tell music from noise. ok i dun tink this extends to tone deaf ppl, but by
virtue of the fact tt tone deaf ppl exist, it implies that the majority is NOT tone deaf.

of course, music also soothes the savage beast..

yea, anw we cant say that the genius of like mozart, beethoven, chopin, and others both playing the piano and not are simply "playing with sensations". but heres an interesting question. i tink its kinda been implied thus far
that music referred to instrumental music, and not like mainstream music as we know it today. music nowadays has lyrics. is it still music? 
or is it poetry? i tink the line blurs sumwhere. obviously we'd have to call
it music or those emo kids wld emo more.. but i guess its actually closer to lyric poetry. which was poetry set to music, and not like the other way round. the problem with this is that it raises alot more questions. what is 
a capella? is it music or poetry or neither? 

uh well, i tink i'd like to show another side of it and kinda cop out of this whole issue. how bout music (in the modern, conventional sense) in a foreign language? well its not jus like, vocal music with oohs and aahs, because the latter doesnt mean anything. arguably, music with lyrics in a foreign language doesnt mean anything to you either. however, the very fact that it has a syntax that it must obey, and semantic laws and what not, means that there has been a system imposed on it, so even if u dun understand what it means, u arguably understand what its trying to get at. well aside from being able to discern the meaning of the lyrics from the tone of the piece, i'd like to believe that even individual words carry meaning. what are words? arbitrary signs that signify something real, even something abstract. how are how these words felt determined by what they are signifying? well, leaving aside pictorial languages (i noe theres a proper term ok, i jus cant rmb wat) like chinese and ancient egyptian, languages like english, french, german, malay, whatnot, make use of an alphabet, with arugably each letter requiring a specific pronunciation. ok so well and good. well we also kinda see that the sounds of words are in a way affected
by what they are signifying. like "kill" is alot more forceful than "heal".. 
etc etc. the point is that the phonological texture of words carry meaning in 
themselves. how does this tie in to music? well, it means that even if you 
dont understand it, u can definitely appreciate it. perhaps its also better when
you dont understand it, because u arguably get to the soul of it, rather than 
being distracted by the words. arguably this doesnt work if like, emo lyrics r put into classical music, but thats just weird.its making modern music into 
classical (if i maybe so bold to call it so) music. hm. well obviously this needs 
much more thought,but i tink the idea of music, the importance of music, how
language is involved in music, and the exact relation of the two should be 
considered.... uh. when u hv insomnia or smth. cheers ^^