With­out exhausting its in­ner breath, mu­sic to­day is much more suc­cess­ful in bring­ing the flow of in­for­ma­tion to a level where our lan­guage would bor­der on the gro­tesque. Thus, mu­sic can com­mu­ni­cate even to the sim­ple lis­tener on the level of his feel­ing and un­der­stand­ing si­mul­ta­ne­ously.

Here, we find a prac­ti­cal su­pe­riority of mu­sic to the lan­guage of to­day. Whereas hu­man lan­guage pre­domi­nantly op­er­ates flatly and with categoric mean­ings to convey in­for­ma­tion, mu­sic has the di­men­sion of the mani­foldly struc­tured mu­si­cal sound-space at its dis­posal.

There­fore, mu­sic al­lows for a far greater ca­pac­ity of in­for­ma­tion, a far greater den­sity of in­for­ma­tion than our lan­guage. Be­sides, mu­sic takes into ac­count the men­tal-spiri­tual, ana­lyti­cal abil­ity of to­day’s man.

Just as a pic­ture is com­pre­hended much more ac­cu­rately and in­com­para­bly faster – more di­rectly – through the sense of sight than through a verbal de­scrip­tion of the pic­ture, a truth may be com­mu­ni­cated much more pre­cisely and faster through the me­dium of mu­sic than through the spo­ken word.

The value of hu­man speech, as com­pared to the lan­guage of mu­sic, de­mands a pro­found in­ves­ti­ga­tion.