What­ever can be ex­pres­sed in words can be com­mu­ni­cated much shorter and more to the point through the me­dium of mu­sic be­cause, as dif­fer­ent from the com­mon lan­guage of to­day, mu­sic has the po­ten­tial to in­te­grate space and time, and is there­fore able to de­scribe and ex­plain the world of the in­fi­nite even to the phi­loso­phi­cally un­edu­cated mu­sic lover.

The in­ner, com­po­si­tional, for­ma­tive forces of mu­sic are avail­able to speech as well. To­day, how­ever, be­cause the means of outer lin­guis­tic ar­ticu­la­tion are much less cul­ti­vated than the means of mu­si­cal per­form­ance, the physi­ol­ogy of the lar­ynx is un­able to ade­quately carry the thought into the acous­tic field.

More­over, to­day’s lan­guage is not per­fect in that con­tent and form are not in­te­grated in a natu­ral man­ner. Due to articulatory simplifications its em­pha­sis is there­fore on se­man­tics.
The ex­tent of this shift is shown by the ex­is­tence of words which sound quite dif­fer­ently in dif­fer­ent lan­guages but which mean one and the same thing. So, the struc­ture of a word has hardly any re­la­tion to its con­tent, its mean­ing any­more.

When lis­ten­ing to speech we pre­domi­nantly pay at­ten­tion to its mean­ing and not to its struc­ture; there­fore it can fur­ther­more be found that, due to our lack of prac­tice in struc­tural hear­ing, the pho­netic struc­ture of speech has, for our pre­sent in­tel­lec­tual abil­ity to dif­fer­en­ti­ate, an unpro­por­tionately high flow of in­for­ma­tion which can not be mas­tered so quickly.

To­day, there­fore, we com­pre­hend the spo­ken word pre­domi­nantly through the un­der­stand­ing – and even then, only with a very re­stricted, rather cate­gori­cal mean­ing – and al­most not at all through the feel­ing.
And yet, eve­ry word we speak is also full of emo­tional con­tent which is re­lated to our in­ner de­sires, our in­ner will, and our very per­sonal mo­ti­va­tions, and which we lay into our words to give them greater em­pha­sis to achieve spe­cific ends.

In gen­eral. how­ever, the abil­ity to dif­fer­en­ti­ate on the level of our feel­ing is only lit­tle de­vel­oped, and only very few peo­ple are able to suc­cess­fully ap­ply it in the field of speech.
So, to­day one is used to speak mostly about things which do not carry emo­tional con­tents of their own, e.g. tech­ni­cal equip­ment, tech­ni­cal proc­esses – the en­tire sphere of ma­te­rial life.

That is why an emo­tional com­pre­hen­sion of the col­lo­quial lan­guage is al­most not worth­while to­day, and there­fore man has also not learned to ar­ticu­late and to com­mu­ni­cate from the level of feel­ing in a dif­fer­en­ti­ated lan­guage.