As I explained above, Wittgenstein tells us that we understand music and language in similar ways. Although we frequently use understanding language as a framework to compare how we understand music, he suggests that it should really be the other way around. Thus in attempting to understand how we devise a framework for understanding either we should look to music before we look to language. What Wittgenstein explains is that understanding music is more a pure process than coming to understand language because of the latter's complications with outside referents. With language, we are required to have these outside referents from which we are able to determine meaning and are able to communicate.
Music has no such easily detectable referents and thus is disqualified as a language.
Anthony Storr even goes so far as to ask what the use is of music. We put music into terms that can only apply to language and of course music comes up short. But it does not seem fair to condemn it on those bases when we begin to examine its relation to our emotive responses. As I mentioned above, Aristotle tells us that music is mimetic or imitative. We very often seem to have trouble providing words for our emotive responses to various things.