I believe it obvious that censoring explicit language in music is a form of art censorship. I think anyone that argues the contrary is foolish for thinking that this isn't censorship. Songs have been ruined by the censorship in the past, but it is often done for radio, which rightfully so, is losing power.
It is definitely a form of censorship, regardless of if you think it is justified. Regardless, censorship is almost always a bad thing. Still, the most obvious point to make is that censorship of the language is absurd, largely because the way it is censored people already know what word is being said.
When you consider the visual art forms, they don't involve language but can be explicit nevertheless. When we decide to keep a piece of art from public exhibits due to explicit content, we generally call it censorship. Music is an art form that can involve the use of language. When it is barred from being heard due to explicit language, then it is censorship.
It doesn't matter through what medium the censorship occurs. If the state is telling people what they can and cannot say, that is censorship. Music is undoubtedly an art form, so it most certainly falls under the category of art censorship. Not much else to say about this, it's pretty black and white censorship.
When radio stations and other broadcast outlets censor out explicit language from songs and videos, listeners or viewers can often figure out what the word is supposed to be anyway. Such censoring might dull down the power of the art in question, but without such censorship, that music might not have a chance to be heard anyway. As long as such censorship does not extend to private copies of music, the art is still in a pure form and accessible to fans.