This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Why and how is this article's lead too short? How should it be lengthened? Hyacinth (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The article does not clearly state what its purpose is. What is here dubbed "aspect", if I understand the intention correctly, could as well (or better) be named "parameter" of music.
The article should probably begin at a more abstract level, differenciating aspects (or parameters) that could be said "quantitative" from others, "qualitative". Similar differenciations have been made by Curt Sachs ("logogenic"/"pathogenic", in The Rise of Music in the Ancient World), by Leonard Meyer ("syntactic" or "primary"/"parametric" or "secundary", in several of his writings), and by others.
This distinction probably relates to the semiotic categories of "discrete" vs "continuous": while pitch or duration can be discretized, other aspects, such as timbre or tempo, probably cannot.
I see no reason why dastgah (Persian music) should appear in this article. All what is said here of dastgah could be said in almost identical terms of maqâm, or even of Occidental medieval church modes. All this belongs to an article on modes.
The paragraph on "Universal aspect" uses the term in a different meaning: universality, if it exists, cannot be described merely as an "aspect" of music. In any case, considerations of the universals and how they may exist in music belong to another article -- or else I misunderstood the purpose of this particular article.
The fact is that the word aspect does not seem to be common in scholarly litterature on music with the meaning apparently given to it in this article -- and which should at least be made explicit in the lead.