neptune1bond

Oh, and I almost forgot, learn to give an actual fair assessment of your performance and abilities. Whatever you tell yourself is what you will believe, and what you believe is what will become your reality! Notice how professionals NEVER come out of a performance saying,"Oh I suck! That was horrible! I made a mistake at this place and on this song! I'm so embarrassed! Blah, blah, blah, etc., etc., etc."? That isn't just a habit that they developed when they felt they were "there", it's usually something that they always did. It's called confidence, and you need to develop it in yourself! If you practice being a failure (even in what you say) then you'll get really good at being a failure and you will always be a failure. If you practice being a winner who believes in himself/herself then that is what you'll get good at! There is no place for failure mentality in a professional. Whatever you believe WILL become your reality! But, even if you are telling yourself inwardly that you never make mistakes and that you play perfectly and that you are very good, don't say it out loud to others! You don't want to come across as an arrogant jerk either. This is the secret of a professional. You need to be able to be as positive as possible in your mind and always tell yourself positive things (and only give yourself criticism that is helpful. So, never say"I suck", but be willing to recognize "I need to make that one passage cleaner and more even". Notice that the criticism was constructive, but not negative? Never be down on yourself, but be a perfectionist and don't settle for second-best!), but you also need to avoid coming across as arrogant TO OTHERS. Be totally humble but confident to others, but be OVERLY positive to yourself while always improving and growing. That's the secret. A person who can do all this will do very well.

I have to agree with a lot of the things that have been said, but I must politely disagree with some things as well. Just as with anything, practice makes perfect! You need to practice playing in front of people as much as you would need to practice your scales, arpeggios, and that difficult spot in the thirteenth bar of page three of the song that you're working on. If you don't practice performing, you will never get any better at it. But, just like when you practice your songs, you can't just play through it (or get through the performance) and actually call it practice. Just like how you can make your mistakes a habit by playing the same mistakes without correcting them, you can also make all of your bad performance problems a habit as well. Then you are, in essence, practicing bad habits into permanency, and how horrible is that? Although the butterflies will probably never fully go away (and will eventually be the very thing that drives the energy in your performance), you need to start changing the way you approach stage fright or you'll continue to do it again and again. For one thing (and this is where I disagree with what has been said), I would not ever recognize the stage fright! You are trying to convince yourself that you are not afraid! The more you continue to remind yourself that you are afraid, the more it becomes habit to be afraid in those situations and the more your subconcious will respond accordingly. You should actually be telling yourself again and again that,"I never worry or get anxious when I perform. I never make mistakes. I am always calm and collected. Nothing about performing in front of others actually worries or affects me in any way." If you keep telling yourself that over and over everytime you perform (even if you don't feel it for the first while), that is eventually what you will believe and your subconcious will start to go along with it as well. Believe me when I say that this is probably the most important thing you can do (next to practicing performing in the first place). Also, start practicing putting EVERY LAST OUNCE of focus and energy where it belongs, ON YOUR MUSIC! Do not give any of your focus or energy to the people watching. Put every last corner of your mind to your music so that there isn't even a smidgen of focus or energy left to put towards the stage fright or even worrying about what the audience is doing. In fact, if you do this correctly, your awareness of the audience will go away completely! If any part of your mind is even aware that the audience is there, then you are distracted and that is going to (of course) cause mistakes! Don't get distracted! All that exists is the music! It takes practice to get good at this skill, you may not be able to do it the first time. But if you keep at it, then you will find that you will go on stage, acknowledge the audience (as is proper), forget that they exist as you play (don't even look at them! It's like an actor playing a part, he can't be glancing out at the audience every two seconds. They don't even exist! Only you and your fellow musicians are there as far as you are concerned), and then you will acknowledge them at the end. Also, practice performing by playing at retirement homes! They are a fantastic place to practice these skills. Those people are rarely very critical AT ALL (in fact, they're usually very appreciative to have anyone at all come and play), and half of them can't hear you that well and might even fall asleep halfway through anyways. Not to mention you're providing a very good service to the community. Those people love to have visitors and don't have the absolute highest of expectations to begin with (they often will get little 6 year old beginners come and play, and although it's cute, they really do appreciate someone who can play something more difficult than "The Crawling Catterpillar" even with mistakes). When you've practiced the right skills and get good at them, then you'll find that it will be very little differenceto go from playing in front of your friends and family, to playing on the side of the street, to playing at the concert hall at the local university, to playing at a sold-out concert on tour, to playing at carnegie hall, to playing in front of a television audience of millions. The skills apply in the same way!

1. I'm trying to figure out the modern (academic) treatment of tall chords (chords with the 7th, 9th, 11th, and 13th added or any combination thereof) in TONAL music. Is there a point in history where the great classical composers stopped caring so much about the chordal 7th? My textbooks say that the chordal seventh should almost always resolve down by step (except when the major seventh occurs as the result of a suspension from the previous chord, in which case it can resolve upwards, or it is treated differently in some voice leading circumstances), but is there a point where composers stopped using chordal sevenths as a dissonant tone that had to be treated with such care and it became more or less equal with the other tones of the basic triad and could move any direction or even leap away (in classical music, not jazz)? If so, for stylistic accuracy and my own edification, when in history did this happen (if you know)? Did the dominant 7th ever achieve this status as well? When writing chordal 7ths (of all types) in modern tonal music, should I still resolve chordal 7ths carefully with the main exceptions only occuring when I have some other specific reason or purpose in doing it differently if I want to be academically correct? 2. Also, I've learned that all other chord extensions (the 9th, 11th, and 13th) should also be treated carefully if they are part of a functioning harmony and should almost always resolve downwards as well. Is this true if one desires to be academically correct? Or should I be allowed to go upwards and leap away in a modern tonal context? Or should I just USUALLY resolve down as the most general rule and only do differently when I have a reason or purpose in doing so? Does anyone know when tall chords started to become common to use so that I might have the knowledge to remain stylistically correct as to the musical era on this as well? 3. In addition, I have questions about the treatment of tall chords contrapuntally. When you have strings of chordal 7ths, it becomes more difficult to avoid parallel 5ths, but I know that you are still, nonetheless, expected to do so. When you have chords that ALSO contain the 9th, 11th, or 13th, and then you have one tall chord after another, the task of maintaining a complete lack of parallel 5ths starts to seem somewhat daunting and excessive. Academically, am I still expected to do this and I'm just being lazy? Or is there a point where composers using tall chords in a TONAL context literally just said "ah, screw it" and stopped caring so much about parallel 5ths? Again, (if you know) about when did this happen historically? 4. As far as the treatment of tall chords in arranging goes, I have another question. Obviously the standard 4-part writing becomes insufficient to articulate all the tones of a complete 9th chord (and above). If you are going back and forth between tall chords and 7th chords or triads, can you literally "add a voice or two or three" for the taller chords and then simply have that voice/those voices collapse into just 4 voices again for the triads and seventh chords so that you don't have to deal with writing 5-part, 6-part, and 7-part harmony on triads? Or is the temporary occurence and elimination of the extra voice/voices considered an academic immortal sin? Speaking of which, my understanding is that you are still expected to avoid parallels in 5-part harmony and up, but that contrary 5ths and octaves (consecutive 5ths and octaves that come about as a result of contrary motion rather than parallel motion) become permissable. Is this true? Any answers to any part of this will be much appreciated, even if you cannot answer all of it. Thank you guys so much for any help you can give or any knowledge that you can share. Also, if you happen to know of any texts that extensively cover the most modern treatment of tonal harmony and/or counterpoint (rather than treating it as some sort of side-note or only devoting a chapter or two) that actually answers these and similar questions about the modern treatment of tonal music, then please let me know. But please include the title and the author so that I can easily find it when I search for it for purchase. Also, please keep in mind that my questions are regarding the classical treatment (rather than the jazz treatment) of these things. (Also, please no generic responses of "there are no rules, do whatever you want" or "follow your ear". I'm asking from the academic "correctness" standpoint, and I'm aware that I can do whatever I want in my own music.)

The question is whether or not he intended FM7 and just put F7 as a figured bass-type symbol without realizing the confusion that might be caused. If not, then the chord could simply be an occurance of passing tones. An incidental or embellishing-type chord. (F moves up by step, A, C, and Eb move down and voila! G major chord with the Eb as a chromatic passing tone from the E from the previous C dominant chord. Even though the C7 seems to point to the F as a functioning chord, the voice leading could derail our expectations and therefor make the movement to G viable.)

What is the title of the Hindemith? I could find the Reicha, but not the Hindemith.

Composers write the music. Arrangers take the basic outline of a composition and flesh it out into something (more) interesting. Orchestrators take a composition and arrange it for a particular ensemble (for band, or orchestra, or for lead guitar, rhythm guitar, and bass guitar, for example). Songwriters usually are composers that write popular music or music that is meant to be sung (so, most pop, rock, country, and sometimes musical theater). Lyricists write the words to songs (and are usually more accomplished poets than your basic songwriter). Recording engineers oversee the recording process in the studio and perform all of the technical work of mixing the parts and creating a decent recording. Mastering engineers take what the recording engineers do and finalize the product so that it sounds professional and ready for mass production. The producer is the "boss" over the whole project and oversees the whole thing from beginning to end as well as hiring all professionals needed and giving the final o.k. on every step of the process. And of course, don't forget that you might need musicians and vocalists (or rappers) to perform the work. Many times one person can perform multiple jobs. The composer will often compose, arrange, and orchestrate his own music. A lot of songwriters will write their own lyrics. A producer will sometimes compose the song himself/herself or even do everything including composing, arranging, orchestrating, lyric writing, performing, recording, mastering, mass producing, and distributing. When choosing professionals, first consider budget, then consider the capabilities of each individual that you hire and whether or not they are to your standards or another professional might be required. Always ask to hear their work (and not just one example of their work but many) and if, for example, you absolutely love the music that a songwriter creates but you are not too crazy about his lyrics, then consider hiring a lyricist too. If someone gets uppety or offended because you want another professional to do something that they also do, then DON'T HIRE THEM. This is your project, not theirs, and if they cannot be a professional and perform the job that is required then they do not deserve your business. Remember that people who spread their skills too thin are not always as skilled as someone who specializes, although this isn't always the case (lyricists study writing more seriously, so they commonly write better words then a songwriter who practises composition AND lyric writing, though as I said, this isn't always the case). Remember that you need to budget for the ENTIRE project and need to consider every step of the process BEFORE you begin. Always overplan your expenses. There is nothing worse then putting out thousands of dollars to get to the last couple of steps and find that the project cannot be finished because you didn't budget appropriately.

It seems to me that commonly most notes that depart and return to the same chord tone that are more than a second away are chordal skips and not neighboring tones, unless that tone is dissonant which is not commonly done before extended and post tonality, or at least not that I'm aware of. When you get to extended and post tonality, though, just about anything goes so rules and labels (like neighboring tone) are a bit superfluous if you ask me.

Whoops! Meant "Texture Clarification"! Oh well... I'm studying privately and I want to clarify some questions I have about texture so that I can make sure that I sound like I have a clue when speaking with other musicians. From my understanding: Monophonic=a single melodic line Homophonic=Multiple lines, all moving with (basically) the same rhythms Polyphonic=Two or more melodies that lay on top of one another but move independently. I've heard some people say that Homophonic music is also polyphonic when it has good voice leading since each voice in the harmony is moving (mostly) independently in direction and interval even if not rhythmically. Some people have said that they are different things altogether. Which is true? Also I've heard that in a texture when a melody is placed over a chordal accompinament it is not homophonic since all voices do not move together. I've heard that the correct term for this is monody. I've also heard that monody is a term for a specific style in the 17th century and that a melody with chordal accompaniment is still considered homophonic. I've even heard that not only is it not monody and not homophonic, but is rather a less active version of polyphony. Which is true here? If it is true that this texture is considered monody to designate it from a completely homophonic texture. Then, is there a term to designate other types of texture? For example: Choir arrangement in which all voices move together but there is a piano accompaniment (or single voice) that moves independently of the choir although the independent line(s) is/are not the melody. Melody with chordal accompaniment where the melody is not in the soprano or highest voice. Melody and countermelody with chordal background. All voices in chordal background move at the same time. Orchestral arragement with melody and chordal accompaniment that moves in whole (or half) notes, but one or more instruments are also playing arpeggiated or repeated accompanimental patterns that repeat consistantly as to make it completely accompanimental in character rather than melodic. (Is this accompanimental line called an obligato btw?) Any other alternate texture that I am not thinking of? Thank you in advance for your assistance! :D

In the past they had the basso continuo part that was improvised over a figured bass and sometimes musicians would improvise their cadenza although I believe it was more often written out in advance.

I agree. I don't feel like he's even attempted to actually respond to most peoples points (I know he hasn't really responded much to mine), but instead just repeats the same stuff as though it somehow answers everything. I think I'm done wasting my efforts. Maybe I'll try again if he actually attempts to respond to some of my posts a little more thoroughly.

Any halfway decent musician will continually practice and implement all the tools that they have been given for the rest of their life and the really good ones pretty much always do. I really don't think that it would even be remotely realistic to say that the vast majority of educated musicians spend the majority of their time training in tonal music only to completely throw it away and never use it again. Also, your education in tonal harmony may have only consisted of studying and writing a couple chorales and a few counterpoint lessons, but mine was much more involved than that and I continue to study and practice long after I had completed it "formally". Most decent musicians do. So, your hope that the vast majority of trained musicians (especially the ones that use post-tonal theory more extensively) are in some way inept when it comes to tonal practice is still just silly wishful thinking and has absolutely no basis in reality. In addition, if you neglect practicing chromaticism and post-tonality, you will be as inept in those studies as anything that you rarely use or practice. It simply is not practical to say that musicians should train for an endless number of years before they begin experimenting with anything non-diatonic and I would hope that something so impractical would never become standard. Now, since you can admit that music is man-made and there is no natural or universal law for the handling of dissonances but still intend on this "apply natural and universal laws to your music" concept, then let me try a different approach. There are many things in nature that spend more time in consistent "tension" than relaxed, even if some may eventually come to a state of relaxation. Take, for instance, gravity. A constant force pulling against every person, place, or thing that exists on this earth. In this case, there is practically no "relief" from this constant force enacting upon you and me. Take the sun, it remains in a constant state of ignition and intense burning fury at a temperature that is so powerful that it would vaporize you in an instant and scientists estimate that it has been burning for 4.5 billion years and is only 1/3 through it's life cycle. Every atom that exists is in constant vibration at any temperature except for absolute zero and scientists believe that absolute zero does not exist anywhere and most possibly cannot be created in a lab. Almost all life on this planet is in a constant fight for survival, whether it be the search for food, the pursuit of procreation, the constant beating of your heart, or even the repairing process that takes place while you sleep. Your body is simply never at complete rest until you die. An object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force (in other words, moving objects will never come to rest until another unbalanced force acts upon it!). Even the universe is constantly expanding with planets and stars constantly pulling and crashing and burning and spinning and engulfing in/at/around/out of/towards/away from/etc. one another. The fact of the matter is that the universe/cosmos/nature is in constant upheaval and chaos in an uncountable number of ways. And even if these "tensions" do eventually release, nonetheless, the chaos and tension in many cases far outweighs the release and relaxation. Taking these things into account and the actual tension/relaxation relationship that is found in the universe/nature and trying to follow its example, I would have to say that the dissonance can and should outweigh the consonance the vast majority of the time and, while there should be some amount of consonance, the general rule should be dissonance! Your argument really sounds like it should be in support for chromaticism and post-tonality, rather than against it. Also, although frequent diatonicism can often make chromaticism and more extreme dissonance effective. Most great composers don't even begin to believe that this is the only tool in the tool box. Most composers strive to expand their horizons and change up their approach a little more than that. I really hope that people don't just have one single little formula for composing their music and think that that's all there should be. I also have to ask you why you believe that less chromaticism/dissonance in the midst of mostly diatonic music makes the chromaticism/dissonance more effective, and yet you don't believe that less diatonicism/release in the midst of mostly chromatic/dissonant music will not be just as effective? Introducing anything after having restricted it's use for a period of time can make it sound refreshing, new, and exciting. Sudden consonance after ever-building tension can be just as refreshing, beautiful, and powerful as sudden chromaticism/dissonance in the midst of diatonicism. What reason could there possibly be to avoid this technique if it is equally effective when done well (barring the opinions of someone who cannot personally appreciate it)? And what if I want to express chaos with my music? Are you actually going to try and convince me that overly-consonant music would somehow express chaos better than atonal music ever could? Merry Christmas to you too! :D

??? I almost feel that you didn't bother to read my whole post or to respond to the concept as a whole, but I guess that I can't help that. You seem to have ignored the whole point that I made that dissonance and consonance as well as tension and resolution are based completely on context (to the vast majority of the population) and does not rely on baroque ideals at all. Considering this, any idea you have about acceptable resolution is not a universal one and is therefor only shared by you and maybe a number of musicians that lived hundreds of years ago in the baroque era (and maybe some few others). Considering this, the vast majority of people have a completely different idea than you of what is "natural", "organic", or "in line with the universe." Why should the entire world conform its perception of consonance and dissonance to match yours or a bunch a people who lived hundreds of years ago? Considering the vast majority of people hear resolution where baroque ideals would claim that there can only be tension, how would people now conform to such a thing? Since the majority of the population does not agree with your concept of natural, organic, or universal, should every musician and consumer be forced to submit every written piece or recording to you personally for analysis and approval? If not, then how in the heck would they conform? Should they just try with all their might to think of how baroque musicians might think and only do that with absolutely no further innovation or progress? Should the whole world just come to a complete intellectual and academic halt because you and the baroque musicians demand/demanded it? As for the second part, you completely ignore what expression is all about according to a great number of master artists today as well as artists going back to even before as well as including the baroque era (yes, they are all true artists). The truth is that expression is about communication of emotion. You can never call it expression if you ever-so-conveniently leave out that which is ugly. Anger, pain, and anguish are just as valid emotions as are love, pleasure, and happiness. To only express that which is nice or pleasant isn't very artistic or expressive at all. To ignore half of what it means to be human just because it isn't quite so pretty (to you personally) definitely does not make you an artist. Expression is about all emotion and feeling, not just your favorites. A true artist expresses what is inside and doesn't try to paint it with rose-colored glasses. Dissonance is just as valid as consonance when it comes to expression and artistry. You are also ignoring the fact that a great majority of the world does not necessarily share your religious beliefs or needs, therefor asking the world to only glorify god with their music and nothing else is completely unreasonable and would be wrong. Besides, you are completely ignoring the fact that there are many pieces that the vast majority of the population finds beautiful and pleasing that does not follow baroque musical ideals in the least. Not just jazz/pop/rock/etc., but many classical pieces as well that use chromaticism and 20th century techniques and doesn't sound random at all. Maybe you are confusing all post-tonal music with certain serialistic pieces and just assumed that that is what it is all about? Also, It is only wishful thinking on your part that atonal composers are somehow ignorant to the concepts of tonal harmony. In fact, most educated individuals are required to finish a complete survey of tonal music as it has existed up to and continuing through atonality. Since classes in tonal harmony,counterpoint, orchestration and music history far outweigh the required classes on 20th century techniques for basically all academic institutions in the United States, then if someone failed those classes there is absolutely no way that they are going to give that person a diploma. Not to mention that any musician that expects to have any true understanding of post-tonality as a whole really needs to have a pretty thorough understanding of tonality as well. Any qualified educator that you would ever take lessons from privately will follow these same principals. Remember that "don't" and "can't" are two very separate things and one does not necessarily mean the other. Besides, there are many post-tonal composers that use tonality frequently in their compositions or have written many separate tonal compositions in addition to their post-tonal ones, therefor proving that they are fully capable.

I have a couple of problems with the many weird assumptions that has been made by the creator of this topic. First of all he talks about dissonance in music as perceived by a select group of people that existed hundreds of years ago as being the only correct one and all others as being unnatural or false when people of almost any era have differing views on consonance and dissonance that do not correspond with this one period in history (baroque). The fact is that the "hundreds of years of tradition" do not narrow down to one single use of consonance and dissonance. Composers before the baroque era had many differing views on the subject, as did the composers that followed, and these ideas were constantly evolving throughout the baroque era itself. Even composers in the same era didn't necessarily always agree on everything when it came to the treatment of music (Bach wasn't the only composer in the baroque era, you know). The assumption that one treatment of consonance and dissonance remained "standard" throughout the entire history of western culture or even began anything like how it ended up is simply false. Also the creator of this topic talks about "tension" in music and that a resolution of this "tension" as defined by baroque musicians is consistent with the "laws of the universe", when in reality, the laws of nature and the galaxy/universe do not seem to agree. Take for instance something I had noticed on a hike in the mountains that I had recently taken. I noticed that the wind was whistling through the hollow of a nearby tree creating an A flat/G sharp (approximately). I also noticed another tone coming from somewhere nearby (I couldn't distinguish exactly where from) creating a B flat/A sharp (approximately). This, of course, creates an apparent major second to the human ear which, by baroque standards, would demand resolution. And yet, nature made no attempts whatsoever to resolve this apparent "dissonance." The hollow of the tree neither extended nor contracted to change the interval to a unison/octave/fifth/third/sixth or any other interval of any kind. The other nearby whistling also made no attempts to adjust its pitch to "resolve a dissonance." According to the OP, the laws of the cosmos should have intervened to resolve this apparent "tension", and yet if I went on this same hike on a windy day today, tomorrow, or two years from now the same dissonance would occur without any resolution nor any attempt for resolution (barring human or animal intervention or some natural disaster). The truth is that the universe/galaxies/cosmos/nature does not care about dissonance and consonance in music and these entities never have and never will demand resolution when it occurs. Many sounds in nature will create a perception of dissonance without any attempt to "resolve" itself. This perception of dissonance and consonance is one of humans and possibly some (but most definitely not all!!!) animal species. The apparent "tension" in music is simply a perceived one and does not actually exist in the natural world. In addition, in order for his theory on "natural" dissonance and consonance to make any sense, there would have to be nearly complete conformity amongst most all people in all circumstances, thereby showing some possibility of proof for an inherent "rightness" of consonance as perceived by baroque musicians. The actual fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people (not just in this time but throughout history and probably extending forever into the future) always have and always will perceive consonance and dissonance differently depending on context. Jazz quite commonly uses the same major and minor scales that have been used throughout the history of western music (in addition to some others, like the whole-tone, octatonic, and blues scales). In jazz, the chord of resolution will commonly have an added sixth, seventh, and/or ninth, and yet most people hear a resolution (not just some small portion of the population). These added tones on the chord of resolution also occur fairly frequently in all sorts of contemporary styles including pop/rock/alternative/etc. and yet most people accept it as resolution and a convincing ending with no perception of it being "unfinished" and no further desire for resolution. In fact, in most blues and a great number of jazz pieces, most people would hear a piece ending on a simple triad as being strange or "all wrong" and more "unfinished" than a seventh chord (suggesting that the simple triad has more tension than relaxation in this context), even if this piece was played entirely in the common major and minor modes and used no other scale. Most people can also hear tension and relaxation in many pieces written using 20th century techniques and find the ending to be quite convincing without any need for further resolution. Also, people can very commonly hear the "retrograde" progression in pop music (I-V-IV-I) as a completely convincing ending. The creator of this topic says that pop music is mostly fine and yet most pop will use this retrograde progression as a cadence quite frequently and this would practically never occur in baroque music. In spite of this "unacceptable" progression occurring so frequently, no one hears this as any sort of a problem. I also feel like this topic tends to assign some ridiculous sense of "morality" to music that doesn't really make any sense. For one thing, most people perceive beauty quite differently and (quite contrary to the OP's belief) it does not conform completely (or nearly) to the ideals of any single era for the vast majority of people for now and throughout history. The vast majority of music today has no desire nor intention to "glorify God" and it most definitely has no care about SimenN's sense of musical morality nor any intention to conform to some made up need for resolution from the universe/nature/etc. since natural laws do not make any attempt, whatsoever, to actually correct dissonance when it occurs. Most music today (and almost all secular music throughout history) was intended for expression and only expression. Overly-diatonic music rarely accomplishes this goal satisfactorily for the vast majority of people after the middle of the classical era and so there is no need nor desire on behalf of most musicians as well as consumers to conform to any bizarre need to avoid chromaticism and/or atonality. In fact, baroque music is not actually currently popular with the vast majority of western civilization. In fact, a great number of people now can find it quite unsatisfying or even boring (not me, but many). You should use the melody/texture/chord progression/rhythm/instruments/compositional methods that you as an individual feel accomplishes the goal to express exactly what it is that you desire to express. Any opinions that someone is "doing it wrong" has no ground in actual fact. Tradition is also a ridiculous reason to follow any preconceived notion of what music might be "correct" since (as I've already demonstrated on most of these topics): there is no "natural law" that the universe/galaxies/cosmos/nature follows for the treatment of consonance and dissonance and any opinions on that are simply OPINIONS and have no ground in fact; most eras in history and sometimes the people in any individual era disagreed on these concepts; most individuals find importance, resolution, and beauty in all kinds of music composed using all kinds of different compositional methods and styles; and "everyone else has done it this or that way" (or, in other words "everyone is doing it") is a very silly reason to do anything. Just because a bunch of people do/did something doesn't mean that it is correct or even desirable. Vast groups of people have been wrong and continue to be wrong, that's just how it is and always will be. I would never want to imply that writing in a past style is ever wrong, though, depending mostly on the composers intentions. I'm simply trying to say that there is no "right" or "wrong" when it comes to composing. BTW, SimenN, a great many colleges and universities in the United States teach chromaticism as a standard part of music theory and 20th century techniques as a standard requirement for most degrees in music. So, telling someone to "go ask your teacher" will not necessarily have the affect that you desire since most qualified music educators will have studied chromaticism as well as post-tonality and would only agree to baroque standards of what is or is not acceptable (in regards to use of chromaticism and atonality) when referring to that particular time in history.

I was just wondering if someone knew the answer to this. When writing neapolitan chords, augmented sixth chords (Italian, French, and German), common-tone diminished seventh chords, and chords with a chromatic mediant relationship (or doubly-chromatic mediant relationship) where there is no modulation, which scale or collection of notes can you play over these chords? Or, in other words, what notes do I use to construct my melody/melodies above these chords other than the notes that the chord/chords are constructed out of?

Thank you so much, a very good answer. It helps me out a lot!