DanielB said
Not meaning to increase your stress, Pf.. but it isn't so much of an antiquated rule as a thing done to try and make it a bit easier on the player/reader. 

Sticking with the example of Gb, if we call that one note a B instead of a Cb then what happens when we play a melody that uses both the Bb (third) and the "Cb" (fourth)?  If we just called it a B, then we'd have to keep marking what would look like the same note either flat or "natural" in the score.  And a simple little melody that didn't have accidentals all over the place in most keys could be a real mess to read in the key of Gb.

But in the practical sense, if you plunk that "Cb" note on a piano and ask somebody what it is, they'd usually say it's a B.  And if somebody hands you a score in Gb, well.. Just take 'em out back and shoot them.  You know they probably never really liked you, anyway.  LOL

My reasoning makes no sense anyways. Ive always thought the Cflat isms in music as a novelty bound by rules and the non existent black keys as proof that the later is simply a made up thing to simplify composition in a particular key. As to the fingering you still would play it with a low three fingering depending on the surrounding notes, The Aflat and Bflat are already in play by then so the hand shifts to the scroll a half tone. As a point of contrast when someone asks a simple question sometimes a simple answer is best at the time. Then the more complicated rules can be discovered at a later time. I dont consider this false or lying or misleading, simply keepin it simple. I also dont think I need constant correction unless the patient is at risk of dying on the table, but Im over it now. I dont know it all, dont pretend to and much of the music stuff is a novelty to me anyways. Composer posted a thread about the different Hz of all the notes, I couldnt find it. Nor did an internet search provide it. The Bsharps, Cflats, Esharps and Fflats do exist in the world of physics but because they dont fit into the ratios of the even tempered scale and are dissonant in sound they arent used. That doesnt mean that they dont exist. When I see a Cflat notation I dont read it as Cflat, simply B. For me the abstract concept of it not being a black note on the keyboard and only existing on paper means theoretically it doesnt exist. I think its amusing, others are a bit more concrete than I.

I shouldnt have to write a thesis to explain "it doesnt exist, play the next note lower instead". Perhaps I should fully explain my thoughts when I  first type them but the thoughts are fleeting, im not paying complete attention and my fingers get tired. (insert 7 chuckles here)
 

I dont think you are a very nice person.

The basis of Western Music is diatonic tonality. This means that all music is based on diatonic scales, the most common of which are the major and minor. Most of the music you've ever heard is probably in one of these two modes. To build each of those scales, there is a certain pattern of half-steps (moving up 1/12th of an octave, or between two notes next to each other on the keyboard like a C and C#) and whole steps (basically, skipping over one half step, as in between C and D on the keyboard). Each scale HAS to, by definition, contain one note with each letter name, or 'tone' name; hence the terms 'diatonic', which means 'through the tones'.

The way to begin thinking of it is to not limit yourself to the keyboard and it's layout. Any note can be sharped or flatted, because these modifiers mean that you move the pitch up or down, regardless of where they begin. The black keys can be sharped further, notes like F and C can be flatted, and vice versa.

All the assigned names of the notes are theoretical; there are really twelve steps in the chromatic scale, and that's all that matters. If not for the keyboard, which was designed so that there are easily accessible major and minor scales (C major and A minor, all on white keys), there would be no confusion about things like C-flat or E-sharp. We could have simply assigned a letter name to each of the 12 tones, but it proved easier for the keyboard's layout to have a scale be on all white keys. When you want to build a scale that is distant from C or A minor, then, you have to keep the integrity of the writing of the scale by giving each note a name different than the ones around it. If I want to make a G-sharp major scale, for example; one note involved in this scale is G natural, which is a half step below G. Since the 'G' marker is already taken, the note below G on the scale must be assigned a modified 'F' name. Since we need the enharmonic equivalent of G, though, we have to sharp F twice (raise it a half-step two times), so it's actually written as Fx, x being a double-sharp sign. Then, below that, the next note down would be an F, whose name has also already been used. The third note needs an 'E' name, and since F natural is one half-step above E, we write it as E-sharp to stay consistent.

So; it is acceptable to think of a note being a B-natural when you're playing what's written as a C-flat, and it would even be OK to write such things as Double-sharps and -flats, or flats of C and F, or sharps of B and E, as their natural note enharmonic. It would still sound exactly the same when played, because the octave is divided up exactly into twelve tones. This didn't used to be the case, which is why so many early compositions avoided modulation into foreign keys; transposition was not possible when the intervals were based on imperfect fraction-ratios, rather than a unifying equal-temperment. Now, though, you can play any composition in any key and all the interval relationships will be the same, so C-flat is now truly the exact same, scientifically speaking, as B-natural. It's simply good practise, in the world of music theory and composition, to write it in the technically correct way.

so do I have a good grasp of it now? still self dilusional? Its still my opinion that there is no such thing as a Cflat and you wont agree and thats fine. It only exists on paper.

(I copied and pasted this, its plagerized in case I get flack for "claiming" it as an origional work to me.)