# C flat...



## Dusty201087 (Feb 15, 2010)

Does it exist? I'm sure it has to if you write scales correctly, but B sharp and seem to be thought of as a myth by most people.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Feb 15, 2010)

It's an enharmonic spelling. If you were in, say, Eb minor, you could write it as...

Eb F Gb Ab Bb Cb Db

...which is a lot easier to read than...

Eb F F# G# Bb B C# (or any similar combination of sharps and flats).

The notes are the same (on fretted instruments anyway), but the first way makes scores set in obscure keys easier on the braincells.

Hope that makes sense!


----------



## Arminius (Feb 15, 2010)

I know next to nothing about theory, so take this with a grain of salt. If I remember right, one could say that C is B sharp, but for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist. I think 

Edit: 'd


----------



## scottro202 (Feb 15, 2010)

They do exist. Every scale has to be A something, B something, C something, so on. In other words, every scale needs one letter of the musical alphabet.

So, by this logic, a Cb scale is EVERYTHING flatted by a half step. Even though Fb is the same as E, and Cb is B.

Hope that explains it.


----------



## Dusty201087 (Feb 15, 2010)

Thanks guys  I needed to prove someone wrong


----------



## scottro202 (Feb 15, 2010)

Dusty201087 said:


> Thanks guys  I needed to prove someone wrong



No problem


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Feb 15, 2010)

Cb is 7 flats, of course it exists. Check the circle of fifths:







Really, every note you can think of has its own key, even if it's E#x (E triple sharp), which is E#x Fxx Gxx A#x B#x Cxx Dxx. Obviously, there aren't key signatures for keys with triple and quadruple sharps involved, but that doesn't mean that the key doesn't exist. Of course, it's so much easier to write the key of G (one sharp compared to twenty-five ), but there are situations where what you're doing is modulating to keys that aren't on the circle of fifths. For example: say you're in C# major (or A# minor), and you modulate to the dominant key, which is G# major (or E# minor/E# major, if you're going from A# minor). Well, hey, what are the notes of G#? G# A# B# C# D# E# Fx. There are no key signatures that contain a double sharp, but this key is completely viable, particularly when approached through modulation, as I just stated.

Cb has a universally recognized key signature, so you don't need to worry about weird keys with double and triple flats, but remember to keep your mind open.


----------



## TonalArchitect (Feb 15, 2010)

I just thought it had the purpose of showing sharping/flatting notes without changing the note name. 

For instance, take an E major chord E G# B, to make it an augmented chord, you sharp the fifth: E G# C, but writing E G# B# shows very clearly what happened to B.


----------



## scottro202 (Feb 15, 2010)

TonalArchitect said:


> I just thought it had the purpose of showing sharping/flatting notes without changing the note name.
> 
> For instance, take an E major chord E G# B, to make it an augmented chord, you sharp the fifth: E G# C, but writing E G# B# shows very clearly what happened to B.



That, too.

Let me explain.

E to B is a 5th. E anything to B anything is a 5th.  E ## to B is still a 5th. It's a double diminished 5th, but it's still a 5th. So, in an augmented triad like you said, it still has a 1-3-5.

If you use all the generic triads, you will see.

ACE
BDF
CEG
DFA
EGB
FAC
GCD

Notice how EGB is a triad? That's why you would say an E Augmented chord is EG#B# instead of EG#C, even though C and B# are the same pitch.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Feb 15, 2010)

TonalArchitect said:


> I just thought it had the purpose of showing sharping/flatting notes without changing the note name.
> 
> For instance, take an E major chord E G# B, to make it an augmented chord, you sharp the fifth: E G# C, but writing E G# B# shows very clearly what happened to B.



I've never understood the whole chord building thing with the chromatic circle of fifths. Certainly it can be used for that, but it's so much easier to memorize how to build a chord than it is to refer to a diagram. 

When writing parts, though, if it's monophonic, people are most likely going to want to see C in place of B#.


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Feb 16, 2010)




----------



## Origin (Feb 16, 2010)

All_¥our_Bass;1860395 said:


>



This


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Feb 16, 2010)

All_¥our_Bass;1860395 said:


>


----------



## Keytarist (Feb 16, 2010)

SchecterWhore said:


> ... but there are situations where what you're doing is modulating to keys that aren't on the circle of fifths. For example: say you're in C# major (or A# minor), and you modulate to the dominant key, which is G# major (or E# minor/E# major, if you're going from A# minor). Well, hey, what are the notes of G#? G# A# B# C# D# E# Fx. There are no key signatures that contain a double sharp, but this key is completely viable, particularly when approached through modulation, as I just stated.


I believe, that the enharmonic keys are made to avoid double flats and double sharps. So, I would write in Db Major rather than C# Major; none of these keys have double accidentals, but when you modulate to the dominant key, with C# Mayor you would have F double sharp, , however, using Db Major you wouldn't have any double accidental. Why?, because the dominant keys of C# Major and Db Major are:
Db Major -> Ab Major (no double accidentals)
C# Major -> G# Major (F double sharp)
Double accidentals slow down sight reading. They are mostly used in other cases, for instance: When writing in G# minor (relative key of B Major), you would have to use F double sharp (Fx) for the mayor third of the dominant chord. In this case, the other option would be using Ab minor (relative of Cb Major), but that's odd.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Feb 16, 2010)

I would say no, unless someone can link me to something where it is used?


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Feb 16, 2010)

Keytarist said:


> I believe, that the enharmonic keys are made to avoid double flats and double sharps. So, I would write in Db Major rather than C# Major; none of these keys have double accidentals, but when you modulate to the dominant key, with C# Mayor you would have F double sharp, , however, using Db Major you wouldn't have any double accidental. Why?, because the dominant keys of C# Major and Db Major are:
> Db Major -> Ab Major (no double accidentals)
> C# Major -> G# Major (F double sharp)
> Double accidentals slow down sight reading. They are mostly used in other cases, for instance: When writing in G# minor (relative key of B Major), you would have to use F double sharp (Fx) for the mayor third of the dominant chord. In this case, the other option would be using Ab minor (relative of Cb Major), but that's odd.



It's arguable. There's nothing to say that you have to write in Db major where the music goes into C# major. In fact, I prefer to think in C#, as opposed to Db. Of course, if I'm coming from Ab, then, yeah, Db is what I'm going to want to see. Really, though, it comes down to how you want people to read the music. In scenarios where you're very diatonic, yeah, it's stupid to write double accidentals everywhere. The key system was invented well before modulations to mediant keys were popular, and certainly before free chromaticism was a stylistic feature of art music, and there are arguments that our currently accepted system of notation does not adequately support the chromatic and microtonal styles that arose in the art music of the twentieth century. However, there are scenarios where seeing a double accidental is actually _preferable_ to its enharmonic equivalent. Which one of these would you rather read?

1.)




2.)





And this is in a fairly common key. In sight reading, you don't want to be looking at a bunch of accidentals.




Scar Symmetry said:


> I would say no, unless someone can link me to something where it is used?



C sharp, courtesy of Debussy:





C flat (actually Ab minor), courtesy of Beethoven:


----------



## anne (Feb 19, 2010)

Third-from-last line + next two measures of the Beethoven page:

[A D F#] [A C# E] ::: [D] ::: [D Ab F Cb] [D Bb F Bb] [D Cb F Ab] ::: [Eb Bb G] ::: [Ab Eb Cb]
cadential 6/4 V of #IV ::: #IV ::: dim7 of v#3 (on #IV) in a voice exchange ::: v#3 ::: i


Last line of the Beethoven page:

[Ab Eb C] ::: [Db Fb Ab] ::: [Bbb Db Fb] ::: [G Bb Db Eb] ::: [Ab Cb Eb] ::: [Db Bb Fb] ::: [Eb G Bb] ::: [Ab Cb Eb]
i#3 ::: iv ::: bII ::: v#6/5 ::: i ::: ii6 (dim) ::: v#3 ::: i


The second chord in the first progression [A C# E] and the third chord in the second progression [Bbb Db Fb] are the "same" notes when played on a guitar or piano, but they function completely differently. The [A C# E] is a dominant chord gravitating toward [D], but the [Bbb Db Fb] is a phrygian chord gravitating toward [Ab] (but it goes through [G Bb Eb] first, in this case). It's all about context. Cb, B#, Fb, E#, any double-flats, double-sharps, they are very real and functional!


----------



## Customisbetter (Feb 19, 2010)

it is a label, the tone does not exist.


----------



## Maestro (Feb 19, 2010)

Labels is most of what music theory is all about and they are very important for chord function. If you expect any other musician to read and play your stuff you have to understand the difference between B and Cb, B# and C, E# and F, Fb and E and all the double flat stuff. 

Like Anne any said, the same chord spelled differently can have a different function. Thats the case with the Gr6 chord for example which is nothing more than a dominant 7th chord respelled but it resolves differently. Or augmented triads for example, if you take B+ which is B-D#-Fx and spell it B-D#-G, then what you have is actually a G+ chord. 

I remember when I thought I have discovered this awesome cadence using ivº-I. Turns out that was just the enharmonic spelling of viiº43.

By the way, at one point there was an actually difference between sharps and flats. Our current tuning system just did away with it.


----------



## anne (Feb 20, 2010)

Maestro said:


> By the way, at one point there was an actually difference between sharps and flats. Our current tuning system just did away with it.



There still is if you're playing the right instruments.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Feb 20, 2010)

anne said:


> There still is if you're playing the right instruments.



And guitar is not one of them.


----------



## Keytarist (Feb 20, 2010)

In common bowed fretless instruments, flat notes and sharp notes are different in tuning. A flat note is slightly lower to its enharmonic equivalent spelled with a sharp, and viceversa. For example, Ab is closer to G, while G# is closer to A, so they don't have the same frequency. This convention is based on chosing the note more closer to its resolution, so if the phrase resolves in the A note, you must choose G# because it's closer to it. Works for altered chords, secondary dominants, etc. .One must consider this when writing for strings.


----------



## TonalArchitect (Feb 21, 2010)

Amusingly, my choir is performing Samuel Barber's "Agnus Dei" (his choral arrangement for "Adagio for Strings"), and the Baritones have to sign a high Fb.

Ya know, 'cause E isn't good enough.


----------



## Keytarist (Feb 21, 2010)

The 'Adagio for strings' for strings is beautiful, I didn't know he made a choral version of it.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Feb 21, 2010)

TonalArchitect said:


> Amusingly, my choir is performing Samuel Barber's "Agnus Dei" (his choral arrangement for "Adagio for Strings"), and the Baritones have to sign a high Fb.
> 
> Ya know, 'cause E isn't good enough.



That's to make it look more impressive on paper.


----------



## TonalArchitect (Feb 23, 2010)

Keytarist said:


> The 'Adagio for strings' for strings is beautiful, I didn't know he made a choral version of it.



Yup. Apparently 'twas so popular that he decided to do it. Kinda cool since the original composer re-arranged it, not a later guy/girl. 



SchecterWhore said:


> That's to make it look more impressive on paper.



Truth.  

Speaking of impressive on paper, that piece is a giant swirl of sustain slurs. Easy to lose your place.


----------



## synrgy (Feb 24, 2010)

C-flat major - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That took all of 2 seconds.


----------



## polydeathsphere (Feb 24, 2010)

synrgy said:


> C-flat major - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> That took all of 2 seconds.



Yea, but now look at all of the substantial posts that all say the same thing with people adding more stuff to seem smarter...

I kid, I kid, and to continue, theoretically you could write in Cbb Major, but everyone you ever met would hate you for the rest of your life.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Feb 24, 2010)

polydeathsphere said:


> Yea, but now look at all of the substantial posts that all say the same thing with people adding more stuff to seem smarter...
> 
> I kid, I kid, and to continue, theoretically you could write in Cbb Major, but everyone you ever met would hate you for the rest of your life.



There have been times when I'd rather have seen Cb in place of B. Example: I was playing a chart with a big band, and the arranger wrote Gb13-Bmaj7. Nuh-uh, no bueno.

Actually, I wrote a phrase the other day that technically goes to both Cb and B (within the space of, like, four chords ). Then again, I like to call intervals by what they actually are, as opposed to enharmonic equivalents, so it's not all that hard to see.


----------

