Ambiguity of Roman numeral analysis of Andalusian cadence

Question

When I write that the Andalusian cadence is the chord progression "Am – G – F – E" then there are no doubts in what it means. (All you need to know is what chords are and how they are named)

The definition is exact and everybody knows you can use instead, say, "A♯m - A♭ - F♯ - E♯" with the same harmonic progression effect (I intentionally used mixed sharps and flats that you would probably never use but it is still exact - everybody knows what chords to play).

On the other hand when roman numerals are used to describe the Andalusian cadence then you may find that the Andalusian cadence is:

iv – III – II – I

or

iv - III - ♭II - I

or

iv – ♭III – ♭II – I

or

i – VII – VI – V

or

i – ♭VII – ♭VI – V

So my question is what is the point of using roman numerals when in fact it tells you nothing about what harmony to use unless you are provided with additional information of what is meant by each degree of roman numerals? And this information is what actual chord to play instead of each degree. So you would save time just by providing the chords in the first place instead of any numerals.

The same ambiguity can be found in Roman numeral analysis. We can see:

So they defined that mediant is "♭III" (conventional notation) or "iii" (alternate notation). And then in just the next step they broke their own rules and used "III" as mediant - already a third version of how to label the mediant in a natural minor scale. The same applies for the submediant.

Isn't roman numeral notation just useless?

Since all that is necessary to unambiguously define harmony in the natural minor scale is this:

Cm - Ddim - E♭ - Fm - Gm - A♭ - B♭

which immediately is enough information to figure out that also this can be used (one of many):

Am - Bdim - C - Dm - Em - F - G

Answer 1

To add to or expand on Richard's answer: You're running into the distinction between analysis and practice. To get really basic: humans make music. They also put ink on paper to say things about that music. Sometimes the goal of this ink is to help them make music—notated pitches and rhythms help us recreate musical ideas. Sometimes the goal is to talk about the music or explain it.

Confusion can arise because some things, like chord names, roman numerals, and figured bass, are used at various times for both purposes, for making music and for analyzing it. Roman numerals are usually a tool of music theory, but I know a guitarist who worked in the Muscle Shoals studios during their heyday who says they would write out chord charts in Roman numerals rather than letter names so they could transpose at will. Figured bass is usually used today along with Roman numerals in harmonic analysis, but was used in performance in the baroque.

So today, a chord notation like "Am" is often used in performance—"Play some combination of the pitches A, C, and E." It can also be used in theoretical analysis (I often start by sketching these out before asking myself what's going on tonally). But "i" or "III" tell you something different; they tell you about the tonal function of the chord. This is where analysis really becomes analysis. You could have a given chord, a certain combination of pitches, and explain it in various ways, based on a big-picture view of what's going on: Is this a pivot chord because we're modulating? A "V of V" that tonicizes the dominant? A chord that is spelled one way but really works in another because of harmonic motion? (Like, in the key of Am, let's say you have an F chord, then an Am over E, then an E. The "Am over E" isn't really a iv in its own right; it's a suspension as we go from F to E.)

For a metaphor: say I find a large, flat stone. I could identify it objectively: "It's a large flat stone." But I could put it in front of my front door and say "it's a doorstep," or on top of some cabinets in the kitchen and say "it's a kitchen counter," or stand it on end, request to be buried in front of it, and say "it's a tombstone." All the time it's still a large, flat stone, but these roles help explain it, and tell us about the larger story.

Letter-name notation of chords tells you what to play, but without an understanding of the tonal context, it doesn't tell you the chord's "role" in the harmony. On the other hand, Roman numerals tell you about the chord's role, but unless you also know the current tonality, they don't actually tell you what to play!

Answer 2

Isn't roman numeral notation just useless?

I don't believe so. Whereas strict chord labels (C, Dm, etc.) tell you exactly what chords to play, Roman-numeral notation can tell you:

• how these chords relate to an overall tonic,
• what tonic even is,
• what the functional role of these chords are within the current harmonic environment,
• all of this information in a more streamlined manner than "Dm7♭5, acting as a predominant",
• etc.

Furthermore, having a key-agnostic labeling system makes transposition far easier, since reading

I V7/iii iii IV V7/V V7 I

and performing it in all twelve keys is a far easier task than parsing out

E G♯7 C♯m A F♯7 B7 E

and transposing by a given interval.

As for whether an E♭-major chord in C minor is III or ♭III, I don't really think that's ambiguity, that's just sloppy work; the accidental preceding a Roman numeral lowers the root from the given key signature, so this chord should be III in C minor (not ♭III), but it would be ♭III in C major. (And, if I may: would someone actually confuse this with E♭♭ major?)

Answer 3

All the things you add to your question about "ambiguity" boil down to saying "I don't know what key I am in."

Am – G – F – E

When you identify the progression by name, and list those chords, unless you give some other reason to the contrary, the key is A minor, and then the Roman numeral analysis (RNA) is not at all ambiguous. It is...

Am: i VII VI V

If you don't specify the key signature in the RNA, as you should, or you're presenting RNA derived symbols in a pop/jazz context, then people often neglect to give the key signature, so the mode isn't specified, and so you need to use sharps/flats to ensure the correct chord roots are understood...

i ♭VII ♭VI V

Sharps and flats can be used along with a key label to show borrowed chords, but that is another matter.

The ambiguity of this particular point isn't about the RNA system, it's about failing to give the key label in RNA. Am: VII is not ambiguous, it's a chord rooted on the seventh scale degree of the key signature for A minor, which is G natural.

If you leave out the key label, and write just i VII or i ♭VII, will assume you mean play a root progression of a descending whole step, both chords are root position, the first one minor, the second one major, in any key. The first RNA is careless, the second makes me think you learned it in a pop/jazz setting, both strangely ambivalent about key when using an RNA systems that is based upon the idea of identifying chords withing keys!

The other examples that rotate all the chord identities through the various diatonic positions, like iv – III – II – I, just show an ignorance about what is the tonic. RNA is a system for analyzing tonal music, so disregard or ignorance for the tonic is just a fundamental error in musical understanding. It is not an ambiguity of RNA.

This one - A♯m A♭ F♯ E♯ - displays an ignorance of both keys and the significance of enharmonic spellings. Again, those are fundamental musical misunderstandings of whoever would write that, not an ambiguity of RNA.

---

There is one aspect of Roman numeral analysis that is most definitely ambiguous, but the OP's example absolutely does not highlight it. The ambiguity is with the seventh scale degree in minor keys. In a minor key signature the seventh scale degree is a whole step below the tonic, and so not a proper leading tone, which is one half step below the tonic. Normally there is no accidental added to the Roman numeral to show the raising of the seventh degree to for a leading tone chord. If you add to that convention, the fact that some RNA systems don't specify chord quality by letter case, and some don't use o for diminished chords, you find RNA for the seventh scale degree is indeed ambiguous. Am: VII in some RNA is implicitly understood to mean a leading tone, diminished triad. Probably more common is Am: viio. But, you don't normally see Am: ♯viio or Am: ♮viio, which strictly speaking would be correct when accidentals are used to show roots altered from the key signature.

Answer 4

Given that your first 3 examples are probably not correct, as the last chord shown will not be tonic, those are out of the equation.

Of the last 2, both showing that i is tonic, and V is dominant - no argument there - i-VII-VI-V makes most sense, with particular regard to the relative minor of C major, A minor. I would have no problem translating that to the Andalusian sequence, which it portrays nicely. There's no need to travel into harmonic or melodic minor notes, just like there's no need to consider Dorian or Phrygian modes. With the obvious exception that to actually have a leading note, that note needs to be one semitone below the root, so merely using notes diatonic to C/Am won't work well. Although there are Andalusian sequences that I've heard using v rather than V.

By keeping it simple, with chords directly related to diatonic notes, it all works well, no need for any complications, as you seem to have discovered. So, RN would work just fine, thanks!

Answer 5

The other answers are good and cover everything, but I wanted to add one to try and be crystal clear in highlighting what you are missing.

By default there is a SPECIFIC harmony to use for each degree in roman numeral analysis (RNA), unless specified otherwise. The harmony, ie. which chords each degree of the scale specifies, can be major or minor. In a minor key the RNA will place the tonic minor on the i, a major key will place the tonic major chord on the I. Note that in minor keys the existence of 'natural' and 'harmonic' minor versions could indeed introduce ambiguity on the quality of the vii scale degree, but rest of the RNA system is NOT ambiguous.

Roman numeral analysis expresses chord relations without NEEDING to specify a key (although saying/being clear it is of type major or minor should be a minimum), but a key must be chosen in order to play it. It is useful because it describes the harmony of a piece in a way that can be applied to any given tonic root.

For example, a popular jazz tune has chords;

ii, V, I, IV, vii, iii, vi

Knowing this piece expressed in RNA I can play it in any key very easily and without having to transpose. In fact, knowing songs in this way rather than explicit chords is highly recommended, and in certain genres (jazz, some pop) a required skill. I appreciate that may not be your goal, but for context.

If I learned a song in roman numeral analysis then I know it in every key immediately, I just centre the I chord around the given tonic and play the relationship. This is incredibly useful for both analysis and performance. Analysis cares not what the starting note is, more the complex relationship between notes. It helps us, a little like algebra, to look at the generalised relationship and behaviour of a system rather than one specific example.

Also, each chord in roman numeral analysis tells me the 7th quality of the chord, and the further upper extensions that are available, it is much more than just knowing which chords are major and which minor.

Expressing the Andalusian cadence in RNA using the minor tonic as i gives us i, VII, VI, V. You could also express that chord sequence against a major key as vi - V - IV - III7. The second way may be useful if that particular chord progression appears in a piece that otherwise can be considered to be in a major key.

RNA is incredibly useful, it can demystify complex sequences of harmony in a way that would be tricky to spot from a chord sequence alone, it gives us information about which chord extensions will sound most consonant, it allows us to change key with ease, it allows us to see compositional tools used across various sections, keys and pieces for comparison and greater understanding.

If you are familiar with programming, using chord symbols is like 'hard coding', very explicit and clear, but rigid and not that translatable. Using roman numeral analysis is learning to understand the dynamic system we are operating in. It means that sometimes there are not hard and fast rules, but an expert on the system will quickly recognise the patterns and could express how it would most likely be interpreted.

The examples given in the wikipedia article are not that useful, there is rarely cause to respell RNA against a modal root. It is perhaps of historical curiosity if you are comfortable with modal harmony and have a strong basis in RNA, but I can see how it could be very confusing. Once one is comfortable with using RNA and can see why the Andalusian cadence is usually going to be i VII VI V etc. then the counter examples in the wiki article become very easy to comprehend, not in danger of destabilising the use of RNA, but also of very limited use. Though perhaps they could inspire new compositions, any alternative viewpoint can be the basis for a new exploration. For this reason it's important not to regard theory as an absolute ruleset, to be adhered to at all times. However this doesn't mean that the well established systems we have are not very thorough and complete tools.