Talk:Roman numeral analysis

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 3 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emerychung.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Summary Section
Please keep the information in the article summary somewhat simple so that a layman or beginning musician/student will be able to understand the concept. You can get more technical later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshowmecanuck (talk • contribs) 04:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed: Origin
The following comments were removed from the article near the origin citation. Richard Cohen, in the New Grove article on Harmony, says it was Vogler who first did this, but he does not specify the year. If it was in the Tonwissenshcaft und Tonsetzkunst (rev. ed. 1776), then it was long before Weber. Edit: Yes, Grave and Grave confirm this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phenylphenol (talk • contribs) 21:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * For clarity, the full removed text was as follows: Hyacinth (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The leading tone for the minor key


As it stands in the article, the chord for the seventh minor scale degree is listed as being diminished. This doesn't seem to make sense, since the modal analysis would suggest that it should be a minor chord. Or is the chart here not for the natural minor?--2003:69:CD31:2F01:2E81:58FF:FEFF:8F4B (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why the illustration and chart here are of the natural minor. The harmonisation of the minor in "classical" harmony is usually constructed on the harmonic minor, with sharpened seventh but not sixth. The triads/chords should then be:
 * i, iio, III+, iv, V7, VI, viio.
 * In jazz harmony they are based on the melodic minor ascending/jazz minor, and so are I think:
 * Immaj7, IIm7, IIIaug7, IV7(Lydian dominant), V7, VIØ, VIIO.
 * Does that make sense? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes that makes much more sense.--2003:69:CD53:7201:2E81:58FF:FEFF:8F4B (talk) 07:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the natural minor scale exists and is used. You can try to prove a negative, that the natural minor scale doesn't exist, but it would be an exhausting job. Hyacinth (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a silly concept IMHO for the common practice period. Since where is there a v-i cadence with a minor v, except to create a modal-ish effect? The French got it right by taking the harmonic minor as the primary form of the minor scale in their theory, if you ask me. Double sharp (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There are several examples of the natural minor, and of v-i cadences with a minor v, in the common practice period, e.g. in Bach's Fugues in minor. I am not aware that the French took the harmonic minor "as the primary form of the minor" in their theory, although I taught theory in France for more than twenty years – my teaching was in a University, though, the situation might be different in Conservatoires. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's possible. I've been told that the classic textbook of Chailley and Challan treats the minor scale my preferred way (with harmonic minor as the primary form), and both worked at the Paris Conservatoire. Anyway, my point was that v-i with a minor v is more or less a special effect that gives a "modal" atmosphere, whereas V-i is totally normal and "neutral" in affect. Double sharp (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, the Chailley & Challan theory book is from 1947, unless I am mistaken. I don't think it is still in use today. I studied slightly later than that (!) and never saw it. The Paris Conservatoire had, since Catel, this strange idea that the dominant 7th chord is "natural" (i.e. can be found in the harmonic series), and Chailley of course shared this idea which is part of his evolutionary conception of tonality. I agree that v–i may give a "modal" atmosphere, but the minor mode often is somehow modal. In any case, the very fact that Schoenberg (in Structural Functions of Harmony) took the pain to distinguish V, the "dominant", from v, the "five-minor", indicates that there is some reason to include v in an article on Roman numerals. Schenker considered that melodic and harmonic minor are mixtures between the minor mode properly speaking (aeolian) and the major mode. Our article should somehow reflect that and I think that it makes sense to consider aeolian minor as the theoretical model of minor. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 11:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I-IV-V blues automatically uses a dominant 7th?
I'm puzzled by the second paragraph discussing the I-IV-V common blues progression. I agree it is very common to play it with the added dominant 7's in the chords, but this was in the context of discussing C major, which does not have a dominant 7th. I think a beginner would be a little confused without some specific mention of the included notes which are not in C-major (The Eb in the F7 chord, and the Bb in the C7 chord are not in C-major). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpfranz (talk • contribs) 14:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree..it`s really just a matter of opinion..I`m not sure I follow you regarding the theory but I don`t really agree with the idea of there being a standard 12 bar blues progression in the first place..16 bar blues were once very common..hopefully they`ll come back...not really the point I guess but I don`t know a lot of modern blues players who play the I as a 7th chord and often not the IV or the V..not that I`m an authority. 24.181.212.184 (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

See, for example, blues shuffle. Hyacinth (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Minor-key notation


I am not only getting a little tired of reverting the removals by User:Composer Unknown of what appears to be a perfectly suitable illustration of minor-key usage of Roman-numeral analysis but, now at last that an edit summary has been offered ("The roman numerals for the diatonic natural minor chords does not have bIII, bVI and bVII as stated in the image I have deleted."), it make even less sense than ever. May I ask Composer Unknown to explain why this notation is somehow erroneous? At the same time, may I ask User:Hyacinth, who created the image that so offends User:Composer Unknown, either to defend the image (does it, like its companion, come from Oswald Jonas's Introduction to the Theory of Heinrich Schenker?) or to agree with C.U. that it is incorrect, and should be amended? Arbitrary removal of the image with no better reason than "I think it is wrong" is not acceptable, but neither does the image itself bear an attribution to a reliable source. I think the correct procedure here would have been to tag the illustration with either a "Citation needed" or "Original research" template, to give Hyacinth the opportunity to attend to the problem.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Related: I haven't been able to figure out the intended meaning of the flat signs on the ♭VII, ♭III, and ♭VI chords in the natural minor scale. Are they not the same chords as in the major scale, just relocated as to scale degree? Just what is flat about them? Someone who understands this, please explain it in the article or here.  Thanks.CountMacula (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * What is the root note of ♭III in C minor? Hyacinth (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * E double flat, according to how I learned it. Double sharp (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Flat" and "sharp" have two meanings in conversation. One is to distinguish out of tune notes from in tune notes, and the other is to indicate a lowering or raising by a half step (semitone, 100 cents) that is not out of tune. F♯ is not "sharp" in that it's not out of tune, it's sharp in that it's 100 cents above F♮. See: flat (music), sharp (music), and accidental (music). Hyacinth (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The use of flat signs in front of Roman numerals III, VI, and VII in this example plainly assumes primacy of the major scale, and shows which root tones differ in the minor. While I do not find this difficult to understand, I also am not accustomed to seeing it in the literature. That does not mean this notation is never used (there are hundreds of music-theory texts, and they are not uniform in their treatment of Roman-numeral chord notation), but in my experience adding a flat means the scale degree is lowered from the key signature. Thus, ♭III in C minor ought to mean E𝄫, since the key signature already specifies E♭ as the normal state of scale-degree 3 in C minor.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * One issue this brings up is the dissonance between notes, note names, chords, and chord names. We can argue till the end of time what we think is preferable or common, but if I make changes based on speculation someone else will knock down the door complaining about what is preferable, common, and what is uncited. If you ask me to arbitrarily choose/vote between one option and some unspecified other thing, then I will not choose because it's a lose/lose situation, but if you directly asked me to do something, I just might do it (party because I can blame/credit you for asking me). Hyacinth (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Could it be related to the difference between "Classical" and "Berklee" system? 98.128.166.148 (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Given your familiarity with the literature this problem could potentially be easy to clear up. How does one indicate that the roman numeral spoken, say "VII", is from the minor scales or the major scale or another scale, is a minor or major or another other chord?
 * Right now we have VII = B♭D♭F = BDF = B♭DF = BDF♯ = B♭DF♯ = BD♯F♯ = BD♯F = B𝄫D♭F.


 * Hyacinth (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * In my experience, classroom instructors assume a great deal when speaking chord names aloud. They will say "one six-three" or "tonic six-three" without further qualification, expecting the students to understand this means a first-inversion major triad in a major key, and a first-inversion minor triad in a minor key. Naturally, this gets complicated with many minor-key chords, because of the variable sixth and seventh scale degrees. I see that you have already taken steps to present this variability in the examples, and have begun adding commentary in the prose text. Since you are still in progress with this I will wait and see how far it goes. The danger is that the beginner may be overwhelmed by the many conflicting styles. In a classroom, this problem is usually overcome by sticking to just one format and ignoring the others. We cannot do this here, of course.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The reason why some people prefer to analysis everything in the tonic major key, is to clarify any ambiguity of chord labelling in modal mixture. This notation makes Roman Numeral Analysis more rigorous easy to be understood in music where tonal centre is clear but the mode is unclear due to the extensive use of chords which are borrowed form its parallel keys (or modes). Those chords can be (very commonly) used without any pivot chord and can be used in succession. If one were to try to use the diatonic notation to analysis these, modulation would need to be marked for every few chords, and those modulation markings also need to indicate whether it is natural Major, harmonic Major, natural minor, or harmonic minor, or any other kind of modes. This kind of use of harmony can be found in many music from romantic period. --星球统领 (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

No matter which system one uses, when referring a chord orally, in many cases, either some information is omitted non-rigorously for simplicity, or a one needs to say spell out something that is very long and wordy. (This is just like reading out a line of math equations. If one says one plus two over three, it sometimes can be unclear whether 1+$$\tfrac{2}{3}$$ or $$\tfrac{1+2}{3}$$ is being referred to). In a modal mixture context, when one can either say chord seven, in which case the ambiguity that User:Hyacinth described occurs; if one were to really try to spell out rigorously, then one needs to say something like the major chord seven in the natural minor mode or something similar (if one were to use the diatonic way of labelling), which could be too wordy to understand. Usually, when analysing a musical passage, it is done in the written format. Even in a analysis class, oral analysis is almost always accompanied by a written one. An oral description can be vague, but a written description needs to be rigorous. Hence it is okay to say chord three orally whilst writing down ♭III on paper.--星球统领 (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Since Wikipedia relies on verification rather than truth, Wikipedia is not directly affected by what teachers say in classes, unless those classes are transcribed and published, recorded and available to be listened to or viewed, or a former student later recounts their education in a published format. In the case of this article, what teachers say in class could suggest some options, but not determine those options. Chords and their notes may easily and clearly be indicated more succinctly using systems other than Roman numeral analysis. The purpose of Roman numeral analysis is to add information, regarding function, not included in these succinct descriptions of root and quality (or pitch class numbers), and not to omit information (information that is "missing" from a short quotation is most often supplied by previous statements which provide context and can be found in a lengthy quotation). Given the ambiguities, various systems of notation and designation have been employed by the same and by different people (different attempts to balance the pros and cons of ambiguity, specificity, the confusion which may arise from both, and efficiency and brevity). If notable, various systems of notation and designation thus need be depicted, regardless of any inconsistencies within a system, between more than one system, or any user's opinion regarding the system(s) (even my own). Hyacinth (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Strange title for this article.
I knew exactly what I wanted to learn about today but had a lot of trouble finding this article. Its all about chords but the word "chord" isn't in the title. Can we/you find a title that is more topical? How 'bout "Roman Numeral Chord Analysis"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.69.7.70 (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. The present title doesn't even give any indication that it relates to music.  I think we should discuss what the title ought to be.CountMacula (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Many articles don't indicate the topic of the article subject. The article title "Kidney" does not mention biology, physiology, or medicine. It would be awkward and misleading if it where titled "Kidney (medicine)" or "Physiological kidney". Hyacinth (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Could someone add information about how Roman numerals are pronounced? For example, how does one verbally distinguish II and ii? 166.181.86.169 (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this would help? Personally, I always burp before capital Roman numerals, and hiccup before lowercase. My students have no trouble understanding.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks!!! --User:Haraldmmueller 08:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * How about "major second (degree)" and "minor second"? --User:Haraldmmueller 08:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Minor key image


I challenged the accuracy of the minor key image on 4 February 2014, in the section The leading tone for the minor key above. In 2015 asked for clarification of the image from the creator,, but this was not forthcoming. Today, after a further post questioning the image from, I removed it. Jerome Kohl has put it back. I'm at a loss to understand why. What game are we trying to play here? The image is unsourced, is incorrect, does not represent what we actually do in numerical analysis, and has been challenged for more than five years. Why would anyone want to keep it in the article? Note: this kind of behaviour is precisely why I'm no longer active in the music theory WikiProject, and indeed almost never contribute to music articles even though that is my field of specialisation. I'm unwatching this page now. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is no game. Your edit summary said that the image had been challenged since 4 February 2014, but when I checked the previous version of the article (in fact, the complete edit history back three years), I found no cn tag on the image. This is why I restored it and asked for an explanation. FWIW, now that you have explained your edit more fully, I agree with the removal, given that there is no source offered for the eccentric notation. I notice also that the major-key image bears a citation that states the source from which it is taken does not use the uppercase/lowercase notation shown in the example, but rather uses all-uppercase format. I would suggest that this illustration, too, needs to be corrected, or a different source found.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * If you think my image is inaccurate then, please, tell me what you think is accurate, and I might be able to make that image. If somebody is unsatisfied, won't tell you how to make them satisfied, and tells you they are not waiting for a response then I am at a loss as to how to satisfy this faint shadow on the horizon. Hyacinth (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * As alluded to below, I am presently working at a paper on the usage of Roman numerals (and other synthetic representations of harmony). Let me first stress that I never encountered ♭III, ♭VI or ♭VII in numerals applied to the minor key as they are in the example. (I confess that I don't usually read modern American textbooks.) The flat sign in these figures denotes an alteration and, all together, may indicate that the scale represented is an altered major scale. I don't suppose this was the intention.
 * It is usual to stress that Roman numerals had been used since Vogler, that they have been employed by Weber, Sechter, Bruckner, and that Schumann once mentioned them. It strikes me however that all these usages, even in Bruckner, were far from explicit and that it is not even clear that the Roman numerals represented chords: more than once, they merely denoted the degrees of the scale – hence the name Stufentheorie, "theory of the degrees". It really is with Schoenberg and Schenker, I think, that the usage of these numerals, transmitted to them in Bruckner's teaching, really became the analytic procedure that we know today.
 * That is to say that there is little reason to search for common usages of Roman numerals before Schoenberg or Schenker. I feel it regrettable (as a theorist, not as a Wikipedian) that one revived the usage of capital and lower case numerals that apparently had been proposed without much success by Weber and that was followed neither by Schoenberg nor by Schenker.
 * To come back to the image under discussion: ♭III, ♭VI and ♭VII appear to me utterly wrong considering what they are supposed to represent. Roman numerals should represent the degrees of the scale considered and the chords above them, and should not present degrees that belong to the scale as in any way altered. If modern textbooks show them with the ♭ sign in minor, they are utterly wrong with respect to the common usage not only of Schoenberg or Schenker, but also of anyone knowledgeable about their practice. I also have very strong doubts about the usage of lower case numerals, but this usage at least became more or less common. It rests on the wrong idea that reading the numerals should dispense from reading the score itself. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Vogler and Roman numeral analysis?
I have no immediate access to Floyd K. and Margaret G. Grave, In Praise of Harmony, given as reference for the statement that Vogler employed Roman numeral analysis as early as 1776. But the date points to Tonwissenschaft und Tonsetzkunst which I checked without finding any Roman numeral employed to denote the degrees of the scale. So far as I can tell, it is in Handbuch zur Harmonielehre, of 1802, that Vogler used Roman numerals to denote degrees. Even there, there is not a single notated example with Roman numerals under the bass, so that I would hesitate to claim that he employs them for any type of analysis.

In addition, it must be stressed that Roman numerals from I to VIII can be found apparently numbering the degrees of the scale in Kirnberger's Die Kunst des reinen Satzes, vol. 1, of 1774 (p. 15). It is not entirely clear, however, that these numerals do not denote the intervals (i.e. that they would mean prime, second, third, etc.) rather than the degrees themselves. I have never seen Kirnberger mentioned in this context: so far as I can tell, this is "original research", unusable for WP (unless I publish the paper I am working on now).

But I think that the mention of Vogler, especially with the date 1776, should be verified. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I now had a look at In Praise of Harmony and, as I suspected, this book nowhere says that Vogler employed Roman numerals as early as 1776. The authors describe a publication of 1806 (!), Zwei und dreisig Präludien, with Roman numeral analyses which they discuss on pp. 67-84. It therefore appears that Vogler conceived the usage of Roman numerals in the very beginning of the 19th century, describing them in his Handbuch of 1802, and that he employed them for analyses in the following years, from 1806 onwards. Unfortunately, the 1806 publication does not appear to have been reprinted since. And all this, once again, may be original research (In Praise of Harmony does not seem to mention the presence of the Roman numerals in the Handbuch of 1802). — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * In addition, I now checked that Vogler once or twice employed Roman numerals as early as 1778, but without explanation. In Grunde, he gives one single notated example with Roman numerals, and a circular figure which I did not fully understand (I have to reread it). There also is the case of John Trydell, mentioned later in the article, which I have been unable to check, but I am still trying.
 * I don't have any information on what you wrote about above. But, whatever you come up with, it would be good if you combined the paragraphs on history into a single section. As it is now, there are two paragraphs on history, one under Overview and another under Common practice numerals, and I don't see any sense it having them separate. Squandermania (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'll see what I can do. My problem really is that whenever I see a question like this, I turn to the primary sources. I have seen the original editions of all the books that I quote here above (or, at least, all the editions that I quote), and I still did not succeed in accessing the John Trydell one. I understand that WP wants secondary sources, but these often are less easily accessible, because of copyrights. I will conflate the two paragraphs, whenever I find the time to do so, but the fact remains that the second paragraph mentions two references contradicting each other about Trydell (both in Grove, in addition!), a contradiction that could be resolved only through a consideration of Trydell's original itself. Thanks for your suggestion, anyway, which encourages me to go on. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I assembled the paragraphs on history into a separate section, modifying as little as possible at this point. The section should be completed with information on the usage or Roman numerals up to Schoenberg and Schenker (and later). So far as I can tell, Bruckner, supposed to have transmitted the usage from Simon Sechter to both of them, does not himself make use of Roman numerals. However, the contents of his classes in Vienna was published only much later.

Creating the section on History may have destroyed the balance of the rest of the article. I don't feel myself responsible for the whole, however, and I hope that other contributors will soon add their five cents. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * After checking the New Grove, I removed the mention of Trydell in the section on History: the claim attributed to Dalhaus that Trydell used Roman numerals cannot be found there. As Richard Cohn mentions, Trydell uses only Arabic numerals. I checked this in both Trydell himself and the New Grove. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Squandermania, you added to the History section a very odd example allegedly showing an Andalusian cadence. This example appears to come from the article on the Andalusian cadence, which is referenced mainly with Rumanian sources, by Dan Buciu, Liviu Dǎnceanu, Gheorghe Oprea, Dragoş Alexandrescu and Diana Voda-Nuteanu. These sources are hardly available in the West (and would be difficult to find even in Rumania). The article contradicts itself, describing the cadence as built on a descending Greek "Dorian" tetrachord, A G F E, but presenting it in the example with an additional final chord on A that I think does not really belong to an Andalusian cadence. In addition, parallel triads on A G F E form neither a cadence, nor even a harmonic progression...
 * I utterly fail to see what this example comes to do in the History section of our article. None of the theorists mentioned in that section ever saw a "cadence" like this, or even thought that possible in music. The claim in the Andalusian cadence article that "A rigorous analysis should note that many chord progressions are likely to date back from an epoch prior to early Baroque" is mere nonsense – the concept of "chord" did not exist.
 * Even if such a progression had existed in any historical period prior to the 19th century, it merely would not in any way be "Andalusian". There are many other possible examples to illustrate the History section, e.g. the table of chord numerals published by Weber in his vol. 2, p. 45.
 * Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to add an example of a Roman numeral analysis and that was the first one I could find. Without it, there is only one example, which seems odd in this article. Squandermania (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


 * OK. I added other examples that I thought may be more informative. This Andalusian cadence article really is a mess, but I won't begin at it now... — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

denoting inversions or non-standard bass notes in roman numerals
Every web page I find on this subject (including this one, unless I missed something) avoids the issue of how to denote e.g. second inversions in roman numeral notation, or they revert to figured bass notation. How is it done in modern/pop notation?

The temptation is to write e.g. C/G in the key of C as I/5, but I rarely see this in practice. (I/V seems fraught, given secondary chords?)

[ Edit: realizing an ambiguity, I provide a second example of what I mean: Dm/A in the key of C would be IIm/6 in this system, as opposed to IIm/5 ]

If there is a standard, or something approaching one, can it be added to this article? And if there is no way to notate this, can we add an explanatory section to that effect?

Chconnor (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The standard practice for the first inversion is to add a numeral 6, denoting the characteristic interval (i.e., different from 53). The first inversion of degree I, for instance, would be denoted by I6. In the case of a second inversion, the intervals above the bass note become 6 and 4, so that the notation would be for instance I64. The Arabic numerals, in short, are the same as those used in figured bass, the main difference being that there they would be inscribed above the real bass instead of aside the Roman numeral. This is the only usage that I know in Roman numeral analysis of classical music.
 * When you write C/G for I64, you mean that the chord having C as its root is placed above the bass note G (its 5th). Some do that with Arabic numerals: I/3 for the first inversion, I/5 for the second inversion, but that is extremely ambiguous.
 * One point to consider is why denote chords with Roman numerals – and, particularly, why it would be important to denote inversions. I understand that in jazz or pop music Roman numerals may be used as a sort of shorthand notation. Our article, however, is about Roman numeral analysis. The aim of an analysis is to explain the score, not to replace it. When used for the purpose of analysis, Roman numerals are usually inscribed under the score. The analysis does not need to duplicate the score, it should only give indications that are not obvious in it. There is no need to denote inversions, because they are readily visible in the score itself. It is for the same reason, I think, that advanced analysts use large capitals exclusively: there is no need to indicate whether a chord is minor or minor, etc., it suffices for that to have a look at the score. Elementary textbooks often are more explicit in their usage of Roman numerals, but so doing they do not promote reading the score ... I don't teach analysis anymore, but I would never have allowed my students not to read the score! — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have added a short section on denoting inversions with Arabic numerals. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Too many images
There are a lot of images on the right side now, which makes the article more difficult to read. Some of the images' content is also covered by the description in the body, which adds redundancy to the article. Can we delete some of the images or at least put them in their own section? Squandermania (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. In addition, several of these images are redundant with each other. Perhaps their author would want to reconsider this, trying himself to reduce the redundances, before we suppress them? —Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Roman numeral analysis
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Roman numeral analysis's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "B&S": From Macro analysis: Benward, Bruce & Saker, Marilyn (2003). Music: In Theory and Practice, Vol. I, p.74-75. Seventh Edition. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-294262-0. From Chord (music): Benward & Saker (2003), p. 77. From Lead sheet: Benward & Saker (2003). Music: In Theory and Practice, Vol. I, p.76. Seventh Edition. ISBN 978-0-07-294262-0. 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Roman numerals in minor
I open this new section because I realize that several sections above deal with the matter of Roman numerals in minor without really confronting the different points of view from which the problem is considered. The points of view are: I think that all these must be considered together. I believe that the article should document possibly diverging usages rather than arbitrarily deciding for some of them.
 * Whether the seventh degree must be a leading tone (i.e. raised with respect to 'natural' minor).
 * Whether the numerals in minor must be I II III IV V VI VII (as in major) – or I II ♭III IV V (♭)VI (♭)VII – or i ii° III (or III+) iv V (or v) VI vii°, etc.
 * Whether the model of the minor scale is 'natural', or 'harmonic', or 'melodic' minor.

There is a lot to do, a lot to read, and a lot of references to find. Let's begin with the usage of Roman numerals itself. I already tried to clarify the origin of Roman numerals in the History section, and came to the conclusion that the usage was not extremely active before the 20th century. That is to sat that the earliest common usages were in Schenker's Harmonielehre of 1906 and in Schoenberg's one of 1911. But I discovered since that Roman numerals already had been used by Percy Goetschius in 1900 (The Theory and Practice of Tone Relations, the first edition of which was in 1892, but I didn't yet see it), and by William White in 1911 (Harmonic Part-Writing). An important point is that all four of them use capital Roman numerals exclusively. Schoenberg added the Five-Minor, with lower case v, in Structural Functions (1948), but that is much later. Goetschius, Schenker and White never used lower case numerals, so far as I can tell. However, Robert Jones in his Harmony of 1939 does make use of lower case numerals for minor chords, of ii° or vii° for diminished ones, and of a slashed 5 (added to a capital Roman numeral) for the augmented fifth. Obviously, we should describe in the article that at least two usages exist: capital numerals throughout, or lower case with additional signs for augmented or diminished chords.

My opinion, in view of this, is that the article should take the 'natural' (Aeolian) minor as the model of the minor scale, otherwise we will never solve the matter of the various types of minor. For Schenker, special indication must be given if the scale is not the Aeolian one: a chord of the fifth degree with major third (leading tone) in minor must be indicated by V♮. Others would indicate it merely with a capital V instead of a lower case one, which does not contradict the idea or Aeolian minor.

At present, in the Minor scale section of the article, one reads that the "traditional notation" is i ii° ♭III iv v ♭VI ♭VII or vii°, and that an "alternative notation" is I ii iii iv v vi vii. I never encountered this "alternative" notation and I wonder in what sense the other is "traditional". Two musical examples follow, which describe still other notations: i ii° III iv v VI ♭VII (why ♭VII?) or in harmonic minor i ii° III+ iv V VI vii°. I think that the augmented III chord (III+) is rare in common practice, which may mean that the harmonic minor scale often is not used with a ♭7 as the fifth of the chord of III – i.e. that the harmonic minor is not preserved throughout.

And the following section, Modes, gives numberings for the diatonic modes that appear to be alterations of the numbering in Ionian: why is that, why is Ionian the model?

It should not be particularly difficult to put some order in all this. But, as Geneviève sang after reading Pelléas' letter, Qu'en dites-vous ? — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Concerning only the matter of numbering modes, a similar discussion is currently being carried out at Talk:Mode_(music).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * my mention above was not clear: I didn't mean the numbering of the modes themselves, but the numbering of their degrees (with Roman numerals, with additional flats of sharps). The only link that I can see is that in Talk:Mode_(music) (and in the article itself), somebody (perhaps Woodstone) decided that the modes should be numbered by the degree of the major mode which is their "tonic" (I'd rather say their "nominal note", the note that gives its name to the corresponding mode). I won't begin discussing there, because this article Mode_(music), of which I had not been aware (although this really is one of my domains of expertise), would drive me crazy: it is a mess. What I meant merely was that after the relative confusion of the use of Roman numerals for the degrees in minor, the confusion appeared even more severe for their use for the degrees in other modes. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. I had misunderstood you. Thanks for clearing up my confusion. The Mode article was recently altered to put the "modern modes" at the top, on the supposition that most readers would be looking for that information, and not the mouldy old historical stuff. The trouble is, very little of the "modern modes" section was referenced, and this becomes more obvious when it is the first thing you see upon opening the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not relevant here, but I want to note that the idea (perhaps) ascribed to me, is actually the one I am opposing. &minus;Woodstone (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies, Woodstone. I will eventually react on the Talk:Mode_(music) page, but not just now. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

About using Latin letters in inversion notation
The Latin letter system can be found in https://www.musictheory.net/lessons/44, which requires clicking the settings button and switch the terminology to "British". NFSL2001 (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This site states that "Others use an 'a' suffix to represent root position, 'b' for first inversion and 'c' for second inversion". But it does no say who these "others" are, he does not quote any source, and this notation is documented nowhere else, that I know. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , published in the late 1960s, teaches this nomenclature, as it was required by the Australian Music Examinations Board in those days. The author distinguishes between figuration and nomenclature, thus p33
 * "128. The second inversion of a triad is called the "chord of the six-four.
 * 129. It is figured 6 4 [sorry I don't know how to type a 6 over a 4]......
 * 130. The chord indication is a Roman numeral with a small c as I.c, IV.c, etc."
 * and another reference is which teaches the same thing. Note that neither of these authors bothers with using an a to denote root position, in the same way that one doesn't usually bother showing 5 3 for a root position chord in American nomenclature.HonourRoll6 (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @HonourRoll6 Thank you for calling my claim (?) "absurd". I didn't claim anything, I merely said that I know of no reference documenting the usage of 'a', 'b' and 'c' for denoting root position, first, and second inversion. You quote two Australian sources that I didn't know. Is this is a specific Australian usage? There are also two references to websites, but these might be questioned. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The UK based Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music (ABRSM), where I currently take my music theory exams, uses this so-called "Extended roman" system. According to the AB Guide to Music Theory Part II, Appendix D,
 * "A first inversion chord is shown by 'b' after the roman numeral, a second inversion by 'c' a third inversion (as in a 7th chord) by 'd', and so on in the case of 9th, 11th and 13th chords."
 * And that same book barely recognizes the American system, calling it "Figured Roman" and stating that in that system "Roman numerals are used only in capitals", which I know not to be true in popular usage. The extended Roman system, on the other hand, does not seem to be known to the my musician acquaintances in The Netherlands, where I live. This has been a major source of frustration. JaydoDre (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)