Assessing Musical Similarity for Computational Music Creativity

Computationally creative systems require semantic information when reflecting or self reasoning on their output. In this paper we outline the design of a computationally creative musical performance system aimed at producing virtuosic interpretations of musical pieces and provide an overview of its implementation. The case-based reasoning part of the system relies on a measure of musical similarity based on the FANTASTIC and SynPy toolkits that provide melodic and syncopated rhythmic features, respectively. We conducted a listening test based on pair-wise comparison to assess to what extent the machine-based similarity models match human perception. We found the machine-based models to differ significantly to human responses due to differences in participants’ responses. The best performing model relied on features from the FANTASTIC toolkit obtaining a rank match rate with human response of 63%, while features from the SynPy toolkit only obtained a ranking match rate of 46%. While more work is needed on a stronger model of similarity, we do not believe these results prevent FANTASTIC features being used as a measure of similarity within creative systems.

[1]  Geraint A. Wiggins,et al.  Computational Creativity and Live Algorithms , 2018, The Oxford Handbook of Algorithmic Music.

[2]  Geraint A. Wiggins,et al.  The evolutionary roots of creativity: mechanisms and motivations , 2014 .

[3]  Ramón López de Mántaras,et al.  Ai and Music: From Composition to Expressive Performance , 2002, AI Mag..

[4]  Mathieu Barthet,et al.  Designing Computationally Creative Musical Performance Systems , 2017, Audio Mostly Conference.

[5]  Geraint A. Wiggins Searching for computational creativity , 2006, New Generation Computing.

[6]  Gerhard Widmer,et al.  Relational IBL in classical music , 2006, Machine Learning.

[7]  Geraint A. Wiggins,et al.  Methodological Considerations in Studies of Musical Similarity , 2007, ISMIR.

[8]  Miguel Ferrand,et al.  Case-based Melody generation with MuzaCazUza , 2002 .

[9]  J. Sundberg,et al.  Overview of the KTH rule system for musical performance. , 2006 .

[10]  Gerhard Widmer,et al.  Computational Models of Expressive Music Performance: The State of the Art , 2004 .

[11]  Beatriz de la Iglesia,et al.  Clustering Rules: A Comparison of Partitioning and Hierarchical Clustering Algorithms , 2006, J. Math. Model. Algorithms.

[12]  György Fazekas,et al.  Music recommendation for music learning: Hotttabs, a multimedia guitar tutor , 2011 .

[13]  Geraint A. Wiggins,et al.  A preliminary framework for description, analysis and comparison of creative systems , 2006, Knowl. Based Syst..

[14]  Arne Eigenfeldt,et al.  An Introduction to Musical Metacreation , 2016, CIE.

[15]  A. Bundy What is the difference between real creativity and mere novelty? , 1994, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[16]  Gerhard Widmer,et al.  Relational IBL in Music with a New Structural Similarity Measure , 2003, ILP.

[17]  Xavier Serra,et al.  SaxEx: a case-based reasoning system for generating expressive musical performances , 1998, ICMC.

[18]  Geraint A. Wiggins,et al.  Evaluation of Musical Creativity and Musical Metacreation Systems , 2016, CIE.

[19]  P. Gärdenfors Conceptual spaces as a framework for knowledge representation , 2004 .

[20]  V. Howard,et al.  Virtuosity as a Performance Concept: A Philosophical Analysis. , 1997 .

[21]  Terri Gullickson The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms. , 1995 .

[22]  Simon Colton,et al.  Computational Creativity: The Final Frontier? , 2012, ECAI.

[23]  Agnar Aamodt,et al.  Case-Based Reasoning: Foundational Issues, Methodological Variations, and System Approaches , 1994, AI Commun..

[24]  Gerhard Widmer,et al.  Case-Based Relational Learning of Expressive Phrasing in Classical Music , 2004, ECCBR.

[25]  Percy A. Scholes,et al.  The Oxford Companion to Music , 1938 .