skip to main content
research-article

Harmony Generation Driven by a Perceptually Motivated Tonal Interval Space

Published:10 January 2016Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We present D'accord, a generative music system for creating harmonically compatible accompaniments of symbolic and musical audio inputs with any number of voices, instrumentation, and complexity. The main novelty of our approach centers on offering multiple ranked solutions between a database of pitch configurations and a given musical input based on tonal pitch relatedness and consonance indicators computed in a perceptually motivated Tonal Interval Space. Furthermore, we detail a method to estimate the key of symbolic and musical audio inputs based on attributes of the space, which underpins the generation of key-related pitch configurations. The system is controlled via an adaptive interface implemented for Ableton Live, MAX, and Pure Data, which facilitates music creation for users regardless of music expertise and simultaneously serves as a performance, entertainment, and learning tool. We perform a threefold evaluation of D'accord, which assesses the level of accuracy of our key-finding algorithm, the user enjoyment of generated harmonic accompaniments, and the usability and learnability of the system.

References

  1. Reinhold Behringer and John Elliot. 2009. Linking physical space with the Riemann Tonnetz for exploration of Western tonality. In Music Education, João Hermida and Mariana Ferrero (Eds.). Nova Science Publishers. Inc., Hauppauge, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Emmanouil Benetos, Simon Dixon, Dimitrios Giannoulis, Holger Kirchhoff, and Anssi Klapuri. 2013. Automatic music transcription: Challenges and future directions. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 41, 3, 407--434. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Gilberto Bernardes, Diogo Cocharro, Carlos Guedes, and Matthew Davies. 2016. A multi-level tonal interval space for modelling pitch relatedness and musical consonance. Journal of New Music Research 45, 4, 281--294. .Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Louis Bigo, Jérémie Garcia, Antoine Spicher, and Wendy E. Mackay. 2012. Papertonnetz: Music composition with interactive paper. In Proceedings of the 9th Sound and Music Computing Conference (Copenhagen, Denmark). 219--225.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Axel Bruns. 2007. Produsage: Towards a broader framework for user-led content creation. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition. ACM, New York, 99--106. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Chris Cannam, Michael Jewell, Christopher Rhodes, Mark Sandler, and Mark d'Inverno. 2010. Linked data and you: Bringing music research software into the semantic web. Journal of New Music Research 39, 4, 313--325.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Elaine Chew. 2000. Towards a mathematical model of tonality. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Richard Cohn. 1997. Neo-Riemannian operations, parsimonious trichords, and their “tonnetz” representations. Journal of Music Theory 41, 1--66.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Matthew E. P. Davies, Mark D. Plumbley, and Douglas Eck. 2009. Towards a musical beat emphasis function. In Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on Applications of Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics. 61--64.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Rui Dias and Carlos Guedes. 2012. Gimmedablues app for iOS: Overview and ongoing developments. In Proceedings of the SIGGRAPH Asia 2012 Symposium on Apps (SA'12). ACM, New York, Article 2, 1 page. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Simon Dixon, Matthias Mauch, and Amélie Anglade. 2010. Probabilistic and logic-based modelling of harmony. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Exploring Music Contents, Sølvi Ystad, Mitsuko Aramaki, Richard Kronland-Martinet, and Kristoffer Jensen (Eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1--19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Arne Eigenfeldt and Philippe Pasquier. 2010. Realtime generation of harmonic progressions using controlled Markov selection. In Proceedings of the ICCC-X-Computational Creativity Conference. 16--25.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Morwaread M. Farbood, Gary Marcus, and David Poeppel. 2013. Temporal dynamics and the identification of musical key. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 39, 4, 911--918.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Dan Gang, Daniel Lehmann, and Naftali Wagner. 1997. Harmonizing melodies in real-time: The connectionist approach. In Proceedings of the International Computer Music Association. 27--31.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Emilia Gómez. 2006. Tonal description of polyphonic audio for music content processing. INFORMS Journal on Computing 18, 3, 294--304. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Garth Griffin and Robert Jacob. 2013. Priming creativity through improvisation on an adaptive musical instrument. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition, Ellen Yi-Luen Do, Steven Dow, Jack Ox, Steve Smith, Kazushi Nishimoto, and Chek Tien Tan (Eds.). ACM, New York, 146--155. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Christopher Harte and Mark Sandler. 2005. Automatic chord identification using a quantised chromagram. Audio Engineering Society Convention. 118, 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Christopher Harte, Mark Sandler, and Martin Gasser. 2006. Detecting harmonic change in musical audio. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM Workshop on Audio and Music Computing Multimedia. ACM, New York, 21--26. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Christopher Harte. 2010. Towards automatic extraction of harmony information from music signals. Doctoral dissertation, Queen Mary, University of London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. David Huron. 1994. Interval-class content in equally tempered pitch-class sets: Common scales exhibit optimum tonal consonance. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal 11, 3, 289--305.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. David Huron. 2001. Tone and voice: A derivation of the rules of voice-leading from perceptual principles. Music Perception 19, 1, 1--64.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. William Hutchinson and Leon Knopoff. 1978. The acoustic component of western consonance. Interface -- Journal of New Music Research 7, 1, 1--29.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Özgür Izmirli. 2006. Audio key finding using low-dimensional spaces. In Proceedings of the International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference. 127--132.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Akio Kameoka and Mamoru Kuriyagawa. 1969. Consonance theory. Part I: Consonance of dyads. Journal of Acoustical Society of America 45, 6, 1451--1459.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. C. L. Krumhansl and E. J. Kessler. 1982. Tracing the dynamic changes in perceived tonal organization in a spatial map of musical keys. Psychological Review 89, 334--368.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Carol L. Krumhansl. 1990. Cognitive Foundations of Musical Pitch. Oxford University Press, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Carol L. Krumhansl and Mark A. Schmuckler. 1986. Key finding in music: An algorithm based on pattern matching to tonal hierarchies. Paper presented at the 19th annual Mathematical Psychology meeting, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Fred Lerdahl. 2001. Tonal Pitch Space. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. David Lewin. 1987. Generalized Musical Intervals and Transformations. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Ofir Lindenbaum, Arie Yeredor, and Israel Cohen. 2015. Musical key extraction using diffusion maps. Signal Processing 117, C, 198--207. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Hugh C. Longuet Higginsz. 1962. Two letters to a musical friend. Music Review 23, 244--248, 271--280.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Constantine F. Malmberg. 1918. The perception of consonance and dissonance. Psychological Monographs 25, 2, 93--133.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Bill Manaris, David Johnson, and Yiorgos Vassilandonakis. 2013. Harmonic navigator: A gesture-driven, corpus-based approach to music analysis, composition, and performance. In Proceedings of the 9th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment. 67--74.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Matthias Mauch and Simon Dixon. 2010. Approximate note transcription for the improved identification of difficult chords. In Proceedings of the 11th International Society Music Information Retrieval Conference. 135--140.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Katy Noland and Mark B. Sandler. 2006. Key estimation using a hidden Markov model. In Proceedings of the International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference. 121--126.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. François Pachet and Pierre Roy. 2001. Musical harmonization with constraints: A survey. Constraints Journal 6, 7, 7--19. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. François Pachet and Pierre Roy. 1998. Formulating constraint satisfaction problems on part-whole relations: The case of automatic musical harmonization. In Proceedings of the ECAI Workshop on Constraints for Artistic Applications. 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. François Pachet. 1994. The muses system: An environment for experimenting with knowledge representation techniques in tonal harmony. In Proceedings of the 1st Brazilian Symposium on Computer Music. 95--201.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Hélène Papadopoulos and George Tzanetakis. 2012. Modeling chord and key structure with Markov logic. In Proceedings of International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference. 121--126.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Somnuk Phon-Amnuaisuk, Andrew Tuson, and Geraint Wiggins. 1999. Evolving musical harmonisation. Artificial Neural Nets and Genetic Algorithms. Springer, Vienna, 229--234.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Hugo Riemann. 1893. Vereinfachte harmonielehre, oder die lehre von den tonalen funktionen der akkorde. 1896. Tr. H. Bewerunge, Augener. London.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Thomas Rocher, Matthias Robine, Pierre Hanna, and Laurent Oudre. 2010. Concurrent estimation of chords and keys from audio. In Proceedings of the International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference. 141--146.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Helmut Schaffrath and David Huron. 1995. The Essen Folksong Collection in the Humdrum Kern Format. Center Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities, Menlo Park, CA..Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Marc Schonbrun. 2011. The everything music theory: Take your understanding of music to the next level. Adams Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Roger Shepard. 1982. Structural representations of musical pitch. In The Psychology of Music, Diana Deutsch (Ed.). Academic Press, 335--353.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Karen Smith and Lola Cuddy. 1986. The pleasingness of melodic sequences: Contrasting effects of repetition and rule-familiarity. Psychology of Music 14, 1, 17--32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. Mark Steedman. 1999. Categorical grammar. In The MIT Encyclopedia of Cognitive Sciences. MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. David Temperley. 1999. What's key for key? The Krumhansl-Schmuckler key-finding algorithm reconsidered. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal 17, 1, 65--100.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Geraint Wiggins. 1999. Automated generation of musical harmony: What's missing. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference in Artificial Intelligence.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Harmony Generation Driven by a Perceptually Motivated Tonal Interval Space

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image Computers in Entertainment
        Computers in Entertainment   Volume 14, Issue 2
        Special Issue on Musical Metacreation, Part I
        Summer 2016
        135 pages
        EISSN:1544-3574
        DOI:10.1145/3023311
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2016 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 10 January 2016
        • Accepted: 1 January 2016
        • Revised: 1 October 2015
        • Received: 1 May 2015

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format