skip to main content
10.1145/3019612.3019723acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessacConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

MOMOS-MT: mobile monophonic system for music transcription: sheet music generation on mobile devices

Published:03 April 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Music holds a significant cultural role in social identity and in the encouragement of socialization. Technology, by the destruction of physical and cultural distance, has lead to many changes in musical themes and the complete loss of forms. Yet, it also allows for the preservation and distribution of music from societies without a history of written sheet music. This paper presents early work on a tool for musicians and ethnomusicologists to transcribe sheet music from monophonic voiced pieces for preservation and distribution. Using FFT, the system detects the pitch frequencies, also other methods detect note durations tempo, time signatures and generates sheet music. The final system is able to be used in mobile platforms allowing the user to take recordings and produce sheet music in situ to a performance.

References

  1. S. Abdallah, A. Alencar-Brayner, E. Benetos, S. Cottrell, J. Dykes, N. Gold, A. Kachkaev, M. Mahey, D. Tidhar, A. Tovell, et al. Automatic transcription and pitch analysis of the british library world & traditional music collections. In Proc of the 5th International Workshop on Folk Music Analysis-FMA2015, Paris, France, pages 10--12, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. A. Askenfelt. Automatic notation of played music (status report), 1976, speech transmission laboratory, quarterly progress attd status report, 1, royal institute of technology. 1976.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. B. K. A.T. Cemgil and D. Barber. Generative model based polyphonic music transcription. In IEEE Workshop on Applications of Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. S. M. Bendor D. Time domain extraction of vibrato from monophonic instruments. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Music Information Retrieval, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. E. Benetos and S. Dixon. A shift-invariant latent variable model for automatic music transcription. Computer Music Journal, 36(4):81--94, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. E. Benetos, S. Dixon, D. Giannoulis, H. Kirchhoff, and A. Klapuri. Automatic music transcription: challenges and future directions. J. Intell. Inf. Syst., 41(3):407--434, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. E. Benetos and A. Holzapfel. Automatic transcription of turkish microtonal music. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 138(4):2118--2130, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. G. Brown and M. Cooke. Perceptual grouping of musical sounds - a computational model. J. of New Music Research, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. J. C. Brown and B. Zhang. Musical frequency tracking using the methods of conventional and "narrowed" autocorrelation. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 89(5):2346--2354, 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. M. Buccoli, M. Zanoni, F. Setragno, F. Antonacci, and A. Sarti. An unsupervised approach to the semantic description of the sound quality of violins. In 23rd European Signal Processing Conference, EUSIPCO 2015, Nice, France, August 31 -- September 4, 2015, pages 2004--2008, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. A. Cemgil and B. Kappen. Monte carlo methods for tempo tracking and rhythm quantization. J. Artificial Intelligence Research, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. J. Chafe. Techniques for note identification in polyphonic music. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing, 1986.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. R. Chafe, Mont-Reynaud. Aesthetic response to choral music: Response comparisons of performer participants and non-performer respondents. Computer Music Journal, 6(1), 1982.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. N. Cook. Perception: a perspective from music theory. Musical Perceptions, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. J. B. Correa. Towards the automated analysis of simple polyphonic music: A knowledge based approach. 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. M. Davies. Audio source separation. In Mathematics in Signal Processing V, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. S. Dixon. Classification of dance music by periodicity pattern. ISMIR, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. A. Eronen and A. Klapuri. Musical instrument recognition using cepstral coefficients and temporal features. ICASSP, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. W. Fucks. Mathematical analysis of formal structure of music. IRE Trans. on Information Theory, 1962. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. M. S. Giuliano Monti. Monophonic transcription with autocorrelation. Proceedings of the COST G-6 Conference on Digital Audio Effects (DAFX-00), 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. S. Godsill and M. Davy. Bayesian harmonic models for musical signal analysis. PhD thesis, 7th Valencia Int. Meeting on Bayesian Statistics, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. A. Holzapfel and E. Benetos. The sousta corpus: Beat-informed automatic transcription of traditional dance tunes. In Proceedings of ISMIR - International Conference on Music Information Retrieval, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. M. S. Juan Pablo Bello, Giuliano Monti. Techniques for automatic music transcription. ISMIR, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. M. K. Sound-Source recognition. PhD thesis, MIT, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. R. E. Kalman. A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems. Journal of basic Engineering, 82(1):35--45, 1960. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. I. Katayose. The kansei music system. Computer Music Journal, 13(4):7277, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. J. A. Moorer. On the Segmentation and Analysis of Continuous Musical Sound by Digital COMPUTER. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, 1975. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. W. Pielemeier, G. Wakefield, and M. Simoni. Time-frequency analysis of musical signals. Proceedings of the IEEE, 84(9):1216--1230, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. M. Piszczalski and B. A. Galler. Computer analysis and transcription of performed music: A project report. Computers and the Humanities, 13(3):195--206, 1979. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. M. Scirea, J. Togelius, P. Eklund, and S. Risi. Metacompose: A compositional evolutionary music composer. In Evolutionary and Biologically Inspired Music, Sound, Art and Design, pages 202--217. Springer, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. S. W. Smith. The Scientist and Engineer's Guide to Digital Signal Processing. California Technical Publishing, San Diego, CA, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. A. Sterian. Model-based Segmentation of Time-frequency Images for Musical Transcription. PhD thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. P. Walmsley. Signal Separation of Musical Instruments - Simulation-based Methods for Musical Signal Decomposition and Transcription. PhD thesis, Cambridge University Engineering Department, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. D. Wilde. Optimum seeking methods. Prentice-Hall, 1964.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. MOMOS-MT: mobile monophonic system for music transcription: sheet music generation on mobile devices

        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
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          SAC '17: Proceedings of the Symposium on Applied Computing
          April 2017
          2004 pages
          ISBN:9781450344869
          DOI:10.1145/3019612

          Copyright © 2017 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: 3 April 2017

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate1,650of6,669submissions,25%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader