skip to main content
10.1145/3273024.3273034acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdlfmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

How current optical music recognition systems are becoming useful for digital libraries

Published:28 September 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Optical Music Recognition (OMR) promises to make large collections of sheet music searchable by their musical content. It would open up novel ways of accessing the vast amount of written music that has never been recorded before. For a long time, OMR was not living up to that promise, as its performance was simply not good enough, especially on handwritten music or under non-ideal image conditions. However, OMR has recently seen a number of improvements, mainly due to the advances in machine learning. In this work, we take an OMR system based on the traditional pipeline and an end-to-end system, which represent the current state of the art, and illustrate in proof-of-concept experiments their applicability in retrieval settings. We also provide an example of a musicological study that can be replicated with OMR outputs at much lower costs. Taken together, this indicates that in some settings, current OMR can be used as a general tool for enriching digital libraries.

References

  1. Andrew Hankinson, John Ashley Burgoyne, Gabriel Vigliensoni, Alastair Porter, Jessica Thompson, Wendy Liu, Remi Chiu, and Ichiro Fujinaga. 2012. Digital Document Image Retrieval Using Optical Music Recognition. In Proceedings of the 13th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference, Fabien Gouyon, Perfecto Herrera, Luis Gustavo Martins, and Meinard Müller (Eds.). 577--582.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Stefan Balke, Sanu Pulimootil Achankunju, and Meinard Müller. 2015. Matching Musical Themes based on noisy OCR and OMR input, In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). ICASSP, IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing - Proceedings 2015-August (2015), 703--707.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Jorge Calvo-Zaragoza and David Rizo. 2018. Camera-PrIMuS: Neural End-to-End Optical Music Recognition on Realistic Monophonic Scores. In 19th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference. (in press).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Jorge Calvo-Zaragoza and David Rizo. 2018. End-to-End Neural Optical Music Recognition of Monophonic Scores. Applied Sciences 4 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. L.iang Chen and Kun Duan. 2016. MIDI-assisted egocentric optical music recognition, In 2016 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV). 2016 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, WACV 2016 (2016). cited By 0; Conference of IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision, WACV 2016 ; Conference Date: 7 March 2016 Through 10 March 2016; Conference Code:121834.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. G. Sayeed Choudhury, M. Droetboom, Tim DiLauro, Ichiro Fujinaga, and Brian Harrington. 2000. Optical Music Recognition System within a Large-Scale Digitization Project. In 1st International Symposium on Music Information Retrieval. 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Jürgen Diet and Frank Kurth. 2007. The Probado Music Repository at the Bavarian State Library.. In ISMIR. 501--504.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Matthew J. Dovey. 2004. Overview of the OMRAS project: Online music retrieval and searching. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 55, 12 (2004), 1100--1107. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Alicia Fornés, Anjan Dutta, Albert Gordo, and Josep Lladós. 2012. CVC-MUSCIMA: a ground truth of handwritten music score images for writer identification and staff removal. International Journal on Document Analysis and Recognition (IJDAR) 15, 3 (2012), 243--251. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. C. Fremerey, D. Damm, F. Kurth, and M. Clausen. 2009. Handling Scanned Sheet Music and Audio Recordings in Digital Music Libraries. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics NAG/DAGA. 1--2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Christian Fremerey, Meinard Müller, Frank Kurth, and Michael Clausen. 2008. Automatic mapping of scanned sheet music to audio recordings. In Proceedings of the 9th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR 2008). 413--418. http://ismir2008.ismir.net/papers/ISMIR2008_116.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Ichiro Fujinaga, Andrew Hankinson, and Julie E. Cumming. 2014. Introduction to SIMSSA (Single Interface for Music Score Searching and Analysis). In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Digital Libraries for Musicology. ACM, 1--3. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. David Garfinkle, Claire Arthur, Peter Schubert, Julie Cumming, and Ichiro Fujinaga. 2017. PatternFinder: Content-Based Music Retrieval with Music21. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Digital Libraries for Musicology (DLfM '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 5--8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Joe George and Lior Shamir. 2014. Computer analysis of similarities between albums in popular music. Pattern Recognition Letters 45 (2014), 78--84.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Jan jr. Hajič and Pavel Pecina. 2017. The MUSCIMA++ Dataset for Handwritten Optical Music Recognition. Proceedings of the 14th IAPR International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Jan Hajič jr., Matthias Dorfer, Gerhard Widmer, and Pavel Pecina. 2018. Towards Full-Pipeline Handwritten OMR with Musical Symbol Detection by U-Nets. In 19th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference. (in press).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Alan Marsden. 2012. Interrogating Melodic Similarity: A Definitive Phenomenon or the Product of Interpretation? Journal of New Music Research 41, 4 (2012), 323--335.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Matthias Dorfer, Andreas Arzt, and Gerhard Widmer. 2017. Learning Audio-Sheet Music Correspondences for Score Identification and Offline Alignment. In Proceedings of the 18th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference, ISMIR 2017, Suzhou, China, October 23--27, 2017, Sally Jo Cunningham, Zhiyao Duan, Xiao Hu, and Douglas Turnbull (Eds.). 115--122. https://ismir2017.smcnus.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/32_Paper.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Alexander Pacha and Horst Eidenberger. 2017. Towards Self-Learning Optical Music Recognition. In 2017 16th IEEE International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA). 795--800.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Ana Rebelo, Ichiro Fujinaga, Filipe Paszkiewicz, Andre R.S. Marcal, Carlos Guedes, and Jaime S. Cardoso. 2012. Optical music recognition: state-of-the-art and open issues. International Journal of Multimedia Information Retrieval 1, 3 (March 2012), 173--190.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. David Rizo. 2010. Symbolic music comparison with tree data structures. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universidad de Alicante.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Jessica Thompson, Andrew Hankinson, and Ichiro Fujinaga. 2011. Searching the Liber Usualis: Using CouchDB and ElasticSearch to Query Graphical Music Documents. In Proceedings of the 12th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference. http://ismir2011.ismir.net/latebreaking/LB-10.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. P. Toiviainen and T. Eerola. 2016. MIDI toolbox 1.1. https://github.com/miditoolbox/. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Julián Urbano. 2013. MIREX 2013 Symbolic Melodic Similarity: A Geometric Model supported with Hybrid Sequence Alignment. Technical Report. Music Information Retrieval Evaluation eXchange.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Piet G. Vos and Jim M. Troost. 1989. Ascending and Descending Melodic Intervals: Statistical Findings and their Perceptual Relevance. Music Perception 6, 4 (1989), 383--396.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. How current optical music recognition systems are becoming useful for digital libraries

            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 Other conferences
              DLfM '18: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Digital Libraries for Musicology
              September 2018
              101 pages
              ISBN:9781450365222
              DOI:10.1145/3273024

              Copyright © 2018 Owner/Author

              This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs International 4.0 License.

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 28 September 2018

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • short-paper

              Acceptance Rates

              DLfM '18 Paper Acceptance Rate14of27submissions,52%Overall Acceptance Rate27of48submissions,56%

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader