Abstract
AbstractDeep learning methods are recognised as state-of-the-art for many applications of machine learning. Recently, deep learning methods have emerged as a solution to the task of automatic music generation (AMG) using symbolic tokens in a target style, but their superiority over non-deep learning methods has not been demonstrated. Here, we conduct a listening study to comparatively evaluate several music generation systems along six musical dimensions: stylistic success, aesthetic pleasure, repetition or self-reference, melody, harmony, and rhythm. A range of models, both deep learning algorithms and other methods, are used to generate 30-s excerpts in the style of Classical string quartets and classical piano improvisations. Fifty participants with relatively high musical knowledge rate unlabelled samples of computer-generated and human-composed excerpts for the six musical dimensions. We use non-parametric Bayesian hypothesis testing to interpret the results, allowing the possibility of finding meaningfulnon-differences between systems’ performance. We find that the strongest deep learning method, a reimplemented version of Music Transformer, has equivalent performance to a non-deep learning method, MAIA Markov, demonstrating that to date, deep learning does not outperform other methods for AMG. We also find there still remains a significant gap between any algorithmic method and human-composed excerpts.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Artificial Intelligence,Software
Reference111 articles.
1. Agres, K., Forth, J., & Wiggins, G. A. (2016). Evaluation of musical creativity and musical metacreation systems. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 14(3), 1–33.
2. Aguilera, G., Galán, J. L., Madrid, R., Martínez, A. M., Padilla, Y., & Rodríguez, P. (2010). Automated generation of contrapuntal musical compositions using probabilistic logic in derive. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 80(6), 1200–1211.
3. Allan, M., & Williams, C. K. (2005). Harmonising chorales by probabilistic inference. Advances in neural information processing systems, 17, 25–32.
4. Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 997.
5. Ames, C. (1989). The Markov process as a compositional model: A survey and tutorial. Leonardo, 22(2), 175–187.
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献