Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Artificial Evolution of Expressive Performance of Music: An Imitative Multi-Agent Systems Approach

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Guide to Computing for Expressive Music Performance

  • 1439 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter introduces an imitative multi-agent system approach to generate expressive performances of music, based on agents’ individual parameterized musical rules. We have developed a system called IMAP (imitative multi-agent performer). Aside from investigating the usefulness of such an application of the imitative multi-agent paradigm, there is also a desire to investigate the inherent feature of diversity and control of diversity in this methodology: a desirable feature for a creative application, such as musical performance. To aid this control of diversity, parameterized rules are utilized based on previous expressive performance research. These are implemented in the agents using previously developed musical analysis algorithms. When experiments are run, it is found that agents are expressing their preferences through their music performances and that diversity can be generated and controlled.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Park TH (2009) An interview with Max Mathews. Comput Music J 33(3):9–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Boulanger R (ed) (2000) The Csound book: perspectives in software synthesis, sound design, signal processing and programming. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  3. Widmer G, Goebl W (2004) Computational models of expressive music performance: the state of the art. J New Music Res 33(3):203–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kirke A, Miranda ER (2010) A survey of computer systems for expressive music performance. ACM Surv 42(1):1–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sundberg J, Askenfelt A, Frydén L (1983) Musical performance. A synthesis-by-rule approach. Comput Music J 7:37–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bresin R, Friberg A (2000) Emotional coloring of computer-controlled music performances. Comput Music J 24(4):44–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Clynes M (1986) Generative principles of musical thought: integration of microstructure with structure. Commun Cogn 3:185–223

    Google Scholar 

  8. Livingstone SR, Muhlberger R, Brown AR, Loch A (2007) Controlling musical emotionality: an affective computational architecture for influencing musical emotions. Digit Creat 18(1):43–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Johnson ML (1991) Toward an expert system for expressive musical performance. Computer 24(7):30–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ishikawa O, Aono Y, Katayose H, Inokuchi S (2000) Extraction of musical performance rule using a modified algorithm of multiple regression analysis. In: Proceedings of the international computer music conference. International Computer Music Association, San Francisco, pp 348–351

    Google Scholar 

  11. Canazza S, Drioli C, De Poli G, Rodà A, Vidolin A (2000) Audio morphing different expressive intentions for multimedia systems. IEEE Multimed 7(3):79–83

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bresin R, Vecchio C (1995) Neural networks play Schumann. In: Proceedings of the KTH symposium on grammars for music performance, Stockholm. Department of Speech Communication and Music Acoustics, KTH, Stockholm, pp 5–14

    Google Scholar 

  13. Camurri A, Dillon R, Saron A (2000) An experiment on analysis and synthesis of musical expressivity. In: Proceedings of 13th colloquium on musical informatics, L’Aquila, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  14. Grindlay GC (2005) Modelling expressive musical performance with Hidden Markov Models. Master’s thesis, University of California Santa Cruz, USA

    Google Scholar 

  15. Raphael C (2001) Synthesizing musical accompaniments with Bayesian belief networks. J New Music Res 30(1):59–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Widmer G, Tobudic A (2003) Playing Mozart by analogy: learning multi-level timing and dynamics strategies. J New Music Res 32(3):259–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ramirez R, Hazan A (2005) Modeling expressive performance in Jazz. In: Proceedings of 18th international Florida artificial intelligence research society conference. AAAI Press, Palm Beach, pp 86–91

    Google Scholar 

  18. Zhang Q, Miranda ER (2006) Evolving musical performance profiles using genetic algorithms with structural fitness. In: Proceedings of the 8th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation. ACM Press, New York, pp 1833–1840

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Ramirez R, Hazan A, Maestre E, Serra X (2008) A genetic rule-based model of expressive performance for jazz saxophone. Comput Music J 32(1):38–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Friberg A, Sundberg J (1999) Does music performance allude to locomotion? A model of final ritardandi derived from measurements of stopping runners. J Acoust Soc Am 105:1469–1484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Seashore CE (1938) Psychology of music. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  22. Palmer C (1997) Music performance. Annu Rev Psychol 48:115–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gabrielsson A (2003) Music performance research at the millennium. Psychol Music 31:221–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Clarke EF (1988) Generative principles in music performance. In: Generative processes in music: the psychology of performance, improvisation, and composition. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 1–26

    Google Scholar 

  25. Juslin P (2003) Five facets of musical expression: a psychologist’s perspective on music performance. Psychol Music 31(3):273–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Miranda ER, Biles JA (eds) (2007) Evolutionary computer music. Springer, London

    Google Scholar 

  27. Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning. Addison-Wesley, Colchester

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Dissanayake E (2001) Birth of the arts. Nat Hist 109(10):84–92

    Google Scholar 

  29. Zentall T, Galef BG (1988) Social learning: psychological and biological perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  30. Boyd R, Richerson PJ (2005) Solving the puzzle of human cooperation. In: Levinson S (ed) Evolution and culture. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 105–132

    Google Scholar 

  31. Miranda ER (2002) Emergent sound repertoires in virtual societies. Comput Music J 26(2):77–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Noble J, Franks DW (2004) Social learning in a multi-agent system. Comput Inform 22(6):561–574

    Google Scholar 

  33. De Boer B (2000) Emergence of vowel systems through self-organisation. AI Commun 13:27–29

    Google Scholar 

  34. Hashida M, Nagata N, Katayose H (2006) Pop-E: a performance rendering system for the ensemble music that considered group expression. In: Proceedings of 9th international conference on music perception and cognition, Spain, pp 526–534

    Google Scholar 

  35. Todd NP (1985) A model of expressive timing in tonal music. Music Percept 3:33–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ben-David A, Mandel J (1995) Classification accuracy: machine learning vs. explicit knowledge acquisition. Mach Learn 18(1):109–114

    Google Scholar 

  37. Friberg A, Bresin R, Sundberg J (2006) Overview of the KTH rule system for musical performance. Adv Cogn Psychol 2(2):145–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Todd NP (1992) The dynamics of dynamics: a model of musical expression. J Acoust Soc Am 91(6):3540–3550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Clarke EF, Davidson JW (1998) The body in music as mediator between knowledge and action. In: Thomas W (ed) Composition, performance, reception: studies in the creative process in music. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 74–92

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sundberg J (2000) Grouping and differentiation two main principles of music. In: Nakada T (ed) Integrated human brain science: theory, method application (music). Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 299–314

    Google Scholar 

  41. Cambouropoulos E (2002) The local boundary detection model (LBDM) and its application in the study of expressive timing. In: Proceedings of the 2001 international computer music conference. International Computer Music Association, San Francisco. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.bbp2372.2001.021. Assessed on 05 Oct 2009

  42. Lerdahl F, Jackendoff R (1983) A generative theory of tonal music. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  43. Thomassen JM (1982) Melodic accent: experiments and a tentative model. J Acoust Soc Am 71(6):1596–1605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Krumhansl C (1991) Cognitive foundations of musical pitch. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  45. Bresin R (1998) Artificial neural network based models for automatic performance of musical scores. J New Music Res 27(3):239–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kirke A (1977) Learning and co-operation in mobile multi-robot systems. PhD thesis, University of Plymouth

    Google Scholar 

  47. Wooldridge M (2004) An introduction to multi-agent systems. Wiley, Malden

    Google Scholar 

  48. Winston WL, Venkataramanan M (2002) Introduction to mathematical programming: applications and algorithms. Duxbury Press, Pacific Grove

    Google Scholar 

  49. Kirke A, Miranda ER (2011) Using a biophysically-constrained multi-agent system to combine expressive performance with algorithmic composition. In: Miranda ER (ed) A-life for music: music and computer models of living systems. A-R Editions, Middleton

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was financially supported by the EPSRC-funded project “Learning the Structure of Music,” grant EP/D062934/1. Qijun Zhang was partially supported by the Faculty of Technology, University of Plymouth. An earlier version of this chapter was published in Computer Music Journal Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 80–96. The authors thank MIT Press for permission to publish this chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Arts, Interdisciplinary Centre for Computer Music Research, Plymouth University, Drake Circus, PL4 8AA, Plymouth, UK

    Eduardo R. Miranda, Alexis Kirke & Qijun Zhang

Authors
  1. Eduardo R. Miranda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexis Kirke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Qijun Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eduardo R. Miranda .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. ICCMR, University of Plymouth, Smeaton Building 206, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, Devon, United Kingdom

    Alexis Kirke

  2. Computing, Communication & Electronics, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, United Kingdom

    Eduardo R. Miranda

Questions

Questions

  1. 1.

    What is evolutionary computation?

  2. 2.

    What is the difference between a genetic algorithm and a multi-agent system with imitation?

  3. 3.

    Why is the potential for diversity a desirable trait for a system generating novel expressive music performances?

  4. 4.

    What two communication functions does each agent in IMAP have?

  5. 5.

    What is the difference between the rule level and the analytics level in an IMAP agent’s evaluation function?

  6. 6.

    What are performance curves?

  7. 7.

    What four elements does an IMAP agent represent a score with?

  8. 8.

    Give one method of controlling the extent of performances’ diversity in IMAP.

  9. 9.

    What does the TempoRatio represent?

  10. 10.

    What type of sociological study does IMAP have the potential to be useful for?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Miranda, E.R., Kirke, A., Zhang, Q. (2013). Artificial Evolution of Expressive Performance of Music: An Imitative Multi-Agent Systems Approach. In: Kirke, A., Miranda, E. (eds) Guide to Computing for Expressive Music Performance. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4123-5_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4123-5_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-4122-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-4123-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation