skip to main content
10.1145/3402942.3409602acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfdgConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

M.I.N.U.E.T.: Procedural Musical Accompaniment for Textual Narratives

Published:17 September 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Extensive research has been conducted on using procedural music generation in real-time applications such as accompaniment to musicians, visual narratives, and games. However, less attention has been paid to the enhancement of textual narratives through music. In this paper, we present Mood Into Note Using Extracted Text (MINUET), a novel system that can procedurally generate music for textual narrative segments using sentiment analysis. Textual analysis of the flow and sentiment derived from the text is used as input to condition accompanying music. Music generation systems have addressed variations through changes in sentiment. By using an ensemble predictor model to classify sentences as belonging to particular emotions, MINUET generates text-accompanying music with the goal of enhancing a reader’s experience beyond the limits of the author’s words. Music is played via the JMusic library and a set of Markov chains specific to each emotion with mood classifications evaluated via stratified 10-fold cross validation. The development of MINUET affords the reflection and analysis of features that affect the quality of generated musical accompaniment for text. It also serves as a sandbox for further evaluating sentiment-based systems on both text and music generation sides in a coherent experience of an implemented and extendable experiential artifact.

References

  1. Timothey Adam, Michael Haungs, and Foaad Khosmood. 2014. Procedurally generated, adaptive music for rapid game development. In FDG 2014 Workshop Proceedings, Foundation of Digital Games.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Cecilia Ovesdotter Alm, Dan Roth, and Richard Sproat. 2005. Emotions from text: machine learning for text-based emotion prediction. In Proceedings of the conference on human language technology and empirical methods in natural language processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 579–586.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Heike Argstatter. 2016. Perception of basic emotions in music: Culture-specific or multicultural?Psychology of Music 44, 4 (2016), 674–690.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Laura-Lee Balkwill and William Forde Thompson. 1999. A cross-cultural investigation of the perception of emotion in music: Psychophysical and cultural cues. Music perception: an interdisciplinary journal 17, 1 (1999), 43–64.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Karen Collins. 2009. An introduction to procedural music in video games. Contemporary Music Review 28, 1 (2009), 5–15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Kate Compton, Ben Kybartas, and Michael Mateas. 2015. Tracery: an author-focused generative text tool. In International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling. Springer, 154–161.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Kate Compton and Michael Mateas. 2015. Casual Creators.. In ICCC. 228–235.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Kim G Dolgin and Edward H Adelson. 1990. Age changes in the ability to interpret affect in sung and instrumentally-presented melodies. Psychology of Music 18, 1 (1990), 87–98.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Chris Donahue, Julian McAuley, and Miller Puckette. 2018. Synthesizing Audio with Generative Adversarial Networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.04208(2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Hao-Wen Dong, Wen-Yi Hsiao, Li-Chia Yang, and Yi-Hsuan Yang. 2018. MuseGAN: Multi-track sequential generative adversarial networks for symbolic music generation and accompaniment. In Proc. AAAI Conf. Artificial Intelligence.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Cicero dos Santos and Maira Gatti. 2014. Deep convolutional neural networks for sentiment analysis of short texts. In Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers. 69–78.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Richard Evans and Emily Short. 2013. Versu—a simulationist storytelling system. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games 6, 2(2013), 113–130.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. John Fuegi and Jo Francis. 2003. Lovelace & Babbage and the creation of the 1843’notes’. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 25, 4 (2003), 16–26.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Alec Go, Richa Bhayani, and Lei Huang. 2009. Twitter sentiment classification using distant supervision. CS224N Project Report, Stanford 1, 12 (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Antonio Gulli and Sujit Pal. 2017. Deep learning with Keras. Packt Publishing Ltd.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Julia C Hailstone, Rohani Omar, Susie MD Henley, Chris Frost, Michael G Kenward, and Jason D Warren. 2009. It’s not what you play, it’s how you play it: Timbre affects perception of emotion in music. The quarterly Journal of Experimental psychology 62, 11(2009), 2141–2155.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Dorien Herremans, Ching-Hua Chuan, and Elaine Chew. 2017. A functional taxonomy of music generation systems. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 50, 5 (2017), 1–30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. David A Jurgens, Peter D Turney, Saif M Mohammad, and Keith J Holyoak. 2012. Semeval-2012 task 2: Measuring degrees of relational similarity. In Proceedings of the First Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics-Volume 1: Proceedings of the main conference and the shared task, and Volume 2: Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation. Association for Computational Linguistics, 356–364.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Patrik N Juslin. 2001. Communicating emotion in music performance: A review and a theoretical framework.(2001).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Vojislav Kecman. 2005. Support vector machines–an introduction. In Support vector machines: theory and applications. Springer, 1–47.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Balázs Kégl. 2009. Introduction to AdaBoost.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Hyun-Chul Lee and In-Kwon Lee. 2005. Automatic synchronization of background music and motion in computer animation. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 24. Wiley Online Library, 353–361.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Edward Loper and Steven Bird. 2002. NLTK: the natural language toolkit. arXiv preprint cs/0205028(2002).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Lie Lu, Dan Liu, and Hong-Jiang Zhang. 2006. Automatic mood detection and tracking of music audio signals. IEEE Transactions on audio, speech, and language processing 14, 1(2006), 5–18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Todd Lubart. 2005. How can computers be partners in the creative process: classification and commentary on the special issue. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 63, 4-5 (2005), 365–369.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Rishi Madhok, Shivali Goel, and Shweta Garg. 2018. SentiMozart: Music Generation based on Emotions. (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Saif M. Mohammad. [n.d.]. Emotion, Sentiment, and Stance Labeled Data. https://web.archive.org/web/20170623152301http://saifmohammad.com:80/WebPages/SentimentEmotionLabeledData.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Saif M. Mohammad. [n.d.]. Fine tuning a classifier in scikit-learn. http://saifmohammad.com/WebPages/EmotionIntensity-SharedTask.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Saif M Mohammad and Felipe Bravo-Marquez. 2017. Emotion intensities in tweets. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.03696(2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Dan Morris, Sumit Basu, and Ian Simon. 2010. Automatic accompaniment for vocal melodies. US Patent 7,705,231.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Preslav Nakov, Sara Rosenthal, Svetlana Kiritchenko, Saif M Mohammad, Zornitsa Kozareva, Alan Ritter, Veselin Stoyanov, and Xiaodan Zhu. 2016. Developing a successful SemEval task in sentiment analysis of Twitter and other social media texts. Language Resources and Evaluation 50, 1 (2016), 35–65.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. BBC News. [n.d.]. Could a computer ever create better art than a human?https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47700701.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Alexander Pak and Patrick Paroubek. 2010. Twitter as a corpus for sentiment analysis and opinion mining.. In LREc, Vol. 10. 1320–1326.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Fabian Pedregosa, Gaël Varoquaux, Alexandre Gramfort, Vincent Michel, Bertrand Thirion, Olivier Grisel, Mathieu Blondel, Peter Prettenhofer, Ron Weiss, Vincent Dubourg, 2011. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. the Journal of machine Learning research 12 (2011), 2825–2830.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D. Manning. 2014. GloVe: Global Vectors for Word Representation. In Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). 1532–1543. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/D14-1162Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Whitney Quesenbery and Kevin Brooks. 2010. Storytelling for user experience: Crafting stories for better design. Rosenfeld Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Adhika Sigit Ramanto and Nur Ulfa Maulidevi. 2017. Markov Chain Based Procedural Music Generator with User Chosen Mood Compatibility. International Journal of Asia Digital Art and Design Association 21, 1(2017), 19–24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. D Ramos, JLO Bueno, and E Bigand. 2011. Manipulating Greek musical modes and tempo affects perceived musical emotion in musicians and nonmusicians. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 44, 2 (2011), 165–172.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Syeda Rida-E-Fatima, Ali Javed, Ameen Banjar, Aun Irtaza, Hassan Dawood, Hussain Dawood, and Abdullah Alamri. 2019. A multi-layer dual attention deep learning model with refined word embeddings for aspect-based sentiment analysis. IEEE Access 7(2019), 114795–114807.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Irina Rish 2001. An empirical study of the naive Bayes classifier. In IJCAI 2001 workshop on empirical methods in artificial intelligence, Vol. 3. 41–46.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. S Rasoul Safavian and David Landgrebe. 1991. A survey of decision tree classifier methodology. IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics 21, 3(1991), 660–674.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Ian Simon, Dan Morris, and Sumit Basu. 2008. MySong: automatic accompaniment generation for vocal melodies. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 725–734.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Swathi Swaminathan and E Glenn Schellenberg. 2015. Current emotion research in music psychology. Emotion review 7, 2 (2015), 189–197.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Manuelde Vega. 1996. The representation of changing emotions in reading comprehension. Cognition & Emotion 10, 3 (1996), 303–322.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Sandrine Vieillard, Isabelle Peretz, Nathalie Gosselin, Stéphanie Khalfa, Lise Gagnon, and Bernard Bouchard. 2008. Happy, sad, scary and peaceful musical excerpts for research on emotions. Cognition & Emotion 22, 4 (2008), 720–752.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Theresa Wilson, Janyce Wiebe, and Paul Hoffmann. 2005. Recognizing contextual polarity in phrase-level sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the conference on human language technology and empirical methods in natural language processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 347–354.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Rene Wooller, Andrew R Brown, Eduardo Miranda, Joachim Diederich, and Rodney Berry. 2005. A framework for comparison of process in algorithmic music systems. (2005).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Georgios N Yannakakis, Antonios Liapis, and Constantine Alexopoulos. 2014. Mixed-initiative co-creativity. (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

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
    FDG '20: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games
    September 2020
    804 pages
    ISBN:9781450388078
    DOI:10.1145/3402942

    Copyright © 2020 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: 17 September 2020

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate152of415submissions,37%
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)11
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3

    Other Metrics

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