skip to main content
10.1145/3478384.3478418acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesamConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Understanding Cross-Genre Rhythmic Audio Compatibility: A Computational Approach

Published:15 October 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Rhythmic similarity, a fundamental task within Music Information Retrieval, has recently been applied in creative music contexts to retrieve musical audio or guide audio-content transformations. However, there is still very little knowledge of the typical rhythmic similarity values between overlapping musical structures per instrument, genre, and time scales, which we denote as rhythmic compatibility. This research provides the first steps towards the understanding of rhythmic compatibility from the systematic analysis of MedleyDB, a large multi-track musical database composed and performed by artists. We apply computational methods to compare database stems using representative rhythmic similarity metrics – Rhythmic Histogram (RH) and Beat Spectrum (BS) – per genre and instrumental families and to understand whether RH and BS are prone to discriminate genres at different time scales. Our results suggest that 1) rhythmic compatibility values lie between [.002,.354] (RH) and [.1,.881] (BS), 2) RH outperforms BS in discriminating genres, and 3) different time scale in RH and BS impose significant differences in rhythmic compatibility.

References

  1. Adam Berenzweig, Beth Logan, Daniel P.W. Ellis, and Brian Whitman. 2004. A Large-Scale Evaluation of Acoustic and Subjective Music-Similarity Measures. Computer Music Journal 28, 2 (2004), 63–76.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Rachel Bittner, Justin Salamon, Mike Tierney, Matthias Mauch, Chris Cannam, and Juan Bello. 2014. MedleyDB: A Multitrack Dataset for Annotation-Intensive MIR Research. In Proc. 15th ISMIR. 155–160.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Rachel Bittner, Justin Salamon, Mike Tierney, Matthias Mauch, Chris Cannam, and Juan Bello. 2014. MedleyDB Instrument Taxonomy. https://github.com/marl/medleydb/blob/master/medleydb/resources/taxonomy.yaml.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. F Alton Everest and Ken C Pohlmann. 2015. Master Handbook of Acoustics, Sixth Edition (6th ed. ed.). McGraw-Hill Education, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Arthur Flexer. 2014. On Inter-rater Agreement in Audio Music Similarity. In Proc. 15th ISMIR. Taipei, Taiwan, 245–250.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. J. Foote and Shingo Uchihashi. 2001. The beat spectrum: a new approach to rhythm analysis. In IEEE Int. Conf. on Multimedia and Expo (ICME). IEEE, Tokyo, JP, 881–884.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Masataka Goto. 2012. Grand Challenges in Music Information Research. In Multimodal Music Processing, Meinard Müller, Masataka Goto, and Markus Schedl(Eds.). Dagstuhl Follow-Ups, Vol. 3. Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany, 217–226.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Garth Griffin, Youngmoo E. Kim, and Douglas Turnbull. 2010. Beat-Sync-Mash-Coder: A web application for real-time creation of beat-synchronous music mashups. In IEEE ICASSP. IEEE, Dallas, USA, 437–440.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. TU Wien MIR Group. 2015. Rhythm Pattern Audio Feature Extractor for Music Similarity, Classification and Recommendation. https://github.com/tuwien-musicir/rp_extract.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Peter Knees and Markus Schedl. 2013. A Survey of Music Similarity and Recommendation from Music Context Data. ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl. 10, 1 (2013), 21 pages.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Thomas Lidy. 2006. Evaluation of New Audio Features and Their Utilization in Novel Music Retrieval Applications. Ph.D. Dissertation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Thomas Lidy and Andreas Rauber. 2005. Evaluation of Feature Extractors and Psycho-Acoustic Transformations for Music Genre Classification. In Proc. 6th ISMIR. ISMIR, London, UK, 34–41.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Lie Lu, Hao Jiang, and HongJiang Zhang. 2001. A Robust Audio Classification and Segmentation Method. In Proc. of the 9th ACM Int. Conf. on Multimedia(MULTIMEDIA ’01). Association for Computing Machinery, Ottawa, CA, 203–211.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Elias Pampalk, Andreas Rauber, and Dieter Merkl. 2002. Content-based Organization and Visualization of Music Archives. In Proc. 10th ACM International Conference on Multimedia. ACM, NY, USA, 570–579.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Zafar Rafii. 2020. REPeating Pattern Extraction Technique. https://github.com/zafarrafii/REPET-Python.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Andreas Rauber, Elias Pampalk, and Dieter Merkl. 2003. The SOM-enhanced JukeBox: Organization and Visualization of Music Collections Based on Perceptual Models. Journal of New Music Research 32 (06 2003), 193–210.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Understanding Cross-Genre Rhythmic Audio Compatibility: A Computational Approach
      Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

      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
        AM '21: Proceedings of the 16th International Audio Mostly Conference
        September 2021
        283 pages
        ISBN:9781450385695
        DOI:10.1145/3478384

        Copyright © 2021 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: 15 October 2021

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • short-paper
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate177of275submissions,64%
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)12
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2

        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