Advertisement

Soft Computing

, Volume 16, Issue 12, pp 1997–2008 | Cite as

Controlling interactive evolution of 8-bit melodies with genetic programming

  • Maximos A. Kaliakatsos-PapakostasEmail author
  • Michael G. Epitropakis
  • Andreas Floros
  • Michael N. Vrahatis
Original Paper

Abstract

Automatic music composition and sound synthesis is a field of study that gains continuously increasing attention. The introduction of evolutionary computation has further boosted the research towards exploring ways to incorporate human supervision and guidance in the automatic evolution of melodies and sounds. This kind of human–machine interaction belongs to a larger methodological context called interactive evolution (IE). For the automatic creation of art and especially for music synthesis, user fatigue requires that the evolutionary process produces interesting content that evolves fast. This paper addresses this issue by presenting an IE system that evolves melodies using genetic programming (GP). A modification of the GP operators is proposed that allows the user to have control on the randomness of the evolutionary process. The results obtained by subjective tests indicate that the utilization of the proposed genetic operators drives the evolution to more user-preferable sounds.

Keywords

Interactive evolution Music composition Sound synthesis Genetic programming Fitness-adaptive genetic operators 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and ideas that helped to improve and extend the content as well as the clarity of this paper. We would also like to thank the participants who voluntarily participated in this research.

References

  1. Angeline PJ (1997) Subtree crossover: building block engine or macromutation? In: Genetic programming 1997 proceedings of the second annual conference, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp 9–17Google Scholar
  2. Burton AR, Vladimirova T (1999) Generation of musical sequences with genetic techniques. Comput Music J 23(4):59–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Davis S, Mermelstein P (1980) Comparison of parametric representations for monosyllabic word recognition in continuously spoken sentences. IEEE Trans Acoust Speech Signal Process 28(4):357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Garcia RA (2000) Towards the automatic generation of sound synthesis techniques: preparatory steps. In: Audio engineering society convention 109Google Scholar
  5. Garcia RA (2001) Growing sound synthesizers using evolutionary methods. Synthesis M(Garcia 2000):99–107Google Scholar
  6. Heikkilä V (2011) countercomplex-bitwise creations in a pre-apocalyptic world. http://countercomplex.blogspot.com/
  7. Heikkilä V (2011) Discovering novel computer music techniques by exploring the space of short computer programs. CoRR abs/1112.1368Google Scholar
  8. Higuchi T (1988) Approach to an irregular time series on the basis of the fractal theory. Phys D 31:277–283MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kaliakatsos-Papakostas MA, Epitropakis MG, Floros A, Vrahatis MN (2012) Interactive evolution of 8-bit melodies with genetic programming towards finding aesthetic measures for sound. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on evolutionary and biologically inspired music, sound, art and design, EvoMUSART 2012, Malaga, Spain, LNCS, vol 7247, pp 140–151. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  10. Koza JR (1992) Genetic programming: on the programming of computers by means of natural selection, 1 edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  11. Lewis M (2008) Evolutionary visual art and design. In: Romero J, Machado P (eds) The art of artificial evolution, natural computing series, Springer, Berlin, pp 3–37Google Scholar
  12. Manaris B, Roos P, Machado P, Krehbiel D, Pellicoro L, Romero J (2007) A corpus-based hybrid approach to music analysis and composition. In: Proceedings of the 22nd national conference on artificial intelligence. AAAI Press, vol 1, pp 839–845Google Scholar
  13. Phon-Amnuaisuk S, Law E, Kuan H (2007) Evolving music generation with SOM-fitness genetic programming. In: Giacobini M (ed) Applications of evolutionary computing. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, Berlin, vol 4448, pp 557–566Google Scholar
  14. Poli R, Langdon WB, McPhee NF (2008) A field guide to genetic programming. Lulu Enterprises, UKGoogle Scholar
  15. Putnam JB (1994) Genetic programming of musicGoogle Scholar
  16. Sample of melodies—individuals created during a trial by a participant. http://sites.google.com/site/maximoskp/SampleMelodies.zip (2012)
  17. Shannon CE (2001) A mathematical theory of communication. ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Comput Commun Rev 5:3–55MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Silva S, Almeida J (2003) Gplab—a genetic programming toolbox for matlab. In: Proceedings of the Nordic MATLAB conference, pp 273–278Google Scholar
  19. Spector L, Alpern A (1994) Criticism, culture, and the automatic generation of artworks. In: Proceedings of the twelfth national conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 1. AAAI ’94, American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Menlo Park, CA, USA, pp 3–8Google Scholar
  20. Spector L, Alpern A (1995) Induction and recapitulation of deep musical structure. In: Proceedings of the IFCAI-95 workshop on artificial intelligence and music, pp 41–48Google Scholar
  21. Terasawa H, Slaney M, Berger J (2005) Perceptual distance in timbre space. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on auditory display (ICAD2005), Department of Computer Science and Information Systems, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland, pp. 61–68Google Scholar
  22. Tokui N (2000) Music composition with interactive evolutionary computation. Communication 17(2):215–226Google Scholar
  23. Tzanetakis G, Cook P (2002) Musical genre classification of audio signals. IEEE Trans Speech Audio Process 10(5):293–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wilcoxon F (1945) Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biom Bull 1(6):80–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yan JR, Min Y (2011) User fatigue in interactive evolutionary computation. Appl Mech Mater 48–49:1333–1336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ziv J, Lempel A (1977) A universal algorithm for sequential data compression. IEEE Trans Inf Theory 23(3):337–343MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maximos A. Kaliakatsos-Papakostas
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael G. Epitropakis
    • 1
  • Andreas Floros
    • 2
  • Michael N. Vrahatis
    • 1
  1. 1.Computational Intelligence Laboratory (CILAB), Department of MathematicsUniversity of PatrasPatrasGreece
  2. 2.Department of Audio and Visual ArtsIonian UniversityCorfuGreece

Personalised recommendations