Modeling, Analyzing, Identifying, and Synthesizing Expressive Popular Music Performances



Professional musicians manipulate sound properties such as pitch, timing, amplitude, and timbre in order to add expression to their performances. However, there is little quantitative information about how and in which contexts this manipulation occurs. In this chapter, we describe an approach to quantitatively model and analyze expression in popular music monophonic performances, as well as identifying interpreters from their playing styles. The approach consists of (1) applying sound analysis techniques based on spectral models to real audio performances for extracting both inter-note and intra-note expressive features, and (2) based on these features, training computational models characterizing different aspects of expressive performance using machine learning techniques. The obtained models are applied to the analysis and synthesis of expressive performances as well as to automatic performer identification. We present results, which indicate that the features extracted contain sufficient information, and the explored machine learning methods are capable of learning patterns that characterize expressive music performance.


Tenfold Cross Validation Inductive Logic Programming Expressive Performance Playing Style Musical Context 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Gabrielsson A (1999) The performance of music. In: Deutsch D (ed) The psychology of music, 2nd edn. Academic, New York, 579 pagesGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gabrielsson A (2003) Music performance research at the millennium. Psychol Music 31(3):221–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johnson ML (1992) An expert system for the articulation of Bach fugue melodies. In: Baggi DL (ed) Readings in computer-generated music. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, pp 41–51Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bresin R (2001) Articulation rules for automatic music performance. In Proceedings of the international computer music conference. International Computer Music Association, San Francisco, pp 294–297Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Friberg A, Bresin R, Fryden L (2000) Music from motion: sound level envelopes of tones expressing human locomotion. J New Music Res 29(3):199–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Friberg A, Bresin R, Sundberg J (2006) Overview of the KTH rule system for musical performance. Adv Cogn Psychol Spec Issue Music Perform 2(2–3):145–161Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Canazza S, De Poli G, Roda A, Vidolin A (1997) Analysis and synthesis of expressive intention in a clarinet performance. In Proceedings of the 1997 international computer music conference. International Computer Music Association, San Francisco, pp 113–120Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Canazza S, De Poli G, Drioli C, Roda A, Vidolin A (2004) Modeling and control of expressiveness in music performance. Proc IEEE 92(4):286–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dannenberg RB, Derenyi I (1998) Combining instrument and performance models for high-quality music synthesis. J New Music Res 27(3):211–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mitchell TM (1997) Machine learning. McGraw-Hill, New York, 542 pagesMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    de Mantaras RL, Arcos JL (2002) AI and music, from composition to expressive performance. AI Mag 23(3):43–57Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ramirez R, Hazan A (2006) A tool for generating and explaining expressive music performances of monophonic jazz melodies. Int J Artif Intell Tools 15(4):673–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ramirez R, Hazan A, Maestre E, Serra X (2008) A genetic rule-based expressive performance model for jazz saxophone. Comput Music J 32(1):38–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Widmer G (2001) Discovering strong principles of expressive music performance with the PLCG rule learning strategy. In Proceedings of the 12th European conference on machine learning (ECML'01), Germany. Springer, Berlin, pp 552–563Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Widmer G (2002) Machine discoveries: a few simple, robust local expression principles. J New Music Res 31(1):37–50MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tobudic A, Widmer G (2003) Relational IBL in music with a new structural similarity measure. In Proceedings of the international conference on inductive logic programming. Springer, pp 365–382Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dovey MJ (1995) Analysis of Rachmaninoff’s piano performances using inductive logic programming. In European conference on machine learning. Springer, pp 35–38Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van Baelen E, De Raedt L (1996) Analysis and prediction of piano performances using inductive logic programming. In International conference in inductive logic programming, pp 55–71Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Saunders C, Hardoon D, Shawe-Taylor J, Widmer G (2004) Using string kernels to identify famous performers from their playing style. In Proceedings of the 15th European conference on machine learning (ECML'2004), Pisa, Italy, pp 384–395Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stamatatos E, Widmer G (2005) Automatic identification of music performers with learning ensembles. Artif Intell 165(1):37–56MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ramirez R, Maestre E, Serra X (2010) Automatic performer identification in commercial monophonic jazz performances. Pattern Recognit Lett 31:1514–1523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ramirez R, Perez A, Kersten S, Maestre E (2008) Performer identification in celtic violin recordings. In International Society of Music Information Retrieval (ISMIR) conference, Philadelphia, USA, pp 483–488Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Molina-Solana M, Arcos JL, Gomez E (2010) Identifying violin performers by their expressive trends. Intell Data Anal 14(5):555–571Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Narmour E (1990) The analysis and cognition of basic melodic structures: the implication realization model. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 358 pagesGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gómez E, Klapuri A, Meudic B (2003) Melody description and extraction in the context of music content processing. J New Music Res 32:33–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Klapuri A (1999) Sound onset detection by applying psychoacoustic knowledge. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing, ICASSP, pp 3089–3092Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maher RC, Beauchamp JW (1994) Fundamental frequency estimation of musical signals using a two-way mismatch procedure. J Acoust Soc Am 95:2254–2263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McNab RJ, Smith LA, Witten IH (1996) Signal processing for melody transcription, working paper 95/22, Hamilton, New Zealand, University of Weikato, Department of Computer ScienceGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Maestre E, Gomez E (2005) Automatic characterization of dynamics and articulation of monophonic expressive recordings. In Proceedings of the 118th AES convention, Barcelona, Spain, pp 36–40Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Narmour E (1991) The analysis and cognition of melodic complexity: the implication realization model. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 321 pagesGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Blockeel H, De Raedt L, Ramon J (1998) Top-down induction of clustering trees. In Shavlik J(ed) Proceedings of the 15th international conference on machine learning, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. Morgan Kaufmann, pp 53–63Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Quinlan JR (1993) C4.5: programs for machine learning. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 305 pages. ISBN 1–55860–238–0Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rosinach V, Traube C (2006) Measuring swing in Irish traditional fiddle music. In Proceedings of international conference on music perception and cognition, pp 1168–1171Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Friberg A, Sundstrom J (2002) Swing ratios and ensemble timing in jazz performances: evidence for a common rhythmic pattern. Music Percept 19(3):333–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Maestre E, Hazan A, Ramirez R, Perez A (2006) Using concatenative synthesis for expressive performance in jazz saxophone. In Proceedings of international computer music conference, New Orleans, pp 82–85Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cristianini N, Shawe-Taylor J (2000) An introduction to support vector machines. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 190 pages. ISBN 0–521–78019–5Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chauvin Y, Rumelhart ED (eds) (1995) Backpropagation: theory, architectures and applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc, Hillsdale, 549 pages. ISBN 0–8058–1259–8Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rafael Ramirez
    • 1
  • Esteban Maestre
    • 2
  • Alfonso Perez
    • 3
  1. 1.DTICUniversitat Pompeu FabraBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.CCRMAStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  3. 3.CIRMMT and IDMIL, Schulich School of MusicMcGill UniversityWest Montreal, QuebecCanada

Personalised recommendations