Fugue Composition with Counterpoint Melody Generation Using Genetic Algorithms

  • Andres Garay Acevedo
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3310)


This paper presents the results of implementing and evaluating a genetic algorithm to assist in the task of automatic counterpoint generation. In particular, a fugue subject was used as an input for the system, while the generated counterpoint melody was to act as the countersubject. The genetic algorithm was tested with two different input melodies, and a basic set of rules for fitness evaluation. Within this domain, the results were satisfactory. Finally, the suitability of genetic algorithms for the task of rule-based melody generation, as well as possible future work and enhancements to the implemented system, are also reviewed and discussed.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alpern, A.: Techniques for Algorithmic Composition of Music (1995), on the Web: http://hamp.hampshire.edu/~adaF92/algocomp/algocomp95.html
  2. 2.
    Biles, J.: GenJam: A Genetic Algorithm for Generating Jazz Solos. In: Proceedings of the 1994 International Computer Music Conference. International Computer Music Association, San Francisco (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burton, A., Vladimirova, T.: Generation of Musical Sequences with Genetic Techniques. Computer Music Journal 23(4), 59–73 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cope, D.: Computer Modeling of Musical Intelligence in EMI. Computer Music Journal 16(2), 69–83 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goldberg, D.: The Design of Innovation: Lessons from Genetic Algorithms, Lessons for the Real World. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 64, 7–12 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hiller, L.: Composing with computers: A progress report. Computer Music Journal 5(4), 7–21 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Horner, A., Goldberg, D.: Genetic Algorithms and Computer-Assisted Music Composition. In: Proceedings of the 1991. International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, International Society for Genetic Algorithms, San Mateo (1991)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jacob, B.: Composing with Genetic Algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 1995 International Computer Music Conference. International Computer Music Association, San Francisco (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jacob, B.: Algorithmic Composition as a Model of Creativity. Organised Sound 1(3) (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Milkie, E., Chestnut, J.: Fugue Generation with Genetic Algorithms (2001), On the Web: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/boom/2001/Milkie
  11. 11.
    Moroni, A., et al.: Vox Populi: An Interactive Evolutionary System for Algorithmic Music Composition. Leonardo Music Journal 10, 49–54 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schottstaedt, W.: Automatic Counterpoint. In: Current Directions in Computer Music, pp. 199–213. MIT Press, Cambridge (1989)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Supper, M.: A Few Remarks on Algorithmic Composition. Computer Music Journal 25(1), 48–53 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Temperley, D., Sleator, D.: Modeling Meter and Harmony: A Preference-Rule Approach. Computer Music Journal 23(1), 10–27 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andres Garay Acevedo
    • 1
  1. 1.Georgetown UniversityWashington DCUSA

Personalised recommendations