Advertisement

Melody Generation Based on Thematic Development Method Using Pitch Class Set and Rhythm Complexity

Conference paper
  • 542 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7545)

Abstract

This research is to create a melody generation system. Instead of using Markov chain with individual music parameter probability control, the pitch class set theory is adopted instead of generating pitch. The generated melody consists of motive and thematic development with variation. In addition rhythm complexity analysis technique is introduced in the proposed system with the inverse LHL method, to generate the rhythm with the rhythm complexity input automatically. This system can be used for algorithmic composition, and two cases have been verified successfully.

Keywords

Melody Generation System Pitch Class Set Motive and Thematic Development Rhythm Complexity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ames, C.: The Markov Process as a Compositional Model: A Survey and Tutorial. Leonardo 22(2), 175–187 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cambouropoulos, E.: Markov Chains as an Aid to Computer Assisted Composition. Musical Praxis 1(1), 41–52 (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Farbood, M., Schoner, B.: Analysis and Synthesis of Palestrina-Style Counterpoint Using Markov Chains. In: The International Computer Music Conference, Havana, Cuba, pp. 18–22 (September 2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wiggins, G., Papadopoulos, G., Phon-Amnuaisuk, S., Tuson, A.: Evolutionary Methods for Musical Composition. In: Partial Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference CASYS 1998 on Computing Anticipatory Systems, Liège, Belgium, pp. 10–14 (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moroni, A., Manzolli, J., Zuben, F.V., Gudwin, R.: Evolutionary Computation applied to Algorithmic Composition. In: Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Povel, D.J.: Melody Generator: A Device for Algorithmic Music Construction. Journal of Software Engineering & Applications 3, 683–695 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Temperley, D.: A Probabilistic Model of Melody Perception. Cognitive Science 32(2), 418–444 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Straus, J.N.: Introduction to Post-Tonal Theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1990)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schuijer, M.: Analyzing Atonal Music: Pitch-Class Set Theory and Its Contexts. Eastman Studies in Music 60. University of Rochester Press, Rochester (2008)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schoenberg, A., Stein, L.: Fundamentals of Music Composition (1967)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gehrkens, K.W.: The Project Gutenberg eBook, Music Notation and Terminology (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Scruton, R.: The Aesthetics of Music. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thul, E., Toussaint, G.T.: Rhythm complexity measures: A comparison of mathematical models of human perception and performance. In: Proc. 9th International Conference on Music Information Retrieval, Philadelphia, USA, pp. 14–18 (September 2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shmulevich, I., Povel, D.-J.: Complexity measures of musical rhythms. In: Desain, P., Windsor, W.L. (eds.) Rhythm Perception and Production, pp. 239–244. Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Longuet-Higgins, H., Lee, C.: The rhythmic interpretation of monophonic music. Music Perception 1(4), 424–441 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fitch, W.T., Rosenfeld, A.J.: Perception and production of syncopated rhythms. Music Perception 25(1), 43–58 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smith, L., Honing, H.: Evaluating and extending computational models of rhythmic syncopation in music. In: Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference, pp. 688–691 (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thul, E., Toussaint, G.T.: Analysis of musical rhythm complexity measures in a cultural context. In: Proceedings of the 2008 C3S2E Conference (C3S2E 2008), pp. 1–9. ACM, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cope, D.: The Algorithmic Composer, Madison, Wisconsin (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stein, L.: Structure & Style: The Study and Analysis of Musical Forms, Summy-Birchard Music (1979)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nelson, P.: Pitch Class Sets, Revised on January 20 (2007), http://composertools.com/Theory/PCSets/ (accessed April 08, 2011)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information CommunicationYuan Ze UniversityTaiwan
  2. 2.Master Program of Sound and Music Innovative TechnologiesNational Chiao Tung UniversityTaiwan

Personalised recommendations