Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
122 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
11 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
47 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
5 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
4 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
33 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Engraving Oriented Joint Estimation of Pitch Spelling and Local and Global Keys (2402.10247v1)

Published 15 Feb 2024 in cs.SD, cs.IR, and eess.AS

Abstract: We revisit the problems of pitch spelling and tonality guessing with a new algorithm for their joint estimation from a MIDI file including information about the measure boundaries. Our algorithm does not only identify a global key but also local ones all along the analyzed piece. It uses Dynamic Programming techniques to search for an optimal spelling in term, roughly, of the number of accidental symbols that would be displayed in the engraved score. The evaluation of this number is coupled with an estimation of the global key and some local keys, one for each measure. Each of the three informations is used for the estimation of the other, in a multi-steps procedure. An evaluation conducted on a monophonic and a piano dataset, comprising 216 464 notes in total, shows a high degree of accuracy, both for pitch spelling (99.5% on average on the Bach corpus and 98.2% on the whole dataset) and global key signature estimation (93.0% on average, 95.58% on the piano dataset). Designed originally as a backend tool in a music transcription framework, this method should also be useful in other tasks related to music notation processing.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (14)
  1. J. Nagel, “The chromatic modal scale: Proper spelling for tonal voice-leading,” JOMAR Press, 2007.
  2. E. Chew and Y.-C. Chen, “Real-time pitch spelling using the spiral array,” Computer Music Journal, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 61–76, 2005.
  3. D. Meredith, “The PS13 pitch spelling algorithm,” Journal of New Music Research, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 121–159, 2006.
  4. E. Cambouropoulos, “Pitch spelling: A computational model,” Music Perception, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 411–429, 2003.
  5. A. K. Honingh, “Compactness in the Euler-lattice: A parsimonious pitch spelling model,” Musicae Scientiae, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 117–138, 2009.
  6. B. Wetherfield, “The minimum cut pitch spelling algorithm: Simplifications and developments,” in TENOR, 2020.
  7. G. Teodoru and C. Raphael, “Pitch spelling with conditionally independent voices,” in Proc. conf. of the Int. Society for Music Information Retrieval (ISMIR), 2007, pp. 201–206.
  8. F. Foscarin, N. Audebert, and R. Fournier-S’Niehotta, “PKSpell: Data-driven pitch spelling and key signature estimation,” in Proc. 22nd conf. of the Int. Society for Music Information Retrieval (ISMIR), 2021.
  9. L. Feisthauer, L. Bigo, M. Giraud, and F. Levé, “Estimating keys and modulations in musical pieces,” in Sound and Music Computing Conference (SMC), 2020.
  10. L. Huang, “Advanced dynamic programming in semiring and hypergraph frameworks,” in COLING, 2008.
  11. J. Demšar, “Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets,” The Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 7, pp. 1–30, 2006.
  12. J. Wenzel. pybind11 – Seamless operability between C++11 and Python. [Online]. Available: https://pybind11.readthedocs.io
  13. M. S. Cuthbert and C. Ariza, “music21: A toolkit for computer-aided musicology and symbolic music data,” in Proc. conf. of the Int. Society for Music Information Retrieval (ISMIR), 2010.
  14. F. Foscarin, A. Mcleod, P. Rigaux, F. Jacquemard, and M. Sakai, “ASAP: A dataset of aligned scores and performances for piano transcription,” in Proc. conf. of the Int. Society for Music Information Retrieval (ISMIR), 2020, pp. 534–541.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Follow-up Questions

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.