Recent Progress in Intelligent Musical Instruments

Charles P Martin - The Australian National University

web: charlesmartin.com.au     twitter/github: @cpmpercussion

Ngunnawal & Ngambri & Ngarigu Country

vision

Intelligent Musical Instruments become a normal part of musical performance and production.

why?

Assist professional musicians & composers

Engage novice musicians & students

Reveal creative interaction with intelligent systems

Create new kinds of music!

making intelligent musical predictions

History

Digital Musical Instruments (1979ish-)

Voyager - George E Lewis (1986-)

Continuator - François Pachet (2001)

Wekinator - Rebecca Fiebrink (2009-)

Magenta Project - Google (2016-)

where are all the intelligent musical instruments?

Performance data is diverse

Music Systems Data
Score / Notation Symbolic Music, Image
Digital Instruments MIDI
Recording & Production Digital Audio
New Musical Interfaces Gestural and Sensor Data
Show Control Video, Audio, Lighting, Control Signals

Predicting sequences

Interacting with predictions

creating an orchestra of intelligent instruments…

Interactive RNN Instrument

Physical Intelligent Instrument

  • Generates endless music with a melody RNN.
  • Switchable Dataset.
  • Controls for sampling “temperature”.

Physical Intelligent Instrument

GestureRNN

GestureRNN

Gesture RNN

  • Predicts 1 of 9 “gestures” for three AI performers.
  • Trained on labelled data from 5 hours of quartet performances.
  • Actual “sounds” are chunks of each gesture played back.

RoboJam

Robojam and Microjam

Robojam Interaction

  • Predicts next touch location in screen (x, y, dt).
  • Trained on ~1500 5s performances.
  • Produces duet “responses” to the user.

Mixture Density Network

IMPS System

IMPS System

  • Opinionated Neural Network for interacting with NIMES.
  • Automatically collects data and trains.
  • “Wekinator” for deep learning?

Three easy steps…

  • Collect some data: IMPS logs interactions automatically to build up a dataset
  • Train an MDRNN: IMPS includes good presets, no need to train for days/weeks
  • Perform! IMPS includes three interaction modes, scope to extend in future!

Experiment: Is this practical?

  • Is it practical for real-time use?
  • How do the MDRNN parameters affect time per prediction?
  • What are “good defaults” for training parameters?
  • Do you need a powerful/expensive computer?

Test Systems

Test computers

Results: Time per prediction

Time per prediction vs LSTM units

Time per prediction (ms) with different sizes of LSTM layers.

Results: Time per prediction

Time per prediction vs MDN dimension

Time per prediction (ms) with different MDN output dimensions. (64 LSTM units)

Results: Training Error vs Validation Set Error

12K sample dataset (15 minutes of performance)

Takeaway: Smallest model best for small datasets. Don’t bother training for too long.

Results: Training Error vs Validation Set Error

100K sample dataset (120 minutes of performance)

Takeaway: 64- and 128-unit model still best!

Results: Exploring Generation

Takeaway: Make Gaussians less diverse, make categorical more diverse.

Embodied Predictive Musical Instrument (EMPI)

Embodied Predictive Musical Instrument (EMPI)

  • Predicts next movement and time, represents physically.
  • Experiments with interaction mappings; mainly focussed on call-response
  • Weird and confusing/fun?

Training Data

Human Data Sine Data Square Data Saw Data Noise Data

Generated Data

Human Generation Synth Generation Noise Generation

Improvisations with EMPI

  • 12 participants

  • two independent factors: model and feedback

  • model: human, synthetic, noise

  • feedback: motor on, motor off

Results: Survey

Change of ML model had significant effect: Q2, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7

Results: Survey

  • human model most “related”, noise was least

  • human model most “musically creative”

  • human model easiest to “influence”

  • noise model not rated badly!

Participants generally preferred human or synth, but not always!

Results: Performance Length

Human and synth: more range of performance lengths with motor on.

Noise: more range with motor off.

Takeaways

Studied self-contained intelligent instrument in genuine performance.

Physical representation could be polarising.

Performers work hard to understand and influence ML model.

Constrained, intelligent instrument can produce a compelling experience.

How can intelligent instruments help us make music?

Emulate or enhance ensemble experience

Engage in call-and-response improvisation

Model a performer’s personal style

Modify/improve performance actions in place

Research questions...

Are ML models practical for musical prediction?

Are intelligent instruments useful to musicians?

What happens when musicians and instrument co-adapt?

Can a musical practice be represented as a dataset?

What does a intelligent instrument album / concert sound like?

Thanks!