musical genre classification
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Musical Genre Classification

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 36

Musical Genre Classification - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 724 Views
  • Uploaded on

Musical Genre Classification. Prepared by Elliot Sinyor for MUMT 611 March 3, 2005. Table of Contents. What is Genre? Approaches to Genre Classification Manual Automatic Related Work Soltau 1998 Tzanetakis & Cook prescriptive approach Pachet et al. 2001 emergent approach

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Musical Genre Classification' - MartaAdara


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
musical genre classification

Musical Genre Classification

Prepared by Elliot Sinyor

for MUMT 611

March 3, 2005

table of contents
Table of Contents
  • What is Genre?
  • Approaches to Genre Classification
      • Manual
      • Automatic
  • Related Work
  • Soltau 1998
  • Tzanetakis & Cook
    • prescriptive approach
  • Pachet et al. 2001
    • emergent approach
  • Conclustion
what is genre
What is Genre?
  • A way of describing what an item shares with other items as well as what differentiates it from other items
  • From Aucouturier and Pachet
    • “The genesis of genre is therefore to be found in our natural and irrepressible tendency to classify”
what is genre4
What is Genre?
  • A&P separate into two broad categories
    • Intentional vs. Extensional
what is genre intentional
What is Genre? - Intentional
  • More subjective
      • Relies on collective cultural knowledge
      • Social/Historical context
      • Eg 60s, hippies, brit-pop
problems with genre
Problems with “Genre”
  • What do the names mean?
      • Rock? Pop?
  • No fixed semantics
      • Amazon.com Genres by:
        • Period (“60s pop”)
        • Topic (“love song”)
        • Country of Origin (“Japanese music”)
  • Genre is based on extrinsic habits rather than intrinsic properties
      • To a French person – C. Aznavour – Variety
      • To an English person – C. Aznavour – French
what is genre extensional
What is Genre? - Extensional
  • Analysis-based
      • Describes the music itself
      • Tempo, timbre, pitch, language, etc.
      • (sometimes) easier for automatic genre classification systems
      • Eg fast rock, mellow classical.
problems with genre8
Problems with “Genre”
  • What granularity to use?
    • By Artist?
        • Please Please Me vs. Sgt. Pepper
    • By Album?
        • Revolution 9 vs. Helter Skelter vs. Mother Nature’s Son
    • Does work for broad categories
      • Rock vs. Classical
problems with genre9
Problems with “Genre”
  • Does anyone agree?
    • Allmusic.com – 531 genres
    • Amazon.com – 719 genres
    • Mp3.com – 430 genres
      • Only 70 words common to the three taxonomies (Pachet and Cazaly 2000)
approaches to genre classification
Approaches to Genre Classification
  • Manual
    • Musicologists and Elbow Grease
  • Automatic
    • Prescriptive
      • Signal Analysis based
    • Emergent
      • Uses existing human-entered meta-data to group things together
manual classification
Manual Classification
  • Dannenberg et al. 2001:
    • To build a taxonomy for MSN Music Search Engine
    • “Few hundred thousand songs”
    • Hired full-time musicologists
    • Took 30 human years
    • “The details of the taxonomy and the design methodology are, however, not available”
manual classification12
Manual Classification
  • Pachet and Cazaly 2001 (CUIDADO)
    • Separated descriptors – country, instrumentation, artist type, etc
      • _____ Rock
    • Too sensitive to musical evolution, difficult to build, difficult to maintain
    • Changed focus to artists instead of titles.
    • In any case, insufficient for millions of titles
prescriptive history
Prescriptive – History
  • Originated from Speech Recognition work
  • Most Classified audio from TV into music/speech/environmental
prescriptive various approches
Prescriptive – Various Approches
  • Saunders 1996
    • Thresholding/ZCR techniques
  • Scheirer and Slaney 1997
    • Multiple features and statistical pattern recognition
  • Kimber and Wilcox 1996
    • MFCCs and HMM to classify into music, speech, laughter and nonspeech
  • Zhang and Kuo 2001
    • Rule-based system for classifying audio from movies and TV into:
        • Non-music
          • Pure speech, non harmonic environmental sound
        • Music
          • Harmonic environmental sound, pure music, song, speech with music, environmental sound with music
prescriptive
Prescriptive
  • Soltau et al 1998 – “Recognition of Music Types”
  • New approach – Explicit Time Modelling with Neural Network (ETM-NN)
prescriptive soltau et al 1998
Prescriptive – Soltau et al. 1998
  • In a nutshell:
    • Transform acoustic signal into sequence of abstract sonic events
    • Look at statistical patterns derived from sequences  combine into vectors that represent temporal structure
    • 3-layer feed-forward network
prescriptive soltau et al 199817
Prescriptive – Soltau et al. 1998
  • Experimental Results:
    • 3 hours of data (360 samples, 30 sec each)
    • Rock, Pop, Techno, Classical
    • 67% training, 13% cross-validation, 20% evaluation
  • Compare ETM-NN vs. HMM, using cepstral coefficients
    • ETM-NN: 86.1% HMM: 79.2%
musical genre classification of audio signals tzanetakis and cook 2002
“Musical Genre Classification of Audio Signals” – Tzanetakis and Cook, 2002
  • Timbral Texture Features
    • Spectral {Centroid, Rolloff, Flux}, ZCR, MFCC (5 coefficients)
  • Analysis Window – features should be stable – 23 ms
  • Texture Window – “minimum amount of time to identify a \'texture’” 43 analysis windows, 1 sec.
      • “Memory of the past”
  • Statistics (means, variances) of features over the texture window
musical genre classification of audio signals tzanetakis and cook 200219
“Musical Genre Classification of Audio Signals” – Tzanetakis and Cook, 2002
  • Timbral Texture Features
    • Spectral {Centroid, Rolloff, Flux}, ZCR, MFCC (5 coefficients)
  • Analysis Window – features should be stable – 23 ms
  • Texture Window – “minimum amount of time to identify a \'texture’” 43 analysis windows, 1 sec.
      • “Memory of the past”
timbral texture feature vector
Timbral Texture Feature Vector
  • Statistics (means, variances) of features over the texture window
    • 19 dimensions
      • (m, v) of SC, SF, SR, ZCR, 5 MFCC
      • “low energy feature” fraction of analysis windows over texture window that have less than average RMS energy
          • Eg vocal music will have more silences
rhythmic content beat histogram
Rhythmic Content – “Beat Histogram”
  • “Pitch detection with larger periods”
  • Use DWT to divide signal into frequency bands
features taken from bh
Features taken from BH
  • A0, A1: relative amplitude (divided by the sum of amplitudes) of the first, and second histogram peak;
  • RA: ratio of the amplitude of the second peak divided by the amplitude of the first peak;
  • P1, P2: period of the first, second peak in bpm;
  • SUM: overall sum of the histogram (indication of beat strength).
pitch content features
Pitch Content Features
  • Used enhanced Autocorrelation function to create folded (1 octave) and unfolded (all notes) pitch histograms
  • Mapped to MIDI note numbers
  • Folded- common pitch classes
  • Unfolded – pitch range
      • Higher for jazz, classical
  • FA0, UP0, UP1, IPO1 (interval between 2 highest peaks), SUM
experimental results
Experimental Results
  • Used GMM classifiers with diagonal covariance matrices
prescriptive some results from a p
Prescriptive – Some Results: (from A&P)
  • Gaussian and Gaussian Mixture Models, used in 48% of successful classification in Ermolinskiy et al.(2001) using 100 songs for each class in the training phase. This result has to be taken with care since the system uses only pitch information.
  • Tzanetakis et al. (2001) achieves a rather disappointing 57%, but also reports 75% in Tzanetakis and Cook (2000a) using 50 songs per class.
  • 90% in Lambrou and Sandler (1998) and 75% in Deshpande et al. (2001) on a very small training and test set, which may not be representative.
  • Pye (2000) reports 90% on a total set of 175 songs.
  • Soltau (1998) reports 80% with HMM, 86% with NN, with a database of 360 songs.
emergent
Emergent
  • Unlike Prescriptive, it is unsupervised
  • Based on “cultural similarity from text documents”
  • Possible to extract similarities that are not possible to extract from the audio signal
emergent collaborative filtering
Emergent – Collaborative Filtering
  • Shardanand & Maes 1995, Pestoni et al. 2001
  • There are patterns in tastes
  • Have users rate their music, match like-tasted users, recommend unknown items to users
  • Problems
    • Good for naïve profiles, bad for broad, eclectic tastes
    • Favors “middle of the road” – liked by large proportion
    • Only works some time after release of new music
emergent co concurrent analysis
Emergent – co-concurrent analysis
  • Pachet et al. 2001
  • Looks at online text sources for co-occurrences of songs (aka data mining)
  • If 2 items appear in the same context (or share a common neighbour), this is evidence of some sort of similarity
co occurrence
Co-occurrence
  • Pachet et al. 2001 “Musical Data Mining for Electronic Music Distribution”
  • Sources used
    • Track listing databases (CDDB)
      • Mostly look at compilations of similar artists
    • Radio Show playlists
      • Specialty programs better than daily commercial radio
      • Lists made by experts
co occurrence32
Co-occurrence
  • Build a matrix where:
    • Value of entry (i, j) corresponds to number of times title i co-occurs with title j
  • What about indirect co-occurrence?
      • Eg Eleanor Rigby/Good Vibrations, Good Vibrations/God Only Knows  Eleanor Rigby God Only Knows
    • Correlation measure, using co-variance matrices of each title
experimental results33
Experimental Results
  • Using distance functions, use Ascendant Hierarchical Clustering
  • Used CDDB database, compared co-occurrence vs correlation
  • Manually examined results
  • “70% of clusters had interesting similarities”
challenges
Challenges
  • Name format is not strictly enforced
    • The Beatles; Beatles, The; Beatles
  • Difficult to characterize the nature of the similarities
  • Cover songs can sound nothing alike
conclusions and future directions
Conclusions and Future directions
  • “It seems that samples of Techno and Classical are easy to discriminate … Rock and Pop seems to be more difficult” – Soltau et al 1998
  • Manual classification not feasible
  • Why not combine prescriptive/emergent techniques?
ad