Computational systems for music improvisation

References

• Assayag, Gerard, Georges Bloch, Marc Chemillier, Arshia Cont, and Shlomo Dubnov. 2006. “Omax Brothers: A Dynamic Topology of Agents for Improvization Learning.” In Proceedings of the 1st ACM Workshop on Audio and Music Computing Multimedia, 125–132. Santa Barbara, CA: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Bell, Renick. 2011. “An Interface for Realtime Music Using Interpreted Haskell.” Linux Audio Conference (LAC-2011), May 6–8, Maynooth, Ireland.
   Google Scholar
• Beyls, Peter. 1988. “Introducing Oscar.” In Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference. ICMA, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
   Google Scholar
• Biles, John A. 1994. “GenJam: A Genetic Algorithm for Generating Jazz Solos.” In ICMC, Vol. 94, 131–137, Aarhus.
   Google Scholar
• Blackwell, Tim. 2007. Swarming and Music, 194–217. London: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Blackwell, Tim, Bown Oliver, and Young Michael. 2012. “Live Algorithms: Towards Autonomous Computer Improvisers.” In Computers and Creativity, 147–174. Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Boden, Margaret A. 2010. Creativity and Art: Three Roads to Surprise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bown, Oliver. 2011. “Experiments in Modular Design for the Creative Composition of Live Algorthims.” Computer Music Journal 35 (3): 73–85. doi: 10.1162/COMJ_a_00070
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bown, Oliver, and Jon McCormack. 2009. “Creative Agency: A Clearer Goal for Artificial Life in the Arts.” In European Conference on Artificial Life, 254–261. Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, A. R. 2018. “Creative Improvisation with a Reflexive Musical Bot.” Digital Creativity 29 (1): 1.
   Google Scholar
• Chadabe, Joel. 1980. “Solo: A Specific Example of Realtime Performance.” Computer Music Report on an International Project. Ottowa: Canadian Commission for UNESCO.
   Google Scholar
• Chadabe, Joel. 1984. “Interactive Composing: An Overview.” Computer Music Journal 8 (1): 22–27. doi: 10.2307/3679894
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chadabe, Joel. 1997. Electric Sound: The Past and Promise of Electronic Music. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, Nick. 2011. LL: Listening and Learning in an Interactive Improvisation System. https://composerprogrammer.com/research/ll.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, Nick, Alex Mclean, Julian Rohrhuber, and Adrian Ward. 2003. “Live Coding in Laptop Performance.” Organised Sound 8 (3): 321–330.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlstedt, Palle. 2006. “A MutaSynth in Parameter Space: Interactive Composition Through Evolution.” Organised Sound 6 (2): 121–124.
   Google Scholar
• Dannenberg, Roger B, and Christopher Raphael. 2006. “Music Score Alignment and Computer Accompaniment.” Communications of the ACM 49 (8): 38–43. doi: 10.1145/1145287.1145311
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• d’Inverno, Mark, Jon McCormack, et al. 2015. Heroic versus Collaborative AI for the Arts.” In Twenty-fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Buenos Aires: AAAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Di Scipio, Agostino. 2003. “‘Sound is the Interface’: From Interactive to Ecosystemic Signal Processing.” Organised Sound 8 (3): 269–277. doi: 10.1017/S1355771803000244
   Google Scholar
• Eigenfeldt, Arne. 2016. “Musebots at One Year: A Review.” In 4th International Workshop on Musical Metacreation, Paris.
   Google Scholar
• Fernandez, Jose D., and Francisco Vico. 2013. “AI Methods in Algorithmic Composition: A Comprehensive Survey.” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 48: 513–582.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiebrink, Rebecca, and Perry R. Cook. 2010. “The Wekinator: A System for Real-time, Interactive Machine Learning in Music.” Proceedings of the Eleventh International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR 2010), Utrecht.
   Google Scholar
• Hamanaka, Masatoshi, Masataka Goto, Hideki Asoh, and Nobuyuki Otsu. 2003. “A Learning-based Jam Session System that Imitates a Player’s Personality Model.” In IJCAI’03 Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial intelligence, 51–58. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
   Google Scholar
• Herremans, Dorien, Ching-Hua Chuan, and Elaine Chew. 2017. “A Functional Taxonomy of Music Generation Systems.” ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 50 (5): 69. doi: 10.1145/3108242
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman, Guy, and Gil Weinberg. 2010. “Shimon: An Interactive Improvisational Robotic Marimba Player.” In CHI’10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 3097–3102. Atlanta, GA: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Hoffman, Guy, and Gil Weinberg. 2011. “Interactive Improvisation with a Robotic Marimba Player.” Autonomous Robots 31 (2): 133–153. doi: 10.1007/s10514-011-9237-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jordà, Sergi, Gunter Geiger, Marcos Alonso, and Martin Kaltenbrunner. 2007. “The reacTable: Exploring the Synergy Between Live Music Performance and Tabletop Tangible Interfaces.” In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, 139–146. Baton Rouge: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Jordà, Sergi, and Sebastían Mealla. 2014. “A Methodological Framework for Teaching, Evaluating and Informing NIME Design with a Focus on Expressiveness and Mapping.” In Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression, London, 233–238.
   Google Scholar
• Jordanous, Anna. 2012. “A Standardised Procedure for Evaluating Creative Systems: Computational Creativity Evaluation Based on What it is to be Creative.” Cognitive Computation 4 (3): 246–279. doi: 10.1007/s12559-012-9156-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keller, Robert, Martin Hunt, Stephen Jones, David Morrison, Aaron Wolin, and Steven Gomez. 2007. “Blues for Gary: Design Abstractions for a Jazz Improvisation Assistant.” Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 193: 47–60. Festschrift honoring Gary Lindstrom on his retirement from the University of Utah after 30 years of service. doi: 10.1016/j.entcs.2007.10.007
   Google Scholar
• Kiefer, Chris, Nick Collins, and Geraldine Fitzpatrick. 2008. “HCI Methodology for Evaluating Musical Controllers: A Case Study.” In Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME-08), Genova, Italy, 87–90.
   Google Scholar
• Knotts, Shelly. 2016. “Algorithmic Interfaces for Collaborative Improvisation.” In Proceedings of International Conference on Live Interfaces, Sussex.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, M. A., and D. Wessel. 1995. “Soft Computing for Real-time Control of Musical Processes.” 1995 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Intelligent Systems for the 21st Century, Vancouver, 3: 2748–2753.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, George E. 1999. “Interacting with Latter-day Musical Automata.” Contemporary Music Review 18 (3): 99–112. doi: 10.1080/07494469900640381
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, George E. 2006. “Too Many Notes: Computers, Complexity and Culture in Voyager.” Leonardo Music Journal 21: 19–23.
   Google Scholar
• Linson, Adam, Chris Dobbyn, George E Lewis, and Robin Laney. 2015. “A Subsumption Agent for Collaborative Free Improvisation.” Computer Music Journal 39 (4): 96–115. doi: 10.1162/COMJ_a_00323
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCormack, Jon, and Mark d’Inverno. 2016. “Designing Improvisational Interfaces.” In Proceedings of the 7th Computational Creativity Conference (ICCC 2016). Universite Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris.
   Google Scholar
• McCormack, Jon, and Peter McIlwain. 2011. “Generative Composition with Nodal.” In A Life for Music: Music and Computer Models of Living Systems (Computer Music and Digital Audio), edited by Eduardo Reck, and Miranda, 99–113. Middleton, WI: A-R Editions.
   Google Scholar
• Minsky, Marvin. 1986. The Society of Mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.
   Google Scholar
• O’Modhrain, Sile. 2011. “A Framework for the Evaluation of Digital Musical Instruments.” Computer Music Journal 35 (1): 28–42. doi: 10.1162/COMJ_a_00038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pachet, François. 2002. “The Continuator: Musical Interaction With Style.” In Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference, Gothenburg, 333–341.
   Google Scholar
• Pachet, François. 2006. “Enhancing Individual Creativity with Interactive Musical Reflexive Systems.” In Musical Creativity: Multidisciplinary Research in Theory and Practice, edited by I. Deliège, and G, H. Wiggins, 359–375. Hove: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pachet, François, Pierre Roy, Julian Moreira, and Mark d’Inverno. 2013. “Reflexive Loopers for Solo Musical Improvisation.” In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2205–2208. Paris: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Rowe, Robert. 1992. “Machine Listening and Composing with Cypher.” Computer Music Journal 16 (1): 43–63. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3680494. doi: 10.2307/3680494
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spiegel, Laurie. 1987. “Regarding the Historical Public Availability of Intelligent Instruments.” Computer Music Journal 11 (3): 7–9. doi: 10.2307/3679729
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stowell, Dan, Andrew Robertson, Nick Bryan-Kinns, and Mark D Plumbley. 2009. “Evaluation of Live Human–Computer Music-Making: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches.” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 67 (11): 960–975. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.05.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thom, Belinda. 2000. “BoB: An Interactive Improvisational Music Companion.” In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, 309–316. Barcelona: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Vail, Mark. 2014. The Synthesizer: a Comprehensive Guide to Understanding, Programming, Playing, and Recording the Ultimate Electronic Music Instrument. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yee-King, Matthew John. 2007. “An Automated Music Improviser Using a Genetic Algorithm Driven Synthesis Engine.” In Vol. 4448 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 567–576. Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar