Author: hudunipress

Taking the Models back to Music Practice: Evaluating Generative Transcription Models built using Deep Learning

One of our latest JCMS authors, Bob Sturm, explores his research into transcription models – interesting stuff!

High Noon GMT

Our journal article has now appeared: Sturm and Ben-Tal, “Taking the Models back to Music Practice: Evaluating Generative Transcription Models built using Deep Learning”, Journal of Creative Music Systems 2(1), 2017.

My one-line precis: Here are five ways to evaluate a music generation model that are far more meaningful and insightful than the daft “Turing test”.

The contents of this article formed my introduction at the panel, “Issues in the Evaluation of Creative Music Systems”, at the 2nd Conference on the Simulation of Music Creativity. The panel was organised by Róisín Loughran, who also has an article about evaluation in the same journal volume. So, I include below an adaptation of my panel notes.

The topic of evaluation seems to be mentioned quite frequently in music generation as an extremely difficult thing to do, and I wonder why. There is a number of different ways to go…

View original post 1,420 more words

Advertisements
New issue of the Journal of Creative Music Systems

New issue of the Journal of Creative Music Systems

We are excited to announce the second Volume of the Journal of Creative Music Systems is now out to read online.

There are some great articles in this issue covering a range of exciting research including dance-driven music, models using deep learning and creative computer systems. All the articles are open access so can be read for free online.

JCMS Volume 2 Issue 1

Peer Review Week 2017

Peer Review Week 2017

This week is Peer Review Week, and the theme is Transparency in Review:

This year’s theme is Transparency in Review, exploring what the concept means to various
stakeholders participating in review activity – in publishing, grant review, conference
submissions, promotion and tenure, and more.

Peer Review Week website 2017

There are lots of activities, both in person and online, going on throughout the week, and you can have a look at these on the Peer Review week schedule.

We will be sharing some interesting discussion pieces throughout the week on Twitter, so have a look at those, and don’t forget to enter IOP’s competition to win some Amazon vouchers.

Northern Collaboration Conference 2017

Northern Collaboration Conference 2017

Last week the University of Huddersfield Press (represented by Megan Taylor and Kathrine Jensen) went along to the Northern Collaboration Conference 2017 at York University. The theme for the conference was Digital Transformation, and it was a great way to get us thinking about how our publishing practices are informed by digital technology, and particularity to look at how new platforms, technologies and opportunities can be used to enable open access publishing.

Our paper focused on four key questions:

• What does Open Access mean?
• How and why is the University of Huddersfield Press involved?
• What part does digital transformation play?
• How does all this impact on the scholarly community?

You can see the presentation slides here, but do feel free to get in touch with Megan Taylor (m.taylor2@hud.ac.uk) if you have any questions.

The day was a great opportunity to talk to other university press colleagues, and we look forward to getting involved next year too. Watch this space for a published article to come soon from the themes in our presentation.

What does open access publishing mean to you?

What does open access publishing mean to you?

The transformation from print to digital publishing, particularly open access digital, has provided new spaces for previously undiscovered research and allowed us to make our content more discoverable, accessible and relevant to an ever-growing diverse readership.

Exploring the journey towards open access publishing

In the run up to the Northern Collaboration conference, we are gathering some information on how people think about open access publishing and what it means in relation to their own experiences and fields.

We will be presenting a session at the conference titled: Embracing open access publishing for academic staff and student research where we will be exploring several key themes:

  • Why did the University of Huddersfield Press decide to get involved with open access publishing?
  • How has digital transformation played a part in this process?
  • How has open access publishing had an impact on our authors, students, research staff and wider scholarly community?

Share your views on open access publishing

We thought it would be beneficial to kick the session off by sharing some real views from the library and publishing community on open access, which is why we need your help! If you have 60 seconds to spare, please pop by our Answer Garden and put some of the keywords in you think of in relation to open access publishing. We will be discussing the anonymous feedback during the conference session.

Get involved

Northern Collaboration on Twitter: @NorthernCollab 

University of Huddersfield Press: Website Twitter

Kathrine Jensen @kshjensen

Megan Taylor @Megan_Beech

 

Research by Huddersfield students is accessible and citeable

Fabulous to see the research in Fields being cited, a brilliant way for student researchers to contribute to scholarly communication and the knowledge base.

Teaching and Learning Institute

Fields: Journal of Huddersfield Student Research is now in its fourth year and the call for potential authors is out and currently staff are busy identifying excellent academic work. If you are a student and wondering how to submit check out the details on the University Press webpages.

The journal articles in Fields are in the University repository so it is possible to monitor the number of downloads. Looking at the download numbers for the three current volumes it is clear there appears to be ongoing interest the research carried out by the students.

The third volume of Fields was published in February 2017 with 12 papers from across the seven Schools and has had more than 700 downloads since published.

For such a new journal the readership has grown very fast and download statistics continue to increase.

Another way of gauging the impact of the articles published in…

View original post 354 more words

Author spotlight: exploring the relationships between composers and performers

Author spotlight: exploring the relationships between composers and performers

Music student John Aulich published an article about his research in Issue 2 of our student research journal Fields. We caught up with him for a chat about his work and his experiences getting published.

In the summer of 2015, I was invited to prepare a piece I had written in the third year of my undergraduate studies for inclusion in the second volume of FIELDS. ‘Power, agency, deference and difference: Examining the politics of composer–performer relationships in the wake of recent innovations’ explored the notational praxes of three radically divergent composers to try and uncover the ways in which they might limit or encourage interpretative agency on the part of performers. The paper was one among a number of tentative early steps on a wider research trajectory concerned with the immediate political ramifications of particular pieces of music. In other words, to ask how a piece establishes hierarchies between performers, composers, and audiences at the moment of performance. For me, the emergent political microcosm that a performance inhabits is as integral to what music is or could be as more obvious specifics, such as notes, chords and rhythms.

While further research has since led me to new positions not entirely congruent with the implications and conclusions of that particular paper, being invited to publish and continuously advised by experienced scholars throughout the process gave me the confidence to develop new lines of inquiry. It was an indication that I might be onto something; that somebody somewhere thought it a valuable contribution of potential interest to the wider academic world. Further, participating in Fields allowed me to join a community of colleagues in the same position, whose incredibly diverse research interests caused me to see much more fertile grounds for cross-pollination than I had thought possible, from sociology to biomedical science. To borrow an illustrative concept from the urban sociologist Richard Sennett, the boundaries between our specialisms became fluid sites for the exchange and transformation of ideas: bustling hedgerows as opposed to concrete walls. Such was the impact of this realization that its resonances carried through my master’s research and into the heart of my current interests as a practising composer.

Inspired by the broadening sphere of influence on my creative world, my master’s research sought to turn the gaze of political analysis to my own work. By casting out the critical theory that strongly informed the paper published in FIELDS, I was able to reimagine musical processes and concepts as analogous with aspects of the material world, using post-structuralist materialist philosophy as a theoretical basis. I reimagined the score, for example, as a biological cell-like space with its own agency: it could both absorb and react to a specific performer’s energies, and resist them. To borrow a Tim Ingold idea, rather than read the score, a performer would instead correspond with it. In Condensation (Strike Work) (recording), the music can only take form through an exploration of possible speeds by a specific performer. Like Manuel DeLanda’s Deleuzean metallurgist, a performer cannot impose the final form so much as tease it out.

Illustration 1: Condensation (Strike Work) (2015). The speed indicator line on the left hand side of each staff is indicates the pace of the music relative to the fastest and slowest speeds a particular performer could possibly achieve.

Where I had previously imagined freedom to be the degree to which a performer can exercise their interpretative will uninhibited, I now imagine it to be more akin to the potential for new possibilities to emerge from this kind of correspondence. For Πολυτροπος [Polytropos] (recording), a later piece which I developed with the bass clarinetist and improviser, James Wood, this notion of correspondence took a more qualitative form in what I called the ‘flow rate’ line. To quote from the performance notes, ‘When the line is at its thinnest, performers should dwell in the material, pay more attention to detail, and take as much time as is necessary to execute the particulars as given. When the line is at its thickest, performers should hack through the material, allow for a high degree of inexactitude, and move faster.’

Since completing my master’s degree, I’ve also explored the notion of correspondence with new technology. In an as-yet-untitled piece for fellow composer and violist Adam Sangster, the performer works with a computer algorithm that tends towards certain behaviours, but nonetheless reacts to his sounds in unpredictable ways. It has an agency of its own that he can try to subjugate, and he has an agency that it can also act to undermine by forcing him to switch between one of two staffs (see left).

In at least one respect since FIELDS, I’ve come full circle; a section of my FIELDS paper explored the implications of confusing cueing systems in some works by the composer Christian Wolf. For my first large-scale ensemble piece since participating, the composition of which is ongoing, I have developed a similarly confusion-inducing cueing system of my own. For now, the kinds of correspondence it might illicit among the players remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: I have no idea what I would be doing if it weren’t for FIELDS.

Read John’s article in Volume 2 of Fields