Infno: Generating synth pop and electronic dance music on demand

International Computer Music Conference, ICMC 2008

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages

  Collins, Nick ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER MUSIC; SOCIAL NETWORKING (ONLINE);

ALGORITHMIC COMPOSITIONS; COLLIDER; COST CONSTRAINTS; GENERATIVE MUSICS; MUSIC ON DEMAND; SOURCE CODES;

DYNAMIC PROGRAMMING;

EID: 84923884929     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (8)

1. C. Ames. Automated composition in retrospect: 1956-1986. Leonardo, 20(2):169-185, 1987.
2. C. Ames and M. Domino. Cybernetic composer: An overview. In Understanding Music with AI: Perspectives on Music Cognition, pages 186-205. The AAAI Press/ MIT Press, 1992.
3. C. Ariza. The interrogator as critic: The questionable relevance of Turing tests and aesthetic tests in the evaluation of generative music systems. Computer Music Journal, under review, 2008.
4. L. Cohen, L. Manion, and K. Morrison. Research Methods in Education (6th edition). Routledge, New York, 2007.
5. N. Collins. Algorithmic composition methods for breakbeat science. In Proceedings of Music Without Walls, De Montfort University, Leicester, June 2001.
6. J. Eacott. Contents May Vary: The Play and Behaviour of Generative Music Artefacts. PhD thesis, University of Westminster, 2006.
7. M. Pearce, D. Meredith, and G. Wiggins. Motivations and methodologies for automation of the compositional process. Musicae Scientiae, 6(2), 2002.
8. S. Russell and P. Norvig. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (Second Edition). Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River: NJ, 2003.