We describe a gesturally-controlled improvisation system for an experimental pianist, developed over several laboratory sessions and used during a performance [1] at the 2011 Conference on New Inter- faces for Musical Expression (NIME). We discuss the architecture and performative advantages and limitations of our gesturally-controlled improvisation system, and reflect on the lessons learned throughout its development. KEYWORDS: piano; improvisation; gesture recognition; machine learning

McCartney James

Nicholas Gillian

Sarah Nicolls

Wanderley Marcelo

Leonardo

English

 The authors describe a gesturally controlled improvisation system for an experimental pianist, developed over several laboratory sessions and used during a performance at the 2011 conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME). They discuss the architecture and performative advantages and limitations of the system, and reflect on the lessons learned throughout its development. </jats:p

Crossref

Kinect-ed Piano

The authors describe a gesturally controlled improvisation system for an experimental pianist, developed over several laboratory sessions and used during a performance at the 2011 conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME). They discuss the architecture and performative advantages and limitations of the system, and reflect on the lessons learned throughout its development

Gillian, Nicholas

Nicolls, Sarah

DSpace@MIT

live interfaces294	 LEONARDO,	Vol.	48,	No.	3,	pp.	294–295,	2015	 doi:10.1162/LEON_a_01016	 ©2015	ISASTKINECT-ED PIANONicholas Gillian, MIT Media Lab, Cambridge, USA. Email: <ngillian@media.mit.edu>. Sarah Nicolls, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UK. Email: <sarah.nicolls@brunel.ac.uk>. See <www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/leon/48/3> for supplemental files associated with this issue. Abstract The authors describe a gesturally controlled improvisation system for an experimental pianist, developed over several laboratory sessions and used during a performance at the 2011 conference on New Inter-faces for Musical Expression (NIME). They discuss the architecture and performative advantages and limitations of the system, and reflect on the lessons learned throughout its development.  Keywords: piano; improvisation; gesture recognition.This project was inspired and guided by Nicolls’ extensive experience of using various sensors to control the real-time processing of sampled audio during experimental piano per-formances [1]. Based on lessons learned from this prior work, we defined five main aims for developing a new interactive improvisation system: (1) to free the performer from cumber-some body-worn sensors and foot pedals; (2) to replace thresh-old-based triggers with machine learning based gesture recognition, thus facilitating more robust gestural control; (3) to only use the live piano (including live sound sampling) as a sound source to enable an improvisation system that was pure-ly live and intuitive to the performer; (4) to use a cheap, robust, portable piece of sensing technology; and (5) to make the ges-ture-sound relationships primarily for the ease and understand-ing of the performer (and hopefully, by proxy, the audience). Our live improvisation system [2] facilitates a performer to freely play and improvise on the piano, while simultaneous-ly using a mixture of innate and ancillary gestures [3] (none too far from naturalistic-piano style) to capture and control a dynamic palette of layered and processed loops. These loops consist of themes and motifs explicitly sampled from within the live improvisation. The performer’s gestures are tracked using a Kinect and recognized using a machine learning toolbox in EyesWeb [4]. Our system enables the performer to use innate pianist gestures to ‘grab’ a motif that has just been played and ‘save’ this musical idea to a number of virtual buffers. These buffers are located at predetermined regions around the frame of the piano (Fig. 1) and within the piano body itself. Each buffer can have an associated audio effect, such as a pitch shifter, granulator, or filter. The exact number, location, and associated audio effect of each virtual buffer are defined by the performer during a setup phase.  During this setup phase, the performer can additionally teach the improvisation system to recognize the gestures re-quired for a piece. A performer can train the system to recog-nize a new gesture by selecting the action they wish to control, such as buffer 1 capture, and then demonstrating the gesture for this action. The machine-learning algorithms at the core of our system will then rapidly learn the relationship between the performer’s gesture and the associated action. The performer can apply this learn-by-demonstration paradigm for both dis-crete triggers and continuous controls. Discrete triggers can be linked to the grab and save, play or stop commands of each buffer. Alternatively, continuous controls allow the performer to use subtle hand gestures, such as tilting and rotating the hand, to continually spatialize a theme, warp or stretch a motif or modify the cutoff frequency of a filter. Technical InfrastructureOur live-improvisation system consists of a Kinect, custom tracking software, a real-time gesture recognition system and a live audio processing system. The tracking software estimates the location of the performer’s joints and streams the 3-dimensional position of the player’s head, torso, hands and elbows to the gesture recognition system at 30 frames per se-cond. The discrete control gestures are recognized in EyesWeb by inputting the performer’s joint positions to a classifier [2], which has been trained by the performer using data recorded during the learn-by-demonstration phase. EyesWeb is also used to continually map the performer's movements to a num-ber of specific effects. The continuous mapping is combined with the discrete gesture recognition. As a result the perform-er’s movements are only mapped to an effect, such as the cut-off value of a filter, if the performer currently has their hand in a specific-control region. One key advantage of combining the continuous mapping with the discrete gesture recognition is that it mitigates the problematic issue of the mapping from a sensor to an audio parameter always being engaged. Instead, the continuous mapping is only enabled if the performer first makes the correct discrete gesture within a control region (the area surrounding a virtual buffer). The continuous mapping value is then locked at its current value if the performer moves outside of the control region, providing a simple, robust inter-action to disable the continuous mapping. The audio processing infrastructure for our system is de-veloped using SuperCollider [5], an environment and pro-gramming language for real-time audio synthesis and algorithmic composition. The input to the audio system con-sists of the live audio from the piano, captured by a stereo close-mic setup. This stereo signal is fed into a circular buffer, which continuously records the last 30 seconds of live audio. If the performer makes a ‘grab’ gesture in a free virtual buffer, a signal is sent from EyesWeb to SuperCollider indicating that the last distinct motif should be segmented from the circular buffer and saved to the respective physical space. A motif is segmented from within the circular buffer using a naive seg-mentation algorithm [2], which frees the performer from first having to press a physical button or perform a specific ‘start of motif’ gesture, prior to actually improvising a musical idea. Further, the segmentation algorithm liberates the performer from having to make a new motif fit within a predetermined Fig. 1. Sarah Nicolls using the gesturally controlled improvisation system at a performance during NIME 2011 [9]. Sarah’s left hand is making a ‘grab and save’ gesture, which will store the motif currently being played by her right hand in the virtual buffer lo-cated above the top right frame of the piano. The depth camera can be seen in the top left of the image. (Photo: Nicholas Gillian) live interfaces	 Transactions	 295loop length; providing any new motif does not exceed the size of the circular buffer.Gestural Interaction Throughout our laboratory exploration sessions, Nicolls exper-imented with a range of gesture-sound relationships. The ges-tural vocabulary that evolved from this process quickly converged to a subset of gestures based on innate pianistic movements, such as the expressive movement of the hands after playing a sustained chord. This innate control resulted in a system where no extra physical language had to be learned (unlike with electromyograph (EMG) sensors). Moreover, this vocabulary facilitated Nicolls to move effortlessly between instrumental movements and control gestures without having to make explicit changes in her physical state.  Beyond these gestures, our system has the potential for a much wider gestural vocabulary, as it can easily imitate both body-worn and fixed-point systems through manipulation by the performer. Moreover, the gesture recognition software we are using supports the application of more complex gestures (including static postures, temporal gestures, and nonlinear continuous mapping), compared to simple threshold triggers. The combination of the Kinect and gesture recognition soft-ware has helped to liberate Nicolls from delicate body-worn sensors and sensitive threshold-based interfaces. As a result, this has physically freed the pianist to use her full repertoire of extended-playing techniques, without fear of triggering an unwanted audio effect. Compared with other sensors such as EMG, the performer is much freer with the Kinect, as there is no need to create tension to trigger events. Nevertheless, the Kinect lacks the urgent, emotional quality captured by EMG, so that actually the imaginative creation of imitative gestures would be perhaps rather hollow here. Of course, EMG or other body-worn sensors could easily be added to the system if needed. Finally, there is a larger potential interaction space than with many other piano-based sensor systems as the whole of the reachable space, including mid-air, is available to use. Live Sound Sampling For the performer, this system represented a return to the sonic palettes used, for example, by Richard Barrett in Adrift (2007) [6] and Luigi Nono in …Sofferte onde serene… (1976) [7], in the close matching of piano sounds to the electronic part. Us-ing only live-piano sound creates an instinctive improvisation system whereby a self-referential texture can easily be built up using genuinely improvisational methods (i.e. not tethered to previously composed or pre-recorded samples). The intuitive nature of this for the performer enables each piece generated by the system to be unique in its sonic language, meaning that the scope for the system is greater than other repertoire using pre-recorded, processed sounds. As all sounds are stemming from the same source, our system creates an intuitive sense of where the performer is in relation to the controlled sounds, having just created them herself live. This in turn perhaps makes the live creation of the piece easier to comprehend for the audience. Musically, the looping system allows a large variety of sonic results from a simple base. Our system there-fore has the potential for creating live and from scratch a whole concert of pieces using the same technological set-up.  Lessons Learned One of the key lessons learned during the iterative develop-ment of this system is the crucial importance of some form of visual feedback to compensate for the lack of haptic infor-mation in triggering the control areas. Visual feedback, indicat-ing to the performer the current state of the system, such as if a gesture was recognized or which virtual buffer is currently filled or playing, needs to be clear and easy to read quickly in performance. The feedback itself very quickly developed in the laboratory sessions as we added color and shape features to enable very quick, peripheral understanding of the information. Still, there is great potential for further exploration of feedback for gesture-based interfaces, particularly those where gestures can be performed anywhere in free space. The debut performance of the system at NIME featured a number of general technical difficulties and limitations. These were primarily related to staging issues caused by the Kinect. For example, the original software used to track the perform-er’s movements required a calibration phase, which could be tedious given the non-standard application of the Kinect with a piano. This resulted in Nicolls having to remain on stage prior to performing the piece, giving an unintended theatrical ele-ment to the piece that confused some audience members by seeming like a deliberate choice. Thankfully, several new tracking libraries have been released since the initial perfor-mance that now mitigate these problems. Looking Forward The authors are currently refining this system because of its potential as an easily transferable improvisation system that can be used to generate many different pieces. One of the key advantages of the system is the fact that the user does not need to explicitly hand code the machine for it to recognize a ges-ture. Being able, as a non-programmer, to teach the computer to recognize complex gestures using a learn-by-demonstration paradigm is a huge advantage and could be exploited much more. To make this process even easier for the user, we plan to integrate the various components (i.e. tracking software, ges-ture recognition, audio infrastructure, and visual feedback) into one coherent application to create a more fluid system. The benefit of having only one fixed piece of sturdy, portable and easily replaceable technology cannot be underestimated, and the potential advantage of the performer to be able to re-map the system unaided is highly advantageous. In particular, the possibility to transfer the system to Nicolls’ Inside-Out Piano [8] is of great interest.  References and Notes * Based on a presentation at the first International Conference on Live Inter-faces (ICLI), 7–8 September 2012, hosted by the Interdisciplinary Centre for Scientific Research in Music at the University of Leeds, U.K. See <http://icli.lurk.org>. 1. Sarah Nicolls, “Interacting with the Piano,” Ph.D. thesis, Brunel University School of Arts, 2010. 2. Nicholas Gillian, Sarah Nicolls, “A Gesturally Controlled Improvisation System for Piano,” in Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Live Interfaces: Performance, Art, Music, 2012. 3. Marcelo Wanderley, Philippe Depalle, “Gestural Control of Sound Synthe-sis,” in Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 94, No. 4, pp. 632-644, 2002. 4. Nicholas Gillian, R. Benjamin Knapp, Sile O’Modhrain, “A machine learn-ing toolkit for musician computer interaction,” in Proceedings of the 11th In-ternational Conference on New Instruments for Musical Expression, 2011. 5. James McCartney, “Rethinking the Computer Music Language: Supercollid-er,” Computer Music Journal, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 61-68, 2002. 6. Richard Barrett, Adrift (2009) [psi 09.10], London, commercially available at <www.emanemdisc.com/psi09.html>. 7. Luigi Nono, …Sofferte onde serene…, Ricordi #r132564, Italy (1976). 8. Sarah Nicolls, Inside-Out Piano (2008): <http://sarahnicolls.com/?page_id=28>, accessed 28 May 2013. 9. Sarah Nicolls, NIME Performance (2011): <www.vimeo.com/26678719>, accessed 28 May 2013. 

Gillian, N

Nicolls, S

Brunel University Research Archive

http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/11523/5/Fulltext.pdf

Kinect-ed Piano

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Crossref

DSpace@MIT

Brunel University Research Archive