Multi-Style music generation model design based on variational autoencoders and generative adversarial networks


Abstract

Deep learning progress has made the synthesis of different musical styles an important front in AI research. But existing methods still pose significant challenges when it comes to creating proper multi-level structures, controlling styles precisely, and maintaining stable training. To solve such problems, we propose a novel model, a variational autoencoderand generative adversarial network (VAE-GAN), for high-quality, controllable multi-style music generation. It has a multi-scale temporal feature fusion transformer to capture local and global musical structures, a variational autoencoder-based style decoupling module to separate and handle content and style representations, and an adaptive adversarial training with multiple discriminators to improve generation quality and ease training. Experiments on the MAESTRO and Lakh MIDI datasets show that our proposed model outperforms state-of-the-art baselines. On the MAESTRO dataset, it gets a 22.0% drop in MSE and a 26.9% drop in FAD relative to the top existing technique. Similarly, it reduces the MSE of Lakh MIDI by 21.7% and the FAD by 26.9%. The results show that the model is capable of generating expressive, structurally sound, and varied musical styles, making it a strong multi-style music generation solution.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].