Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Evaluating Human-AI Interaction via Usability, User Experience and Acceptance Measures for MMM-C: A Creative AI System for Music Composition

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read One dial is not enough for expert AI music co-creation

desk verdict A credible first evaluation of a minimal one-parameter AI music plugin with expert composers, but the acceptance claim is overstated and the 47% attrition is unanalyzed. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14071 v1 pith:M3E3AXKI submitted 2025-04-18 cs.HC cs.AIcs.LGcs.SD

Renaud Bougueng Tchemeube , Jeff Ens , Cale Plut , Philippe Pasquier , Maryam Safi , Yvan Grabit , Jean-Baptiste Rolland This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.AIcs.LGcs.SD
keywords human-AIco-creationgenerativemusicusabilityevaluationtechnologyacceptancemodelcreativitysupportindexexpertcomposersMMM-Cubaseparameterdesign
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper evaluates whether a deliberately minimal interface to a powerful generative music model is enough for expert composers working in a real digital audio workstation. The authors built MMM-Cubase (MMM-C), a plugin that exposes exactly one control — the model's temperature — inside Cubase, and ran a three-part mixed-method study with 18 hobbyist and professional composers. The central claim is that a 1-parameter design is not sufficient for goal-directed generative music co-creation by experts, even when the underlying model is expressive and highly controllable. The evidence supports positive usability and acceptance overall, with users enjoying exploration and surprise, while controllability and predictability lag behind. The paper matters because it provides a baseline for how much interface control a co-creative music AI actually needs.

What carries the argument

The central object is MMM-Cubase (MMM-C), a plugin that wraps the Multi-Track Music Machine (MMM), a transformer-based generative model for multi-track symbolic music, and exposes a single temperature parameter (0–100%, default 50%) inside the Cubase DAW. The user selects bars of MIDI, adjusts temperature, and triggers generation; the model uses surrounding vertical and horizontal context to infill tracks or bars. The evaluative machinery is a three-part mixed-method assemblage: SUS and task-based user-friendliness for usability, a shortened Creativity Support Index plus custom controllability questions for user experience, and the Technology Acceptance Model with open-ended qualitative coding for acceptance. The single-parameter design is what does the argumentative work: it isolates the question of how much control a co-creative interface must expose, and the gap between high usability and low controllability is the paper's key finding.

What would settle it

Re-run the study with all onboarded participants retained (or with exit interviews for dropouts); if SUS/TAM scores fall below acceptable thresholds or controllability stops tracking usefulness, the central claim would be overturned. Alternatively, run the same protocol on a multi-parameter MMM interface; if experts still report the same steering difficulty, then parameter count is not the binding constraint.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, a single-knob interface is a passable exploratory tool but a poor steering wheel for expert composers. Quantitative scores were mostly positive: SUS scores across tasks were 71–76 (acceptable), TAM perceived usefulness was 3.42–3.68 and ease of use 3.12–3.26 on a 5-point scale, and CSI factors showed enjoyment highest (3.85/5) with expressiveness lowest (2.85/5). Controllability was the weak point: ease of control averaged 5.23/10 while desire for more control averaged 9.54/10. Qualitative coding converged on the same picture — users found the interaction easy but described difficulty steering the system, a lack of parameters, repeated generation to find acceptable output, and non-determinism as both a source of surprise and a source of frustration. The paper concludes that a 1-parameter design is not enough for generative music co-creation in the case of expert composers and finds no significant difference between hobbyists and professionals.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the 18 participants who completed at least one task fairly represent expert composers, so the 16 who dropped out after onboarding did not take their dissatisfaction with them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Exposing more of MMM's existing attribute controls (note density, polyphony, duration, style) should raise expressiveness and acceptance scores above the baseline reported here.
  • Even a one-parameter interface can serve expert composers as an exploration and inspiration tool, helping with writer's block and generating ideas the composer would not have written.
  • The negative controllability findings imply that interface complexity for co-creative AI should be matched to the target user's required quality bar, not just to the model's expressive capacity.
  • Because no hobbyist/professional difference appeared, future interface studies may not need to treat expertise level as a controlling factor for basic usability.
  • The same mixed-method protocol can benchmark richer interfaces (e.g., Calliope) and transfer to other DAWs or to generative tasks such as language and visual in-painting.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's own attrition (34 onboarded, 18 completed at least one task) implies that the favorable scores may overstate the tool's appeal; a replication that tracks why the 16 dropped out would test this directly.
  • Because users said they repeatedly generated and curated outputs, the practical bottleneck may be predictability more than parameter count; adding previews, seeds, or explicit conditioning could improve control without adding many knobs.
  • The one-parameter baseline suggests a testable design principle: for expert composers, control requirements scale with the ambition of the task, so original composition may need more parameters than arrangement does.
  • No users voiced fear of work replacement in this study, which hints that expert adoption barriers for creative AI are more about controllability and trust than about displacement anxiety.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a mixed-methods evaluation of MMM-Cubase (MMM-C), a "1-parameter" plugin interface to the MMM generative music model, integrated into the Cubase DAW. Eighteen expert composers (8 hobbyist, 10 professional) completed tasks involving arrangement, variation, and original composition. The authors measure usability (SUS, CSI, custom controllability items), user experience (qualitative coding of open-ended questions), and technology acceptance (TAM scales), and they report quantitative and qualitative results. The central claims are that MMM-C receives positive usability and acceptance scores, that a 1-parameter design is insufficient for expert composers' goal-directed work, and that no significant differences exist between hobbyist and professional groups.

Significance. If the claims were fully supported, the study would be a valuable addition to the human-AI co-creation literature, particularly for its use of expert composers, its integration into a professional DAW, and its combination of standardized instruments (SUS, CSI, TAM) with qualitative coding. The finding that a minimal interface to a powerful generative model is usable for exploration but insufficient for controlled composition is a plausible and practically relevant contribution, and the study's methodology could serve as a benchmark for future evaluations of richer MMM interfaces such as Calliope. However, the strength of the acceptance claim is not backed by the reported statistics, and the attrition pattern raises questions about selection bias. The qualitative and controllability data do support the "1-parameter is not enough" conclusion, but the acceptance component of the abstract and Discussion needs substantial qualification.

major comments (3)
  1. [§6.4, Abstract, §7 Discussion] The claims of "positive acceptance" in the Abstract and "acceptance levels are positive" in the Discussion are not supported by the reported TAM data. Perceived ease of use ranges from 3.12 to 3.26 and perceived usefulness from 3.42 to 3.68 on a 5-point scale, with standard deviations around 0.5–0.96; 3 is the neutral midpoint, and the means lie within a fraction of a point of it. The paper itself concedes in §6.4 that the scores are "not significant enough to be conclusive." To support the acceptance claim, the authors should either report a formal test against the neutral midpoint (e.g., one-sample Wilcoxon or t-test) with confidence intervals, or rephrase the claim to "neutral-to-slightly-positive" and clearly label it as inconclusive. As written, the abstract overstates the results.
  2. [§6, opening paragraph] The manuscript reports that 18 of 34 participants who completed onboarding actually took part in the study, a 47% attrition rate, but provides no analysis of whether the non-completers differ from completers in ways that could bias the results. If participants dropped out because they found the tool unusable or frustrating, the reported SUS and TAM scores would be systematically inflated. The authors should compare demographic or early-task data (e.g., onboarding survey responses) between completers and non-completers, or at minimum discuss this as a distinct limitation and temper the strength of the quantitative claims accordingly.
  3. [§6.2, friendliness comparison] The only inferential statistic reported in the quantitative results is the pairwise comparison of task-based friendliness scores between Task 1 and Task 3 (p=0.03), which is presented without correction for multiple comparisons and without an effect size or confidence interval. Given the number of comparisons implicitly made across SUS, user-friendliness, TAM, and one-value ratings, this p-value is likely to be a false positive. The authors should either apply a multiple-comparison correction, report effect sizes, or explicitly label this finding as exploratory. This does not affect the main usability conclusion (SUS scores are in the acceptable range), but the current reporting overstates the evidentiary value of this single comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§6.2, bottom paragraph] The word "wiskers" should be "whiskers" in the figure caption footnote, and "frustation" should be "frustration."
  2. [§4.4, CSI description] The CSI instrument is modified substantially (single item per factor, 5-point scale instead of 10-point, collaboration omitted), and the resulting scores are compared to published CSI benchmarks; the authors should explicitly note that the modified CSI is not directly comparable to the original instrument's normative ranges.
  3. [§5, study procedure] The phrase "20h to 30h of effort" for a participant seems unusually high and may be a typo; if not, the figure deserves justification since it affects the attrition interpretation.
  4. [§6.1, demographics] Two of the 18 participants are described as "Enthusiasts" rather than experts; this should be acknowledged as a slight deviation from the stated participant definition, and its effect on the expert-composer claims should be briefly discussed.
  5. [§8, Conclusion] The paper uses both "experiment" and "study" to describe the methodology; since the design is not a controlled experiment, the term "study" should be used consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is an empirical evaluation whose conclusions rest on standardized instruments and participant data, not on a derived chain that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

This paper reports a mixed-methods usability, user experience, and acceptance evaluation of MMM-C, a 1-parameter plugin interface for the authors' MMM generative music model. It contains no formal derivation chain of the kind that can be circular: there is no equation whose output is defined in terms of its own outcome, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work to force a choice. The central claims ('positive usability and acceptance scores' and 'a 1-parameter design is not enough for generative music co-creation in the case of expert composers') are empirical summaries of SUS, CSI, TAM, Likert-scale controllability items, and open-coded qualitative responses. These measurements are not constructed so that the conclusion follows by definition. Even the '1-parameter is not enough' claim, while plausibly related to the deliberate design decision to expose only temperature, is an empirical finding from controllability scores (ease of control 5.23/10, desire for more control 9.54/10) and qualitative themes such as 'Difficulty steering the system' and 'lack of parameters'; the outcome could in principle have been that one parameter was sufficient. The authors do cite their own prior work (MMM, MetaMIDI, Calliope), but these citations provide background about the model and related interfaces; they are not the load-bearing justification for the evaluation's conclusions, which rest on the 18 participants' self-reports and task behavior. The nearest concerns are evaluator bias (the authors built the system they evaluate) and statistical overstatement (TAM means of 3.12-3.68 on a 5-point scale are near the neutral midpoint, and the paper itself concedes the scores are 'not significant enough to be conclusive'), but these are threats to validity and correctness, not circular reasoning. Accordingly, no circular step is identified and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is an empirical usability study, not a derivation. It has no fitted free parameters and no newly postulated entities. The load-bearing assumptions are domain assumptions about the validity of the standardized instruments and the trustworthiness of self-reported participant characteristics.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption SUS scores above 70 are 'acceptable', scores 50-70 are 'marginal', and scores below 50 are 'unacceptable'.
    Used to interpret usability scores in Section 6.2 as acceptable.
  • domain assumption The Technology Acceptance Model reliably predicts and explains user acceptance of information technologies.
    Invoked in Section 4.4 to justify acceptance measurement.
  • domain assumption Participants' self-reported expertise, group classification (hobbyist vs professional), and experience levels are accurate.
    Participant grouping is based on self-report in the onboarding form; no objective proficiency test was administered.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evaluating Human-AI Interaction via Usability, User Experience and Acceptance Measures for MMM-C: A Creative AI System for Music Composition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M3E3AXKI

@misc{pith2026250414071,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evaluating Human-AI Interaction via Usability, User Experience and Acceptance Measures for MMM-C: A Creative AI System for Music Composition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M3E3AXKI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14071}
}
read the original abstract

With the rise of artificial intelligence (AI), there has been increasing interest in human-AI co-creation in a variety of artistic domains including music as AI-driven systems are frequently able to generate human-competitive artifacts. Now, the implications of such systems for musical practice are being investigated. We report on a thorough evaluation of the user adoption of the Multi-Track Music Machine (MMM) as a co-creative AI tool for music composers. To do this, we integrate MMM into Cubase, a popular Digital Audio Workstation (DAW) by Steinberg, by producing a "1-parameter" plugin interface named MMM-Cubase (MMM-C), which enables human-AI co-composition. We contribute a methodological assemblage as a 3-part mixed method study measuring usability, user experience and technology acceptance of the system across two groups of expert-level composers: hobbyists and professionals. Results show positive usability and acceptance scores. Users report experiences of novelty, surprise and ease of use from using the system, and limitations on controllability and predictability of the interface when generating music. Findings indicate no significant difference between the two user groups.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.14071 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. MMM-Cubase’s Interface in Cubase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. MMM-C Interaction Study Plan & Process 6.1 Demographics The participant distribution is balanced with 8 hobbyist ex￾perts and 10 professional experts in the study. 17/18 iden￾tify as a “male” and 1/18 “prefers not to say”. Age groups breakdown as follow: 20-29 years old (1/18), 30-39 years old (5/18), 40-49 years old (5/18), 50-59 years old (5/18), ≥ 60 years old (2/18). 16/18 participants identify as “Ex￾pert User”… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Task-based SUS Results + Task-based and Overall User-Friendliness Scores [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: MMM-Cubase’s Controllability Scores [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: CSI Factor Scores per Participant Group any type of parameters makes it feel like a more random pro￾cess than a creative one.” while P21 writes “I understand the idea was to create the simplest GUI for the user and the tool is super easy to use”. Finally, on the theme …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Task-based TAM Results + Task-based and Overall 1-Value Rating TAM Scores [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Walknet: A neural-network-based interactive walking controller

    [Alemi and Pasquier, 2017] Omid Alemi and Philippe Pasquier. Walknet: A neural-network-based interactive walking controller. In International Conference on Intelligent Virtual Agents, pages 15–24. Springer,

    work page 2017

  2. [3]

    Bennett, Kori Inkpen, Jaime Teevan, Ruth Kikin-Gil, and Eric Horvitz

    [Amershi et al., 2019] Saleema Amershi, Dan Weld, Mi- haela V orvoreanu, Adam Fourney, Besmira Nushi, Penny Collisson, Jina Suh, Shamsi Iqbal, Paul N. Bennett, Kori Inkpen, Jaime Teevan, Ruth Kikin-Gil, and Eric Horvitz. Guidelines for human-ai interaction. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’19, page 1–13...

    work page 2019

  3. [7]

    Deep learning techniques for music gen- eration – a survey

    [Briot et al., 2017] Jean-Pierre Briot, Ga ¨etan Hadjeres, and Franc ¸ois Pachet. Deep learning techniques for music gen- eration – a survey. arXiv preprint:1709.01620,

    arXiv 2017

  4. [8]

    Sus: A ’quick and dirty’ us- ability scale

    [Brooke, 1996] John Brooke. Sus: A ’quick and dirty’ us- ability scale. Usability evaluation in industry , 189(3),

    work page 1996

  5. [13]

    [Davis and Venkatesh, 1996] Fred D Davis and Viswanath Venkatesh

    Accessed: 2022-05-25. [Davis and Venkatesh, 1996] Fred D Davis and Viswanath Venkatesh. A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model: Three experi- ments. volume 45, pages 19–45, USA, jul

    work page 2022

  6. [14]

    [Davis et al., 2016] Nicholas Davis, Chih-PIn Hsiao, Kun- war Yashraj Singh, Lisa Li, and Brian Magerko

    Academic Press, Inc. [Davis et al., 2016] Nicholas Davis, Chih-PIn Hsiao, Kun- war Yashraj Singh, Lisa Li, and Brian Magerko. Em- pirically studying participatory sense-making in abstract drawing with a co-creative cognitive agent. In Proceed- ings of the 21st International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, IUI ’16, page 196–207, New York, NY , USA,

    work page 2016

  7. [17]

    Lakhnes: Improving multi-instrumental mu- sic generation with cross-domain pre-training

    [Donahue et al., 2019] Chris Donahue, Huanru Henry Mao, Yiting Ethan Li, Garrison W Cottrell, and Julian McAuley. Lakhnes: Improving multi-instrumental mu- sic generation with cross-domain pre-training. arXiv preprint:1907.04868,

    arXiv 2019

  8. [18]

    UX design innovation: Chal- lenges for working with machine learning as a design ma- terial

    [Dove et al., 2017] Graham Dove, Kim Halskov, Jodi Forl- izzi, and John Zimmerman. UX design innovation: Chal- lenges for working with machine learning as a design ma- terial. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’17, page 278–288, New York, NY , USA,

    work page 2017

Show all 51 references
  1. [19]

    MMM: Exploring conditional multi-track music genera- tion with the transformer

    [Ens and Pasquier, 2020b] Jeff Ens and Philippe Pasquier. MMM: Exploring conditional multi-track music genera- tion with the transformer. arXiv preprint:2008.06048 ,

    2008 arXiv

  2. [20]

    Building the MetaMIDI dataset: Linking symbolic and au- dio musical data

    [Ens and Pasquier, 2021] Jeffrey Ens and Philippe Pasquier. Building the MetaMIDI dataset: Linking symbolic and au- dio musical data. In ISMIR, pages 182–188,

    2021

  3. [22]

    [Florin, 2015] Adam Florin

    Accessed: 2022-05-25. [Florin, 2015] Adam Florin. Patter. https://cycling74.com/ projects/patter-1,

    2022

  4. [24]

    Friend, collaborator, student, manager: How design of an ai-driven game level editor affects creators

    [Guzdial et al., 2019] Matthew Guzdial, Nicholas Liao, Jonathan Chen, Shao-Yu Chen, Shukan Shah, Vishwa Shah, Joshua Reno, Gillian Smith, and Mark O Riedl. Friend, collaborator, student, manager: How design of an ai-driven game level editor affects creators. In CHI Con- ferenc...

    2019

  5. [25]

    Association for Computing Machinery. [Huang et al., 2018] Cheng-Zhi Anna Huang, Ashish Vaswani, Jakob Uszkoreit, Ian Simon, Curtis Hawthorne, Noam Shazeer, Andrew M Dai, Matthew D Hoffman, Monica Dinculescu, and Douglas Eck. Music trans- former: Generating music with long-term...

    2018

  6. [26]

    The bach doodle: Approachable music composition with machine learning at scale

    [Huang et al., 2019] Cheng-Zhi Anna Huang, Curtis Hawthorne, Adam Roberts, Monica Dinculescu, James Wexler, Leon Hong, and Jacob Howcroft. The bach doodle: Approachable music composition with machine learning at scale. arXiv preprint:1907.06637,

    2019 arXiv

  7. [27]

    Interaction evaluation for human-computer co-creativity: A case study

    [Kantosalo et al., 2015] Anna Aurora Kantosalo, Jukka Mikael Toivanen, Hannu Tauno Tapani Toivo- nen, et al. Interaction evaluation for human-computer co-creativity: A case study. In Proceedings of the sixth international conference on computational creativity . Brigham Young ...

    2015

  8. [28]

    [Keller, 2008] Robert M. Keller. Impro-visor. https://www. cs.hmc.edu/∼keller/jazz/improvisor/,

    2008

  9. [31]

    Novice-AI music co-creation via AI-steering tools for deep generative mod- els

    [Louie et al., 2020] Ryan Louie, Andy Coenen, Cheng Zhi Huang, Michael Terry, and Carrie J Cai. Novice-AI music co-creation via AI-steering tools for deep generative mod- els. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pages 1–13,

    2020

  10. [32]

    A toolkit for designing interactive musical agents

    [Martin et al., 2011] Aengus Martin, Craig T Jin, and Oliver Bown. A toolkit for designing interactive musical agents. In Proceedings of the 23rd Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference, pages 194–197. ACM,

    2011

  11. [35]

    [Music, 2014] Amper Music

    Accessed: 2022-05-25. [Music, 2014] Amper Music. Amperscore. https:// ampermusic.com/,

    2022

  12. [36]

    [Newton-Rex, 2012] Ed Newton-Rex

    Accessed: 2022-05-25. [Newton-Rex, 2012] Ed Newton-Rex. Jukedeck. https:// jukedeck.com/,

    2022

  13. [37]

    [Oore et al., 2020] Sageev Oore, Ian Simon, Sander Diele- man, Douglas Eck, and Karen Simonyan

    Accessed: 2022-05-25. [Oore et al., 2020] Sageev Oore, Ian Simon, Sander Diele- man, Douglas Eck, and Karen Simonyan. This time with feeling: Learning expressive musical performance. Neural Computing and Applications, 32(4):955–967,

    2022

  14. [38]

    The continuator: Musical interaction with style

    [Pachet, 2003] Francois Pachet. The continuator: Musical interaction with style. Journal of New Music Research , 32(3):333–341,

    2003

  15. [39]

    An introduction to musical metacreation

    [Pasquier et al., 2016] Philippe Pasquier, Arne Eigenfeldt, Oliver Bown, and Shlomo Dubnov. An introduction to musical metacreation. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 14(2):2,

    2016

  16. [40]

    [Payne, 2019] Christine Payne. Musenet. https://openai. com/blog/musenet/,

    2019

  17. [41]

    [Roberts et al., 2018] Adam Roberts, Jesse Engel, Colin Raffel, Curtis Hawthorne, and Douglas Eck

    Accessed: 2022-05-19. [Roberts et al., 2018] Adam Roberts, Jesse Engel, Colin Raffel, Curtis Hawthorne, and Douglas Eck. A hierarchi- cal latent vector model for learning long-term structure in music. In International conference on machine learning , pages 4364–4373. PMLR,

    2022

  18. [42]

    Magenta studio: Augmenting creativity with deep learning in ableton live

    [Roberts et al., 2019] Adam Roberts, Jesse Engel, Yotam Mann, Jon Gillick, Claire Kayacik, Signe Nørly, Mon- ica Dinculescu, Carey Radebaugh, Curtis Hawthorne, and Douglas Eck. Magenta studio: Augmenting creativity with deep learning in ableton live. In 7th International Work-...

    2019

  19. [43]

    Music transcription modelling and composition using deep learning

    [Sturm et al., 2016] Bob L Sturm, Joao Felipe Santos, Oded Ben-Tal, and Iryna Korshunova. Music transcription modelling and composition using deep learning. arXiv preprint:1604.08723,

    2016 arXiv

  20. [44]

    Machine learning research that matters for music creation: A case study

    [Sturm et al., 2019] Bob L Sturm, Oded Ben-Tal, ´Una Mon- aghan, Nick Collins, Dorien Herremans, Elaine Chew, Ga¨etan Hadjeres, Emmanuel Deruty, and Franc ¸ois Pachet. Machine learning research that matters for music creation: A case study. Journal of New Music Research, 48(1):36– 55,

    2019

  21. [45]

    Jnana live

    [Sullivan, 2012] Colin Sullivan. Jnana live. https://ccrma. stanford.edu/∼colinsul/projects/jnana/,

    2012

  22. [46]

    [Tchemeube et al., 2019] Renaud Bougueng Tchemeube, Jeff Ens, and Philippe Pasquier

    Accessed: 2022-05-25. [Tchemeube et al., 2019] Renaud Bougueng Tchemeube, Jeff Ens, and Philippe Pasquier. Apollo: An interactive en- vironment for generating symbolic musical phrases using corpus-based style imitation. In 7th International Work- shop on Musical Metacreation (...

    2022

  23. [47]

    Calliope: A co-creative interface for multi-track music generation

    [Tchemeube et al., 2022] Renaud Bougueng Tchemeube, Jeffrey John Ens, and Philippe Pasquier. Calliope: A co-creative interface for multi-track music generation. In C&C ’22: Creativity and Cognition, Venice, Italy, June 20 - 23, 2022, pages 608–611. ACM,

    2022

  24. [48]

    Computationally created soundscapes with Audio Metaphor

    [Thorogood and Pasquier, 2013] Miles Thorogood and Philippe Pasquier. Computationally created soundscapes with Audio Metaphor. In ICCC, pages 1–7,

    2013

  25. [49]

    Melo- drive

    [Velardo et al., 2014] Valerio Velardo, Andy Elmsley, C´arthach ´O Nuan ´ain, and Christian Tronhjem. Melo- drive. https://melodrive.com/, May

    2014

  26. [50]

    [Yang, 2017] Qian Yang

    Accessed: 2022-05-25. [Yang, 2017] Qian Yang. The role of design in creat- ing machine-learning-enhanced user experience. In 2017 AAAI Spring Symposium Series,

    2022

  27. [51]

    Machine learning as a UX design material: How can we imagine beyond automation, rec- ommenders, and reminders? In 2018 AAAI Spring Sympo- sium Series, 2018

    [Yang, 2018] Qian Yang. Machine learning as a UX design material: How can we imagine beyond automation, rec- ommenders, and reminders? In 2018 AAAI Spring Sympo- sium Series, 2018

    2018

  28. [1989]

    Human-computer co- creativity: Blending human and computational creativity

    [Davis, 2013] Nicholas Davis. Human-computer co- creativity: Blending human and computational creativity. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intel- ligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment , volume 9, pages 9–12,

    2013

  29. [1996]

    Quantifying the creativity support of digital tools through the creativity support index

    [Cherry and Latulipe, 2014] Erin Cherry and Celine Lat- ulipe. Quantifying the creativity support of digital tools through the creativity support index. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) , 21(4):1–25,

    2014

  30. [2003]

    Flowmachines

    [CSL, 2013] Sony CSL. Flowmachines. https: //flow-machines.com/,

    2013

  31. [2008]

    [Kranabetter et al., 2022] Joshua Kranabetter, Craig Carpen- ter, Renaud Bougueng Tchemeube, Philippe Pasquier, and Miles Thorogood

    Accessed: 2022-05-25. [Kranabetter et al., 2022] Joshua Kranabetter, Craig Carpen- ter, Renaud Bougueng Tchemeube, Philippe Pasquier, and Miles Thorogood. Audio metaphor 2.0: An improved clas- sification and segmentation pipeline for generative sound design systems. In Sound a...

    2022

  32. [2011]

    Manuscore: Music notation-based com- puter assisted composition

    [Maxwell et al., 2012] James Maxwell, Arne Eigenfeldt, and Philippe Pasquier. Manuscore: Music notation-based com- puter assisted composition. In ICMC 2012: Non-Cochlear Sound - Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference,

    2012

  33. [2012]

    [Maxwell et al., 2016] James Maxwell, Nicolas Gonza- lez Thomas, and Olivier Vincent. Spliqs. https://spliqs. com/,

    2016

  34. [2013]

    Usability testing essen- tials: Ready, set

    [Barnum, 2020] Carol M Barnum. Usability testing essen- tials: Ready, set... test! Morgan Kaufmann,

    2020

  35. [2014]

    [Clark et al., 2018] Elizabeth Clark, Anne Spencer Ross, Chenhao Tan, Yangfeng Ji, and Noah A. Smith. Creative writing with a machine in the loop: Case studies on slo- gans and stories. In 23rd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces , IUI ’18, page 329–340, Ne...

    2018

  36. [2015]

    [Grace et al., 2015] Kazjon Grace, Mary Lou Maher, Dou- glas Fisher, and Katherine Brady

    Accessed: 2022-05-25. [Grace et al., 2015] Kazjon Grace, Mary Lou Maher, Dou- glas Fisher, and Katherine Brady. Data-intensive evalua- tion of design creativity using novelty, value, and surprise. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 3(3-4):125–147,

    2022

  37. [2016]

    [Davis, 1989] Fred D Davis

    Association for Computing Machinery. [Davis, 1989] Fred D Davis. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technol- ogy. MIS quarterly, pages 319–340,

    1989

  38. [2017]

    Groovenet: Real-time music-driven dance movement generation using artificial neural net- works

    [Alemi et al., 2017] Omid Alemi, Jules Franc ¸oise, and Philippe Pasquier. Groovenet: Real-time music-driven dance movement generation using artificial neural net- works. networks, 8(17):26,

    2017

  39. [2018]

    [Creswell et al., 2003] John W Creswell, Vicki L Plano Clark, Michelle L Gutmann, and William E Hanson

    Association for Computing Ma- chinery. [Creswell et al., 2003] John W Creswell, Vicki L Plano Clark, Michelle L Gutmann, and William E Hanson. Advanced mixed methods research designs , pages 209–240. Sage,

    2003

  40. [2019]

    [Anderson et al., 2013] Christopher Anderson, Arne Eigen- feldt, and Philippe Pasquier

    Association for Computing Machinery. [Anderson et al., 2013] Christopher Anderson, Arne Eigen- feldt, and Philippe Pasquier. The generative electronic dance music algorithmic system (GEDMAS). In Proceed- ings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Di...

    2013

  41. [2020]

    [Bray et al., 2017] Liam Bray, Oliver Bown, and Benjamin Carey. How can we deal with the design principle of visi- bility in highly encapsulated computationally creative sys- tems? In Eighth International Conference on Computa- tional Creativity, ICCC, Atlanta, pages 65–71,

    2017

  42. [2021]

    Melodysauce

    [Evabeat, 2019] Evabeat. Melodysauce. https://evabeat. com/,

    2019

  43. [2022]

    Automatic stylistic composition of bach chorales with deep lstm

    [Liang et al., 2017] Feynman T Liang, Mark Gotham, Matthew Johnson, and Jamie Shotton. Automatic stylistic composition of bach chorales with deep lstm. In ISMIR, pages 449–456,

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.