Music Auto-Tagger
Music auto-tagger using keras
WARNING
- use keras == 1.0.6 for
MusicTaggerCNN
. (will fix soon) - use keras > 1.0.6 for
MusicTaggerCRNN
.
The prerequisite
- You need
keras
to runexample.py
.- To use your own audio file, you need
librosa
.
- To use your own audio file, you need
- The input data shape is
(None, channel, height, width)
, i.e. following theano convention. If you're using tensorflow as your backend, you should check out~/.keras/keras.json
ifimage_dim_ordering
is set toth
, i.e.
"image_dim_ordering": "th",
Files
Files-Examples
- example_tagging.py: tagging example
- example_feat_extract.py: feature extraction example
Files-Models
Files-utility
- audio_processor.py: compute mel-spectrogram using librosa
Files-weights
- Under data/,
Structures
MusicTaggerCNN
- 5-layer 2D Convolutions
- num_parameter: 865,950
- AUC score of 0.8654
- WARNING with keras >1.0.6, this model does not work properly. Please use MusicTaggerCRNN until it is updated! (FYI: with 3M parameter, a deeper ConvNet showed 0.8595 AUC.)
MusicTaggerCRNN
- 4-layer 2D Convolutions + 2 GRU
- num_parameter: 396,786
- AUC score: 0.8662
How was it trained?
- Using 29.1s music files in Million Song Dataset
- split setting: A repo for split setting for an identical setting.
- See papers
- The tags are...
['rock', 'pop', 'alternative', 'indie', 'electronic', 'female vocalists',
'dance', '00s', 'alternative rock', 'jazz', 'beautiful', 'metal',
'chillout', 'male vocalists', 'classic rock', 'soul', 'indie rock',
'Mellow', 'electronica', '80s', 'folk', '90s', 'chill', 'instrumental',
'punk', 'oldies', 'blues', 'hard rock', 'ambient', 'acoustic', 'experimental',
'female vocalist', 'guitar', 'Hip-Hop', '70s', 'party', 'country', 'easy listening',
'sexy', 'catchy', 'funk', 'electro' ,'heavy metal', 'Progressive rock',
'60s', 'rnb', 'indie pop', 'sad', 'House', 'happy']
Which is the better predictor?
- Training:
MusicTaggerCNN
is faster thanMusicTaggerCRNN
(wall-clock time) - Prediction: They are more or less the same.
- Memory Usage:
MusicTaggerCRNN
have smaller number of trainable parameters. Actually you can even decreases the number of feature maps. TheMusicTaggerCRNN
still works quite well in the case - i.e., the current setting is a little bit rich (or redundant). WithMusicTaggerCNN
, you will see the performance decrease if you reduce down the parameters.
Therefore, if you just wanna use the pre-trained weights, use MusicTaggerCNN
. If you wanna train by yourself, it's up to you. I would use MusicTaggerCRNN
after downsizing it to, like, 0.2M parameters (then the training time would be similar to MusicTaggerCNN
) in general. To reduce the size, change number of feature maps of convolution layers.
Which is the better feature extractor?
By setting include_top=False
, you can get 256-dim (MusicTaggerCNN
) or 32-dim (MusicTaggerCRNN
) feature representation.
In general, I would recommend to use MusicTaggerCRNN
and 32-dim feature as for predicting 50 tags, 256 features actually sound bit too large. I haven't looked into 256-dim feature but only 32-dim features. I thought of using PCA to reduce the dimension more, but ended up not applying it because mean(abs(recovered - original) / original)
are .12
(dim: 32->16), .05
(dim: 32->24) - which don't seem good enough.
Probably the 256-dim features are redundant (which then you can reduce them down effectively with PCA), or they just include more information than 32-dim ones (e.g., features in different hierarchical levels). If the dimension size would not matter, it's worth choosing 256-dim ones.
Usage
$ python example_tagging.py
$ python example_feat_extract.py
Result
theano, MusicTaggerCRNN
data/bensound-cute.mp3
[('jazz', '0.444'), ('instrumental', '0.151'), ('folk', '0.103'), ('Hip-Hop', '0.103'), ('ambient', '0.077')]
[('guitar', '0.068'), ('rock', '0.058'), ('acoustic', '0.054'), ('experimental', '0.051'), ('electronic', '0.042')]
data/bensound-actionable.mp3
[('jazz', '0.416'), ('instrumental', '0.181'), ('Hip-Hop', '0.085'), ('folk', '0.085'), ('rock', '0.081')]
[('ambient', '0.068'), ('guitar', '0.062'), ('Progressive rock', '0.048'), ('experimental', '0.046'), ('acoustic', '0.046')]
data/bensound-dubstep.mp3
[('Hip-Hop', '0.245'), ('rock', '0.183'), ('alternative', '0.081'), ('electronic', '0.076'), ('alternative rock', '0.053')]
[('metal', '0.051'), ('indie', '0.028'), ('instrumental', '0.027'), ('electronica', '0.024'), ('hard rock', '0.023')]
data/bensound-thejazzpiano.mp3
[('jazz', '0.299'), ('instrumental', '0.174'), ('electronic', '0.089'), ('ambient', '0.061'), ('chillout', '0.052')]
[('rock', '0.044'), ('guitar', '0.044'), ('funk', '0.033'), ('chill', '0.032'), ('Progressive rock', '0.029')]
And...
- More info - CNN:
- on this paper, or blog post.
- Also please take a look on the slide at ismir 2016. It includes some results that are not in the paper.
- More info - RNN:
Reproduce the experiment
- A repo for split setting for an identical setting of experiments in two papers.
- Audio file: find someone around you who happened to have the preview clips. or you have to crawl the files. I would recommend you to crawl your colleagues...
Credits
-
Convnet: Automatic Tagging using Deep Convolutional Neural Networks, Keunwoo Choi, George Fazekas, Mark Sandler 17th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference, New York, USA, 2016
-
ConvRNN : Convolutional Recurrent Neural Networks for Music Classification, Keunwoo Choi, George Fazekas, Mark Sandler, Kyunghyun Cho, arXiv:1609.04243, 2016
-
Test music items are from http://www.bensound.com.