Rhythmic Qualities of Jazz Improvisation Predict Performer Identity and Style in Source-Separated Audio Recordings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Great musicians have a unique style and, with training, humans can learn to distinguish between these styles. What differences between performers enable us to make such judgments? We investigate this question by building a supervised-learning model that predicts performer identity from data extracted automatically from an audio recording. Such a model could be trained on all kinds of musical features, but here we focus specifically on rhythm, which (unlike harmony, melody, and timbre) is relevant for any musical instrument. We demonstrate that a supervised learning model trained solely on rhythmic features extracted from 300 recordings of ten jazz pianists correctly identified the performer in 59% of cases, six times better than chance. The most important features related to a performer’s “feel” (ensemble synchronization) and “complexity” (information density). Further analysis revealed two clusters of performers, with those in the same cluster sharing similar rhythmic traits, and that the rhythmic style of each musician changed relatively little over the duration of their career. Our findings highlight the possibility that artificial intelligence can perform performer identification tasks normally reserved for experts. Links to each recording and the corresponding predictions are available on an interactive map to support future work in stylometry.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".