Crafting Creative Melodies: A User-Centric Approach for Symbolic Music Generation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors propose a promising framework for user-centered symbolic music generation, yet the lack of validation weakens the paper's impact. The article also exhibits structural issues that demand attention.

The introduction effectively conveys the central challenge of symbolic music generation and the rationale for a user-centered approach. However, it falls short of outlining the paper's scientific contribution, research questions, and article structure. A single-subsection introduction structure proves unnecessary.

The related work section commences by citing a relevant study, but the subsequent paragraphs echo the introduction's discourse without providing references to related work. Figure 1 appears mid-section but is exclusively referenced in Section 6. Moreover, the research gap addressed by the paper is typically identified in the related work section through a contrast with other works.

The paper's references are generally well-chosen and relevant. However, the discussion section could benefit from a more streamlined and easy-to-follow structure. The current dense and intricate presentation makes it challenging for readers to grasp the key takeaways and implications of the research. By restructuring the discussion and breaking it down into more manageable sections, the authors could enhance the overall clarity and accessibility of their findings.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments and constructive criticism about our manuscript. We have carefully considered your feedback and implemented several changes to improve the paper and address the concerns you have raised. Please find below an outline of how we have addressed each of your points:

Introduction Structure and Content:
We have made some changes to the introduction section of our article. Specifically, we have added a clear statement about our scientific contribution, highlighted the research questions we aim to address, and provided an outline of the article structure. We agree that the previous single-subsection format could have been better, and therefore, we have restructured the introduction to improve its flow and readability.

Related Work Section:
We have improved the related work section of our research paper to provide a more comprehensive overview of the existing literature. We have added references to key studies that are directly related to our work and have explained how our research addresses the gap in the literature. 

Figure 1 Reference:
We apologize for the confusion caused by the placement of Figure 1. We have now referenced Figure 1 appropriately within the related work section.

Discussion Section Structure:
We have changed the discussion section to enhance its clarity and coherence. We have divided the section into sub-sections, each focusing on a specific aspect of our findings and research questions. This new structure will help the reader navigate through our key takeaways and understand the implications of our research in a more accessible way.

Sincerely,
Shayan Dadman

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the manuscript titled Crafting Creative Melodies: A User-Centric Approach for Symbolic Music Generation, the authors Shayan Dadman and Bernt Arild Bremdal introduces a framework that combines multi-agent systems and reinforcement learning for symbolic music generation. This study contains some interesting findings:

1.Proposing a framework that combines multi-agent systems and reinforcement learning for symbolic music generation.

2.Focusing on enhancing user engagement in music composition by allowing users to guide the agents, balancing structure and creativity.

3.Improving communication among agents, sharing musical experiences effectively, and adapting to diverse musical preferences.

However, lack of specific examples or cases to demonstrate the application and effectiveness of the proposed framework in actual music generation is the major flaw of the study. Therefore, MAJOR/MINOR revision has to be done before this manuscript could be accepted for publication in the Electronics.

Major comments:

1. In the introduction section, the authors need to provide detailed information on recent advancements in the field of electronics in the introduction section, including relevant background, current research status, and problem awareness

2. Absence of performance evaluation and comparative analysis of the framework to validate its advantages and limitations in the field of music generation.

3. The current manuscript needs to be polished by a native English speaker or a professional language editing service.

Minor comments:

1. Line 531-532, please add Formula 1.

2. Fig. 3: What does lower and deeper GHSOM mean? Please specify.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The writing style is generally clear, but there are occasional instances of awkward phrasing or grammatical errors that could be addressed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

We are grateful for the insightful comments and suggestions regarding our manuscript. We have considered each comment and have made the necessary revisions to our manuscript. Below, we provide a detailed response to each of the comments:

 

Major Comments:

1. Introduction Section Enhancement: We appreciate the suggestion. We have expanded the introduction section to include a background and problem awareness in symbolic music generation. In the "Related Works" Section, we have added references to recent studies and technological advancements that set the stage for our proposed framework.
2. Performance Evaluation and Comparative Analysis: We understand the concern regarding our manuscript's absence of a performance evaluation and comparative analysis. The current submission is focused on the conceptual design of our proposed framework. As such, we have yet to conduct empirical evaluations, which we agree are essential for validating the framework's effectiveness.
3. Language Polishing: The manuscript has been reviewed and polished, and the language quality has improved.

Minor Comments:

1. Addition of Formula 1: We apologize for the oversight and have now included Formula 1 on lines 531-532 as requested. The formula has been properly formatted.
2. Clarification of Fig. 3: Regarding Fig. 3, we have revised the figure caption.

We believe that the revisions made to our manuscript have addressed the concerns raised by the reviewers. We are thankful for the opportunity to improve our work.

 

Sincerely,

Shayan Dadman

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work is an opportunity for music area research, the process used is very well described, but there are some figures that need to be fixed, as figure1 and figure 5.

The Data preprocessing model is a crucial step before training machine learning models, so an IA model could be also suggested as one of the goals.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We greatly appreciate your positive remarks on the potential of our work for music area research and the detailed description of our process. Your input helped us to enhance the quality of our manuscript. Please find below an outline of how we have addressed each of your points:

Figures 1 and 5:
We have carefully reviewed Figures 1 and 5 and identified the issues that needed correction. These figures have been revised for clarity and accuracy.

Data Preprocessing Model:
We acknowledge the importance of the data preprocessing step in the overall effectiveness of machine learning models. While we have described our current preprocessing approach in detail, we have yet to explore the application of an Intelligent Assistant (IA) model within this context. We recognize the potential benefits of such an approach and are considering it for future work. 

Sincerely,
Shayan Dadman

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript proposes a multi-agent artificial intelligence framework for generating music. One important feature of the proposed framework is to leverage human in the process, which will be the major model in the near future. 

 

Overall, the manuscript is well-organized. The design of the proposed framework is elaborated comprehensively. However, it is a pity that the implementation and the evaluation are not available in current stage. 

 

Some comments and suggestions are listed in the following for the authors to improve the manuscript.

 

1. It is suggested that a table can be used to summarize related works mentioned in Section 2 for better readability.

 

2. Several research questions are raised in Section 3. It is suggested that the responses to those questions can be discussed one by one in the later sections.

 

3. It is suggested that examples (different genres) of the dataset can be given in Section 4.1.

 

4. It is suggested that the features can be summarized in a table for better readability.

 

5. Is there any removed feature after the dimension reduction process?

 

6. It is suggested that the agents (in Section 6) can be added to Figure 1 for consistency.

 

7. Is it possible to present a generated music through the proposed framework?

 

8. Is it possible to present the screenshot of interface for users to understand how to participate in the process? 

 

9. Please check the typo in Line 1032.

 

10. Some studies consider user preference to create music, and the corresponding evaluations are performed and reported. It is suggested that the authors can investigate the latest studies.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful for your recognition of the potential impact of our proposed multi-agent artificial intelligence framework for music generation and the importance of incorporating human interaction in the process. We have carefully considered your feedback and implemented several changes to improve the paper and address the concerns you have raised. Please find below an outline of how we have addressed each of your points:

Summary Table for Related Works:
 We have added a table summarizing the related works. This table includes key aspects of each study, such as the methodology used, the results obtained, and how they relate to our work. 

Discussion of Research Questions:
 We have revised the manuscript to ensure that each research question is addressed individually in the Discussion section. This structured approach provides a clear and direct response to the research questions and facilitates a better understanding of our findings.

Features Summary Table:
 A table summarizing the features used in our framework has been added to enhance readability.

Consistency in Figure 1:
We have updated Figure 1 to include the agents to ensure readers visualize the framework as intended. We also updated Figure 6.

Typographical Error:
The typo in Line 1032 has been corrected. We apologize for the oversight and appreciate your attention to detail.

Investigation of Latest Studies on User Preference:
We have reviewed the studies that consider user preference in music creation. The related work section has been updated to discuss these studies and their relation to our work.

Dataset Examples and Dimensionality Reduction: 
We want to clarify that the dataset mentioned in our study serves as an illustrative example at this research stage. We fully intend to implement the framework and conduct comprehensive testing in future work. As such, the specifics of the dataset and the details of the dimensionality reduction and feature selection processes will be thoroughly documented and shared in subsequent publications. This approach will allow us to present our findings with the depth and rigor they warrant.

Presentation of Generated Music: 
It is possible to present music generated by our proposed framework. We plan to include examples of generated music in future publications once the framework has been fully implemented and tested. This will allow us to showcase our research's practical applications and outcomes.

User Interface Screenshot: 
Regarding the user interface, we aim to provide a detailed demonstration of the interface in our upcoming publications. This will give readers a clear understanding of how users can interact with our system and participate in the music generation process.

We hope these updates align with your expectations and convey our commitment to advancing this research in future publications. We are grateful for the opportunity to refine our manuscript based on your valuable feedback.

Sincerely,
Shayan Dadman

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the concerns from the previous review were addressed.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After re-examining the author's response, I found that the author has provided a detailed response to the reviewer's comments and made corresponding revisions to the manuscript. The author has given full attention to the issues and suggestions raised by the reviewer and provided explanations and clarifications in the response. At the same time, the author has also made necessary modifications and improvements to the manuscript based on the reviewer's requests, enhancing the quality and readability of the manuscript.

As the author has fully responded to the reviewer's comments and made corresponding modifications, I believe there are no further suggestions to be made. I appreciate the author's serious attitude and efforts and look forward to seeing further progress in their future research.

Therefore, I suggest accepting the author's modifications and considering recommending the manuscript to the journal for further review.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The grammatical expressions throughout the entire text still require further revision and polishing.