Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 11 (2000) 2179±2192

www.elsevier.nl/locate/chaos

Fractal dimension and classi®cation of music
M. Bigerelle *, A. Iost
Equipe mat
eriaux ENSAM Lille, Laboratoire de M
etallurgie Physique, CNRS UMR 8517, 8 Boulevard Louis XIV, 59046 Lille cedex,
France
Accepted 27 July 1999

Abstract

The fractal aspect of di€erent kinds of music was analyzed in keeping with the time domain. The fractal dimension of a great
number of di€erent musics (180 scores) is calculated by the Variation method. By using an analysis of variance, it is shown that fractal
dimension helps discriminate di€erent categories of music. Then, we used an original statistical technique based on the Bootstrap
assumption to ®nd a time window in which fractal dimension reaches a high power of music discrimination. The best discrimination is
obtained between 1/44100 and 16/44100 Hertz. We admit that to distinguish some di€erent aspects of music well, the high information
quantity is obtained in the high frequency domain. By calculating fractal dimension with the ANAM method, it was statistically
proven that fractal dimension could distinguish di€erent kinds of music very well: musics could be classi®ed by their fractal dimen-
sions. Ó 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Fractal analysis lead to study of di€erent physical phenomena met in di€erent sciences as Materials
science, Fluids mechanics, Wear, Chemistry, Botany, etc. This paper aims to analyze the fractal aspect of
di€erent musics (rock music, traditional music, classical music and so on. . .). Using di€erent statistical
methods, we will analyze how fractal dimension helps discriminate di€erent kinds of music. As the fractal
dimension is independent of the power of the music, this no-dimensional number could be used to correlate
acoustic aspects of sounds with physical parameters.
Campbell [1] analyzed the music of digital computer and reviewed di€erent techniques used to model
aspects of musical perception. In analogy with the well-known Mandelbrot set, he asked if musical cog-
nition depends on discrete structures such as scales or rhythms and he introduced the notions of a macro-
and a micro-structure of music. Di€erent works have already been carried out using spectral analysis in the
lower frequency. Voss [2] analyzed the power spectrum S…f † and found that ¯uctuation in music and pitch
exhibits a 1=f power spectra. Before a critical value of a frequency, Voss found that S…f † varies in keeping
with 1=f 2 . According to Voss S…f † is not 1=f for higher frequency (100 Hz±2 kHz), meaning that spectrum
contains much information. A bandpass ®lter ranging between 100 Hz and 10 kHz was used to obtain a 1=f
structure. This frequency domain led the author to analyze aspects of music alongside with the amplitude
(loudness) of the audio signals and did not analyze the acoustic frequency domain. Analyzing three di€erent
radio stations over 12 h (Classical, jazz±blues and rock), they found the 1=f spectra. By analyzing music
spectra in 1=f , Voss et al. [3] remarked that the spectra exponent was constant and could be related to the
fractal aspect of the music. According to some fractal theories [4] which applied on self-ane functions, a

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +33-320-622-233; fax: +33-320-535-593.
E-mail address: iost@lille.emsam.fr (M. Bigerelle).

0960-0779/00/$ - see front matter Ó 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 6 0 - 0 7 7 9 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 1 3 7 - X

For example. The second one is the interactions between di€erent pitches that could not be analyzed in a score and are an important physiological aspect of the music (for example. the score of the right-hand of a piano composition is not independent of the score on the left one). acoustic analysis are dicult when frequency of the audio signal is non-stationary as in music. In any instrument. score analysis would be dicult when di€erent instruments are playing together while interactions between di€erent instruments are also aspects of the music. analyzing di€erent musics (classics. Firstly. ut3 pitch (fundamental) is 261 Hz and has two audible harmonics ut4 (552 Hz) and sol4 (783 Hz). Finally. . The ®rst one is the timbre. window time e€ect to analyze the spectra (by the Fast Fourier Transform) a€ects signal analysis and it becomes dicult to analyze music by the spectra. as frequencies vary along with time. they applied fractal concept considering that it would be more appropriate to de®ne melody as a succession of note intervals and not a succession of music notes and found the relation F ˆ c=jD . Firstly. 391 intervals for Bach Invention N°10). With the same technique. However. blues. on a piano. Secondly. Hs u used less information to calculate the fractal dimension (for example.22. he analysis his music with taking considerations into account (Chopin would have composed his Nocturne di€erently if they had ®rst been played on an organ rather than a piano). In fact. etc. Voss [5] con®rmed the 1=f spectra. By this theory. In fact. by analyzing Hs u's theory. We do not use the power spectra analysis for three reasons. No mathematical artifact has to be introduced: ®ltering audio message should be prohibited because any cut-o€ is suggestive and could introduce into the signal some informations that the composer did not even suggest. Why should fractal dimension be experimentally constant in the audio spectra? With some reserves. As a music note could be de®ned by f =f0 ˆ 2i=n . c a constant and D the fractal dimension. let us try and give explanations. we have to admit that an- alyzing fractal aspect in the lower frequency could teach that fractal dimension is constant for all musics. This music becomes more pleasant than a white noise sound and lies between white (independent of the frequency) and brown music ( 1=f 2 spectra) [10]. Finally. Secondly. As Voss and Clark failed to ®nd a fractal dimension of acoustic music. a note frequency (fundamental) is not unique and its harmonics gives the instrument's speci®city. their frequencies were plotted against the successive number of notes in the composition and a fractal structure was found. Two more points have to be chosen to estimate the fractal dimension as minutely as possible [15]. A. As a con- sequence.2180 M. Hs u [14] found that most bird songs are not characterized by a fractal relation. In fact. computing fractal dimension by Spectra im- poses that audio signal is self-ane and this assertion is not proved yet. we have to assume that fractal dimension may not be constant for di€erent compositions by considering acoustic frequencies. the Beatles. The 1=f spectra of music were also con®rmed by Schroeder [6] and Campbell [7]. a lower frequency gets greater variances than a higher frequency and this frequency heteroscedasticity leads to dicult statistical interpretations of the signal. As a consequence. Finally. More recently. music cannot be de®ned as a succession of di€erent diapasons: when a musician writes a score.). Iost / Chaos. by Fourier's analysis. We have analyzed Hs u's results [14] from a statistic point of view and we concluded that fractal dimension of frequency of note intervals in music is statistically constant and was between 1. To transform the audio signal into a visual one. its duration and the time interval between two notes: Music is a combination of these frequencies and it seems impossible to impose a discriminating function. by analyzing scores for bird songs. fractal music can be created using this fractal spectra: 1=f spectrum is generated and the audio signal is obtained using the Inverse Fast Fourier Transform [8. as Hs u's analysis was carried out by digitizing the note from a score. Solitons and Fractals 11 (2000) 2179±2192 relation between the spectra P … f † and the fractal dimension D leads to the following relation P … f † / f 2Dÿ5 . where F is the percentage incidence frequency of the note interval between successive notes. Hs u and Hs u [12] analyzed Bach's composition and found that the change of acoustic sound has a fractal geometry. Thirdly. Bigerelle.16 and 1. the precision of the power spectrum method is low [11] and is particularly due to an important variance of the power spectrum. where e is a `music yardstick' that measures the `length' of the total interval i of a music score. These remarks lead us to consider that music has to be analyzed as a whole and not in parts. it is not that obvious to decorelate to separate the frequency (or pitches) of a note. two important pieces of information were lost. medieval. Hs u digitized notes of a score. An algorithm for music reduction has been devised from these relations. fractal dimension is unique and equal to 2. Hs u analyzed [13] the sum L…i† of all note intervals i in a composition and found the following fractal relation L…i† ˆ c=eD .9]. D is the fractal dimension and j is the note interval.

and are recorded from an audio disk. 1(b) a zoom of 1 s and Fig. Fig. Bigerelle. we chose to digitize the signal without ®ltering it. with no self- anity (or self-similar) hypothesis. . A. 1 and 2.1 s. If the time exceeds 2 min. We analyzed nearly 5 million data. The signal will be seen as a function y ˆ f …t† (where f is the amplitude signal in decibels) and we resorted two di€erent fractal analysis: The Variation method [16] and the ANAM method [17]. Solitons and Fractals 11 (2000) 2179±2192 2181 As a consequence. to analyze music. Fig. 1(c) a zoom of 0. M. Each point is taken at the sample rate of 1/44 100 s during a period of 2 min. If records are stereophonic. 2. we did not use the integer operation. Signal amplitude is encoded in 16 bit words. The signal of two di€erent musics is shown at di€erent scales in Figs. a 2 min interval is randomly chosen over the time music graph. 1. 1(a) is the integral time series of the 5th symphony of Ludwig Van Beethoven. Iost / Chaos.1. The random choice of music will be explained later. Fractal aspect of the music. then the left and right signals are overimposed to obtain a monophonic signal. We chose the same time music length to analyze fractal aspect of the music along the same scale and to avoid introducing any lower frequency statistical bias. Fig. That is why. These two methods provide the advantage of being independent of the power signal (in Db) and give a good calculated fractal dimension for this kind of stochastic function with poor mathematical restrictions. The usual method to calculate the fractal dimension 2. Plot of the time series music versus the amplitude. This coding and sampling rate were speci®ed in an article by Campbell [1] who remarks that a calculation involving ¯oating point operation does not introduce noise into the signal. Music recording Musics are digitized at the sample rate of 44100 Hz for exactly 2 min.

a punk music band. Fig. 1(c) a zoom of 0. Solitons and Fractals 11 (2000) 2179±2192 Fig. The Variation [16] and the ANAM [17] methods. The s- oscillation of the function f in x is de®ned as: f : ‰a. f … x††. 2. Bigerelle.2. Fractal aspect of the music. 1(a) is the integral time series `Evidence of abominations' by Massacra. . 2.1. The variation method This method was proposed by Dubuc et al.2182 M.1 s. Plot of the time series music versus the amplitude. Fig. Time music plot is represented by this graph.16] and applied to roughness measurements. A. a 6 x 6 bg where Graph of f : ‰a. These two methods can be used when the graph is de®ned by the set of points E ˆ f… x. Iost / Chaos. [6. 1(b) a zoom of 1 s and Fig. bŠ ! R.2. bŠ ! R. Each point is taken at the sample rate of 1/44 100 s during a period of 2 min. Calculation of fractal dimension We are going to present the two di€erent methods used to calculate the fractal dimension of music. 2.

.

.

.

…1† .

.

OSCs …f . x† ˆ .

max … f …t††ÿmin … f …t††.

: .

jxÿtj<s jxÿtj<s .

x† over the interval [a. a. a. x† dx …2† bÿa a then the fractal dimension can be written as   log VARs …f . By taking the average of OSCs …f . b† D… f . a.b] we have Z b 1 VARs …f . b† ˆ OSCs …f . b† ˆ lim 2 ÿ : …3† s!0 log s .

The integration of Ksa …f . a real number. A. a P 1. f1 †. b ÿ sŠ (Window size) so as to avoid introducing a bias in the calculation (that is to say that Ksa …f . a. nŠ.b† and   …6† log Ksa …f . b† is associated with the graph of the function f de®ned over the interval ‰a. b† and the fractal dimension is given by D… f . a P 1: csH …f . A nonlinear regression and a correction methods could also be used and will be used in our analysis. f is a C 0 class function such as f : ‰a ÿ s. b† is made over the interval ‰a ‡ s. a. a. log s for di€erent s values. a. a. b†. there are two positive real numbers c and c0 such as for a. x† over the whole interval ‰a. b† and the fractal dimension is given by D… f . a. b† with less consuming calculation time. The function Msa …f . The slope estimates the H olderian coecient H …f . b† vs. a. . b† ˆ lim 2 ÿ : s!0 log s The fractal dimension is approached by linear regression of log Ksa …f . a. b† ˆ j f … x ‡ j dx† ÿ f … x ÿ l dx†j . a. i 2 ‰2. b† ˆ 2 ÿ H …f . …x2 . b ‡ sŠ ! R.a.a. b†. bŠ. a ‡ sŠ and ‰b ÿ s. b† ˆ 2 ÿ H …f . . a. b† is a straight line. bŠ. a. Solitons and Fractals 11 (2000) 2179±2192 2183 D…f . a. (7) and to avoid the evaluation of the a-power evaluation. (5) by a numerical method. fn † the discretizing points of the graph f . b† P c0 sH …f . x† is then de®ned as 2 31=a Z s Z s 61 a 7 Msa …f . The graph of the log …k dx† versus log Ksa …f . a. bŠ it is impossible to make the calculation over ‰a. b† ˆ 4 2 j f … x ‡ t1 † ÿ f … x ÿ t2 †j dt1 dt2 5 dx: …5† bÿa xˆa s t1 ˆ0 t2 ˆ0 By making three times the average of the function. x† is de®ned by making the average of Msa …f .b† P Ksa …f . x† ˆ 4 2 j f … x ‡ t1 † ÿ f … x ÿ t2 †j dt1 dt2 5 : …4† s t1 ˆ0 t2 ˆ0 The function Ksa …f . we obtain " #1=a ÿ2=a X nÿk X k X k …k ‡ 1† a Ksa …f . The problem of the boarders ± as in other methods ± must now to be considered. we use a ®rst-order numerical integration which gives a good evaluation of Ksa …f . The fractal dimension is obtained by linear regression of log VARs …f . the sample rate). If f is uniformly h olderian. if the function f is de®ned over the interval ‰a. we retain the value a ˆ 1. …xn . bŠ 2 31=a Z xˆb Z s Z s 1 61 a 7 Ksa …f . b† D… f . a. the variance of the estimation of Ksa …f . b† would depend on the number of discretized points). As it was proved than the fractal dimension does not depend on the a values. a. In order to discretize Eq. M. a. f2 †. . a. Let us de®ne by …x1 . a. …xi ÿ xiÿ1 ˆ dx. .2. Iost / Chaos. b† diminishes. b† versus log s for di€erent s values. . The slope corre- sponds to the h olderian coecient H …f . To minimize the numerical complexity of Eq. Bigerelle. …7† n ÿ 2k iˆk‡1 jˆ0 lˆ0 n being the number of discretized points from the graph of the f function and s ˆ k dx. In point of fact. 2. The ANAM method This method was recently proposed by Bigerelle and Iost [17]. a. where the slope converges to the H older exponent. olderian and anti-h real. Given two positive real numbers a < b.2.

b† is unchanged. x† ˆ csH …f . Solitons and Fractals 11 (2000) 2179±2192 2. 2. a. It is important to see that scale e€ect on y has no e€ect on the determination of the fractal dimension (this assertion is not veri®ed for the well-known Box counting method). a.a. Moreover. The relation can be stated [18] as follows: X p ki OSCs …f .b† ‡ .b† ‡ : …9† iˆ1 si We must ®nd H …f . we proved that the ANAM method is more precise than the others (around 30%) when Windows size is small and that the number of discretized points is not too important. that VARs …f .2. That is why we used the Variation and the ANAM methods.a. there are no mathematical reasons. then OSCs …f . We think that the Variation method has to be used for all the windows in a ®rst approach. A.2. Regression analysis In the non-corrected methods. 2. Then. b† is a function with a term 1=s. The best one is the nonlinear model. b† ˆ dsH …f . …8† iÿ1 si where …c. Corrected methods If f is h olderian and anti-h olderian. Otherwise. When the fractal dimension of the graph is uniform (fractal dimension does not depend on the analysis scale) and no high frequency noises are in- troduced. x† ˆ csH …f . If s decreases. But some problems due to the information lost about the Max and Min functions lead to calculate a large window to well-appreciate fractal dimensions. Likewise. (7) increases. This fact is well-known to numerical methods: increasing precision increases computational time. the errors due to discretization on the ordinate disappear. except for the discretization phenomenon. By adding the term e=s in the regression model.2184 M. it can be proved during the nonlinear regression that dsH …f . Iost / Chaos. which minimize this function and the problem can be resolved by nonlinear regression. When in the linear case or in the nonlinear case fractal dimension can be di€erent. k† 2 R2 .4. .a. a. the expectation of H …f . In fact.2. Eciency of the two methods With these methods. we want to search discriminating power of fractal dimension of music and we do not want this result to be correlated with the power amplitude of the time series. a. b†.a. Bigerelle. The method presented to estimate the errors due to discretization is justi®ed for the Variation method and can be applied to the ANAM method. the error made on the oscillation rises logarithmically (because the number of points decreases linearly with s). By applying the two methods on di€erent function graphs. the ANAM method has to be applied (see physical justi®cations later).b† . The oscillation methods can be used to study these domains by an ecient algorithm based on the properties of the Max and Min functions. In this study.b† and e=s are orthogonal by regression. Thanks to a statistical analysis. We also use another term f =s2 if this term is statistically signi®cant and so on. by integrating the function over the interval ‰a. This method improves results of all methods speci®cally when fractal dimension increases.5. then the ANAM method can be used with a small window and estimates precisely the fractal dimension. if we want a more precise analysis. bŠ we get X p ei VARs …f . e. The main problem is how to quantify these phenomena on a physical pro®le: we have to analyze the variation of the fractal function on all the time domains. fractal dimension can be calculated by the linear regression or by the non- least-square. the ANAM method cannot be used when the windows size is too large: the three sums lead to an important computational time when k in Eq. we take the coecient e only if its value is signi®cantly di€erent from 0 (Student's test).3. d.

046 0.823 1.888 1.891 1. M.746 STD 0. STD: Standard deviation of the fractal dimension in the given class.744 1.873 1.011 0.693 1.744 1. MIN: Minimal value of the fractal dimension in the given class.873 1. String quartet.727 1. Solitons and Fractals 11 (2000) 2179±2192 2185 3. 12 categories of music were chosen in Concerto.8359 1.734 music 1.771 1.832 1.745 STD 0.774 1.028 0.030 0.797 1. DNL3: Fractal dimension calculated using second-order cor- rection models. Rock'n'roll. Progressive music.743 1.777 1.886 1.790 1.795 1.023 0.799 1.728 1.049 0.015 0.857 1.858 1.782 MEAN 1.022 0.823 1.728 MAX 1.850 1.907 1.785 1.690 1.858 1.858 1.864 1. For all the titles of music we take exactly the same number of points to avoid biasing the fractal dimension estimation and we divide this interval in dyadic interval of 2k points with k 2 f1::18g.041 0.031 0.018 Heavy N 21 21 21 21 Rock`n'Roll 19 19 19 19 Metal MIN 1.836 1. All the titles were randomly chosen in a music data bank thanks to keywords given to the di€erent kinds.751 1.011 Electronical N 19 19 19 19 Relaxation 10 10 10 10 music MIN 1.745 1. Electronic music.030 0.864 1.034 0.818 1.025 0.814 1.781 1.876 1.743 1.771 1.836 1.819 1.790 1.045 0.867 1.833 MEAN 1.880 1.831 1.725 1.724 1.731 1.018 0. MAX: Maximal value of the fractal dimension in the given class.011 a N: Number of di€erent musics in each class used to calculate fractal dimension.027 0.911 1. Table 1 Results of fractal dimensions using di€erent regressions and ®tting methodsa Class STAT DNL3 DNL1 DNL2 DL Class DNL3 DNL1 DNL2 DL Concerto N 16 16 16 16 String 8 8 8 8 MIN 1.761 MEAN 1.719 1.684 1.817 MEAN 1.028 0.749 1.816 1.016 0.022 0.009 0.871 1.845 1.880 1.816 STD 0.859 1.023 0.027 0.863 1. Chopin's Nocturne. MEAN: Mean of the fractal dimension in the given class.026 Jazz N 15 15 15 15 Symphony 17 17 17 17 MIN 1.805 1.815 1.709 quartet 1.728 MAX 1.020 0.728 1.865 1.030 0.822 1.724 1.775 1.715 MAX 1. Relaxation music.853 1.917 1.744 1.774 1. We chose to take a 2 min random sample that represents a sample size of 5 000 000 data. Bigerelle. So the fractal aspect of music is studied between 4=44 100 and 24 s.872 1.0329 0.787 1.839 MEAN 1.880 1.010 0.015 Chopin's N 5 5 5 5 Traditionnal 18 18 18 18 Nocturnes music MIN 1.743 1.782 1.811 1.028 0. Then we analyze the data with error correction by nonlinear re- gression.786 MAX 1.849 1. Trash music (like punk music). Iost / Chaos.787 STD 0. DNL1: Fractal dimension calculated using the nonlinear least-square method without error correction of error.745 1.849 1.030 0. Traditional music.026 0.836 1.870 1.867 1.753 1.781 1.752 STD 0.020 0.773 MEAN 1.011 0.7538 1.845 1. . Experimental result We will now draw the experimental design.859 1.779 1. Symphonies. All the results we obtained are shown in Table 1.809 1.032 0.835 1.790 1.819 1.021 0.691 1.850 1.808 1.792 1.768 1.871 1. DL: Fractal dimension calculated using the linear least- square methods (without correction of error).793 STD 0. DNL2: Fractal dimension calculated using the ®rst-order correction models.690 1. We compute fractal dimension by the variation method without error correction with a linear ®tting (log±log plot) and the nonlinear ®tting.031 0.776 1.805 1.693 1.883 1.689 1.031 0. Heavy metal.778 1.902 1.830 1.825 1.847 1.778 1.763 MAX 1.781 1.809 1.744 1.820 1.728 MAX 1.857 1.8784 1.030 0.864 1.019 0.022 Progressive N 15 15 15 15 Trash 26 26 26 26 Music music MIN 1.021 0.800 1.886 1.797 1.052 0.894 1.799 1. A.821 1.014 0.044 0.015 0. Jazz.

best results in terms of statistics correlations are obtained using model DNL3. Method used to calculate fractal dimension Firstly.3. Means with the same letter are not signi®cantly di€erent. then each subset of k ÿ 1 means is tested at level bkÿ1 . r2D inter music represents the variance of the fractal dimension between the di€erents classes of music and r2D intra music the variance of the fractal dimension for a given class of music. the purpose of analysis of variance (ANOVA) is to test for signi®cant di€erences between means. otherwise. Bigerelle.05. musicians principally play the drums and the guitar. This music is high speed. The di€erences between these two kinds of music are not signi®cant because they get 1 The Purpose of Analysis of Variance. If we analyse errors for the 189 time series studied. fractal dimension is biased by this method and nonlinear fractal dimension has to be computed by a nonlinear square regression.2186 M. that is. Table 3 gives results of Duncan test for a ˆ 0:05.1. As fractal dimension lies between 1 and 2.. we want to calculate a result on the same equation. Then we can group the Rock'n'roll and Heavy-metal musics. 1 We will now calculate the statistics (e€ects) in each class. the accuracy of the test is given. Solitons and Fractals 11 (2000) 2179±2192 4. If the result is a rejection. it can be noticed that the log transformation is performed being easier to compute (no iterative algorithm). Methods used to calculate fractal dimension by a linear least-square (DL) and the nonlinear least-square without error correction (DNL1) give di€erent results. A. To estimate fractal e€ect. . 4. We use this test because it gets a greater power using multiple-stage tests. one gets a maximal error of 5%. we are going to see if di€erent kinds of musics give di€erent fractal dimensions. For each test. if the hypothesis of homogeneity of a set of p means is rejected at the bk level. Iost / Chaos. At the heart of ANOVA is the fact that variances can be divided up.2. Discussion 4. In general. The greater F is. we compare di€erent regression methods used to calculate fractal dimension. a good test to compare means between classes is the Ducan test if we want to obtain simultaneous con®dence intervals. In general. the set of p means is considered not to di€er signi®cantly and none of its subsets are tested. But. all results discussed later are studied using model DNL3. With this assumption. The highest fractal dimension is obtained for Trash music. For those reasons. We apply the Kolmogorov Smirnov test to verify the Gaussian adequation (Table 2). Secondly. then each subset of p ÿ 1 means is tested at the bpÿ1 level. Music analyses The statistical analyses of the fractal dimension scatters the music into four groups. the procedure stops. voices are loud then we get a high fractal dimension. Statistical analysis Now. The Ducan test ®rst tests the homogeneity of all the means at a level bk . otherwise. the more discriminate the fractal dimension is. In fact.e. we are actually comparing (i. analyzing) variances. The Ducan test uses the studentized range statistic and we get: bp ˆ 1 ÿ …1 ÿ a†pÿ1 where Ducan's method controls the comparison error rate at the a level. In most of the bibliography about fractal dimension calculation. partitioned. Means are classi®ed from the highest to the lowest. We decide to carry out an analysis of variance for the variable fractal dimension and the classes are de®ned by the kind of music. we ®rst study the distribution of each fractal dimension in each class. we notice that error between linear and nonlinear estimations on the fractal dimension is majored by 0. This name is derived from the fact that in order to test for statistical signi®cance between means. This analysis shows that r2D inter music 0:0092 F ˆ ˆ ˆ 23:72: r2D intra music 0:000387 The value of F is highly signi®cant and we can arm with a probability error inferior to 1=100 000 that fractal dimension can discriminate the categories of music. 4.05 signi®cant level that fractal dimension probability density function obeys the Gaussian law. So we cannot reject at the 0. This assumption proves that fractal dimension is a good estimator of music signal.

that represents the probability to arm that fractal dimension could be di€erent between classes. we can remark that there is no peak. As all the music time series get the same number of points. k † that discriminates with the best statistical characteristic among the di€erent classes of music. distortioned guitars and bass). all distributions could be considered as a Gaussian probability density function Conce Elect Heavy Jazz Noctu Progr Quart Relax Rock Symph Tradi Trash 0. …xi‡1 .75 0. is ob- tained. y2 †.86389 10 Relax C 1. Bigerelle. .87119 19 Rock B 1. Firstly. . To ®nd the better pair …i. . fractal dimension would not be ap- proached by frequency analysis. For a multifractal structure. yi‡1 †. the better the discrimination by the fractal analysis.86 0. Multifractal approach In the previous paragraph. yi † one of these points. The aim of this method is to search. …x4 . …xi‡k . 3(a) and (b)) shows di€erent fractal scales and a multifractal measure has to be studied. Means are arranged from the highest to the lowest.92 Table 3 Results from the Duncan test. M.83591 15 Jazz C 1. Relaxation music belongs to the same class. we propose to calculate `local' fractal dimension by the slope obtained with the least means square method from points f…xi . yi‡k †g with the following conditions: i 6 n ÿ 1. It could also be shown that the ®rst three fractal dimensions are statistically the best: This means that the best window is obtained for the f…x1 .88 0. …x3 . One obtains the local fractal dimension Di. In fact. we used a private method called the para- metric bootstrap analysis of variance. i‡k and ®nally for each kind of music a set of local fractal dimension Dli. concerto.82391 16 Conce D 1.89402 26 Trash B A 1.c j is obtained. …x2 .83678 15 Progr C 1.79 0. i ‡ k 6 n and k P 1. So the analysis consider this music as a pink noise and so that the fractal dimension is great. we can postulate that the log±log plot con- tains information by its linear properties on a given interval. Iost / Chaos. we have analyzed the fractal dimension on all the time series intervals as- suming that fractal dimension is uniform.78208 8 Quartet D 1. Then the third group contains rhythmic music with low tempo as for progressive music. by a bootstrap technique. Means with same letter are not signi®cantly di€erent Duncan grouping Duncan grouping Mean N Class A 1. jazz and electronic music.97 0. 4).83513 19 Elect C 1. Finally.22].93 0. If n is the number of points in the log±log plot and …xi . We propose to analyze the di€erent scales by this original following technique.86457 21 Heavy B 1.c j correspond to the same frequency interval.05. by analyzing the time series. A frequency approach (Fig. few percussions and a much slower rhythm as in traditional music. y4 †g .88 0. 5. where lc is the l music of the music class c. . A probability function. string quartet and Chopin's nocturnes. k † value that gives the greatest variance between di€erent classes of music [19. it is shown that the ®rst 10 windows get a good discrimination power (Table 4). symphony. Means of fractal dimension are computed by the Variation method with a large window. Solitons and Fractals 11 (2000) 2179±2192 2187 Table 2 Results from the critical values of the Kolmogorov Smirmov test about Gaussian assumption. the …i.79730 18 Tradi D 1. The lower this probability number. y1 †. the fourth group is composed of musics with low tempo. yi †. In this work. we calculated all possible slopes.73 0.77978 5 Noctu the same origin and are played with similar instruments (Drums. A.90 0. y3 †.94 0. Each number represents the error probability of rejecting Gaussian adequation. As the usual critical values to not reject Gaussian hypothesis is 0. While sorting out this probability through ascending sequences (Fig.79202 17 Symph D 1.96 0. n will be constant and all Dli. These surprising results have to be explained: relaxation music has no tempo.

Results of the bootstrap analysis of variance. As the best window size are equal to 16. These re- marks were con®rmed by the experimental analysis: when x is small. The abscisse represents the class …i. we decide to use the ANAM method to calculate the fractal dimension of music. n ˆ 5 000 000). As a result. the F-value (discrimination power function) is divided by a factor 2 ( F ˆ 54) using the Variation method and divided by a factor 7 (F ˆ 173) using the nonlinear ANAM corrected method. Fractal dimensions calculated with small windows rather than large ones are lower: when windows size becomes too large. An example of the windows size in¯uence is given in Fig. median. Power spectra of pitch ¯uctuations. Schroeder had studied the structure of concert hall. the ear unconsciously switches to a short time analysis and high resolution frequency responses become an important aspect of pleasing sound [20]. The ordinate represents the critical probability value under no discrimination of the music by the fractal dimension. Mean. The reason is the high computational time due to the maximal windows size of one million points (k ˆ 1 000 000. the Variation method gives results nearly as good as the ANAM method. 5 for a white noise (D ˆ 2). under fractal music hypothesis. (a) and (b) are. points. 4. . Iost / Chaos. as fractal dimension is theoretically cal- culated for small x (Eqs. (4) and (6)). Bigerelle. A. 1(a) (classics) and Fig. Best values lead to one analyze music fractal aspects in time domain ‰1=44 100. the median. we mentally visualize a noise: this fact can be con®rmed by the autocorrelation functions (Fig. analysis were performed by the corrected ANAM method with a 16 points window size. Secondly. He concluded than when listening to speech or music. we do not use the ANAM method to ®rst study the music. j† where fractal dimension Dli. We can remark that classi®cation is more precise using the ANAM method. It physically leads to two important remarks. First one. Now music is divided into eight groups by the Ducan method (Table 5) against four groups by the ®rst study with Variation method. Fig.2188 M. 2(a) (punk music). the 5th quantile and the 95th quantile of the critical probability values. fractal dimension has to be computed for small x. it was shown that the ANAM method is more appropriate when the window size is small (10±100 points).jc are calculated. p5 and p95 are. Solitons and Fractals 11 (2000) 2179±2192 Fig. respectively. In fact. 44Š kHz. respectively mean. calculated from the signal Fig. 6(a) and (b)). 16=44 100Š s and cor- respond to the frequency domains ‰3. When k is greater than 200. Prob is the value of this probability. 3. These domains are included in the audible frequency with no lower frequencies.

05E ) 44 4.4 O 50.Table 4 Analysis of discrimation power by the bootstrap analysis of variance versus the intervals where fractal dimension is computed.56E ) 51 2.92E ) 44 7.88E ) 40 1.90E ) 46 2.3 O 54.73E ) 31 2.08E ) 38 1.33E ) 39 1.84 5.22E ) 48 2.33E ) 65 99.30E ) 50 9.55 4 5 6 7 D1.61E ) 30 4.36 2.96 0.. .92E ) 49 1. S1.18 11.41E ) 30 2.82E ) 48 1.: Standard deviation of Prob.47E ) 45 3.6 O 26.84E ) 54 1.2 O 44.41E ) 45 5.j discriminates fractal dimension better the others Di.88 2. .29 5 6 7 8 9 D2.08E ) 49 2.02E ) 45 7.j .22E ) 45 88. .68E ) 66 98. f: Fisher-Snodecor value.4 O 40.34E ) 40 1. 2i‡1 .86E ) 34 3.30E ) 42 6.5 O 40. Std.49 4.05 1.25E ) 43 1.43 3 4 5 6 7 D2.4 O 54.75 11.81E ) 29 2.j : Fractal dimension is calculated with the 2i .31E ) 56 96. p95: 95% of values of prob are less than p95.33 1.3 O 53.95E ) 46 2.98E ) 50 4.05 con®dence level.25E ) 53 8.Sn: Classi®cation variables: If j musics get the same values of Sj then power discrimination is equal at the 0.49 4.40 11. Means: Means of prob. Iost / Chaos.j ..60E ) 66 99.04 1.68 2.6 O 36.5 O 47.14 1 2 3 D2.13E ) 40 5.62 5 6 7 8 9 10 D2.52E ) 49 7.66 5.95 1 2 D1.18E ) 48 6. 2j of the time windowsa Classe In¯uent f Prob Mean Std P95 P5 Di®nf Difsup S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 D1.68 2.05E ) 35 9.78E ) 48 6.5 O 27.61 6.60E ) 41 1. p5: 5% of values of prob are less than p5. M. Di®nf: Probability to arm that Di.14E ) 56 97.05% level.35E ) 39 2.15 6. Solitons and Fractals 11 (2000) 2179±2192 2189 .67 3 4 5 6 D3.80E ) 51 2.97 6 7 8 9 10 a In¯uent: O means that fractal dimension discriminates the music at 0.09 2. Prob: Probability that fractal dimension are identical for all music categories.52E ) 31 7. .j does not discriminate fractal dimension better the others Di. Bigerelle.61 2 3 4 D1. A.53E ) 30 3.87E ) 56 96.46 4 5 6 7 8 D3.59 3.15E ) 31 6.05 0. Di.76E ) 53 95.64E ) 38 5.25E ) 64 98.01E ) 37 2.62E ) 44 88. Difsup: Probability to arm that Di.19E ) 31 1.83 2 3 4 5 D1.32E ) 51 7.91E ) 44 88.94 1 D2.24E ) 34 1.84E ) 48 1.07 1.07E ) 53 3.48 3.7 O 27.28 1.99E ) 45 1.04E ) 44 3.43 9.64E ) 62 98.03E ) 31 8.

Heavy-metal gets the same fractal dimension that Trash music because this one gets the same origin as Heavy metal. then pink noise aspect disappears. 6.52914 21 Heavy A 1. Solitons and Fractals 11 (2000) 2179±2192 Fig. ANAM3: Nonlinear ANAM method with error correction. Progressive music has the same fractal dimension as the electronic one: we could explain this fact by the abundance of synthesizers used in progressive music.200 10 Relax H 1. OSCLN: Linear Variation method. the fractal dimension of relaxation music becomes less important: as the tempo is not much analyzed. respectively. Music classi®cation becomes very logical. Fig. calculated from the signal Fig. 5. Firstly. 1(a) (classics) and Fig. OSC2: Nonlinear Variation method without error correction.2190 M.231 17 Symphonie G 1.112 5 Nocturne As a result. Secondly. Bigerelle. 2(a) (punk music). ANAM2: Nonlinear ANAM method without error correction. Electronic music gets the same fractal dimension as a concerto and traditional . OSC3: Nonlinear Variation method with error correction.43589 19 Rock C 1. Table 5 Results from the Duncan test with a maximum of 16 points in the windows size computed by the corrected ANAM method Duncan grouping Duncan grouping Duncan grouping Mean N Class A 1.261 15 Jazz F E G 1. Comparaison of the Oscillation and ANAM methods using di€erent windows size by computing fractal dimension on a white noise.49108 26 Trash B 1.359 15 Progressi C D 1. Rock music lies between Heavy-metal and Progressive music and is well distinguished. (a) and (b) are. this music is original and is less `powerful' than heavy but more than progressive music.334 19 Electronic D E 1.246 8 Quartet F G 1. A. Fig.288 18 Traditio F E 1. Autocorrelation functions of two time series music.291 16 Concerto D E 1. ANAMLN: Linear ANAM method. Iost / Chaos.

However. Phys Rev A 1989. [4] Tricot C. Error bounds on the estimation of fractal dimension. noise in natural phenomena. Nature 1986. sounds sum become smoother and decrease fractal dimension.3:17±27.117:187. Zucker SW. fractal dimension discriminates p musics according to their dynamic aspects. Iost / Chaos.258:317±8. 1/f random tones. Dubuc S. Acknowledgements The authors are very indebted to Professor El Naschie for very valuable comments.87:938±41. in: Applications of fractals and chaos. [16] Dubuc B.78:40±5. A. 1993. The greater a is. [12] Hsu KJ. In the e…1† space theory. we have ®nd that the quantity of information Q…g† could be encoded as a Cantor space. Hsu A. [2] Voss RF.63(1). Making music fractally. Then symphonies lie between string quartet and relaxation. The science of fractal image. 21±38. Solitons and Fractals 11 (2000) 2179±2192 2191 music: that could be explained by the fact that electronic music gets the tempo of traditional music with synthesized instruments and sounds as with those used in a concerto. Personal Computing 1979. Clark J. in: Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Advanced Materials and Processes EUROMAT 95. Then. Sci News 1980. Roques-Carnes C. Some audio compression or ®ltering algorithms could be deduced from this relation. Venise. Our experimental hypotheses lead us to admit that music gets some fractal aspects in the audible frequencies. Using a dyadic signal decomposition. [15] Charkaluk E. Fractals in nature: from characterisation to simulation. [8] West BJ. the lower D is. It is well known that the Golden Mean number … 5 ÿ 1†=2 plays a signi®cant rule for various composers that use Fibonacci Number when they composed music [21±28]. well distinguished. These results will be published when some theoretical aspects will be stated. 1988. 1991:3507±09. A universal power law was found between this quantity and the factor scale Q…g† ˆ agÿu . [6] Schroeder P. J Chim Phys 85 1988:379. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1990. editors. Evaluating the fractal dimension of pro®les. Conclusion That study proved that di€erent kinds of music could be discriminated by their fractal dimension. [14] Hsu KJ. As it was shown. 6. lie Chopin's nocturnes that get the lower fractal dimension. Shlesinger. Hsu A. Iost A. Bigerelle M. [7] Campbell P. SIAM J Numer Anal 1996.39(3):1500±12. Then jazz lies between traditional music and the string quartet: Jazz could be considered as a traditional one with fewer musicians playing together like string quartet music. [9] Thomsen DE. [3] Voss RF. M. meaning that the signal entropy increases with D. Clarke J. Tricot C. J Acoust Soc Am 1978.325:765±6. References [1] Campbell P.33:602±26.324:523±8. Bigerelle. [13] Hsu KJ. By the fractal method used. . New York: Springer. Fractal geometry of music: From bird songs to Bach.3). [5] Voss RF. The music of digital computer. However u appears to be quite constant and independent of the sort of music (around 0. Am Scientist 1978. 1/f Noise in music music from 1/f noise. Quiniou JF. Nature 325 1987:767. In: Peitgen HO. Saupe D. The fractal dimension calculated from the ANAM method is linearly correlated with a. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 88. Fractal geometry of music. the fractal dimension of a randomly construct triadic Cantor set is equal to the Golden Mean [29±31]. fractal criteria become independent of the sound power: fractal dimension be- comes a number that quanti®es the acoustic space occupation (when fractal dimension increases. The M. Berlin: Springer. [10] Scarpelli AT. Nature 1975. Is there such a thing as fractal music? Nature 1987. 1995:511±12. 1/f Noise in music and speech. this D criterion could be used with other signal parameters to distinguish sounds (physical applications using sound analysis as for example sonar detection or vocal cognition). Characterization of rough surfaces. [11] Dubuc B. Self-similarity of the 1/f Noise called music. the sound power versus time becomes more chaotic) and would be easy to use. This sur- prising result could be related to the abundance of symphony instruments playing together on a low fre- quency tempo: by applying central theorem limit.

Superstring knots and noncommutative geometry in E1 space. ADER modelisation 1997. [25] Lendvai E. The Golden section in BeethovenÕs ®fth.84:56±7. Serie II b. music and letters. A. [30] El Naschie MS. Chaos Solitons & Fractals 1996. Duality and synthesis in the music of Bela Bartok. Iost / Chaos. Some striking proportions in the music of Bela Bartok. New York. [18] Bigerelle M.Kepes.1:49±50. Time symmetry duality and cantorian space-time. Fibonacci Quarterly 1971.37(12):2935±51. [20] Schroeder M. [31] ElNaschie MS. A notes on the subtle mean in physics. Noise. Proportion. W. Dale Seymours Publications. 1990. power laws. 1996:77(2):242±52. Fractals. G. in Module. [27] Coutney S. Debussy in proportion: a musical analysis. 11th International conference on surface modi®cation technologies. Solitons and Fractals 11 (2000) 2179±2192 [17] Bigerelle M. [24] Lendvai E. [19] Bigerelle M. Oxford University Press. Rythm.10(1):147±53. Fractal analysis of surface roughness. Bigerelle.2192 M. Chaos Solitons & Fractals 1999. Paris.9(5):527±8. Int J Theor Phys 1998. [28] GarlandÕs TH. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. March/April 1993. 1987. Symmetry. 323. Fascinating Fibonacci. [21] Kay M. Sci. Iost A.H. Iost A. numerical and statistical artefacts. Pertinence des parametres physiques une approche probabiliste. 1997. Erik Satie. Math Teaching 1978. [26] Howat R. Freeman and Company. 1971. Paris. Bela Bartok: an analysis of his music. . Kahn 1 Averill. [23] Lendvai E. Did Mozart use the Golden mean? American Scientist. 1996:669±74. 1966. Acad. [29] El Naschie MS. C. [22] Haylock D. chaos. Golden section analysis.R.7(4):499±518. 1983. Calcul de la dimension fractale d'un pro®l par la methode des autocorrelations moyennees normees (AMN). t.