New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

AI decodes the mathematical ‘fingerprints’ of famous jazz musicians, from Chick Corea to Thelonious Monk

Music and math often come together in ways we don’t expect

Bassist Charles Mingus (1922 - 1979), drummer Roy Haynes, pianist Thelonious Monk (1917 - 1982) and saxophonist Charlie Parker (1920 - 1955) perform at the Open Door, New York, New York, September 13, 1953.

Bassist Charles Mingus, drummer Roy Haynes, pianist Thelonious Monk and saxophonist Charlie Parker perform at the Open Door in New York City on September 13, 1953.

Bob Parent/Getty Images

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

A master musician’s style can so distinct as to be instantly recognizable—sonic “fingerprints,” such as a performer’s choice of notes, chords and rhythm, can reveal the player by sound alone.

Not only are many of these fingerprints something we can hear, but the patterns are also mathematically quantifiable. Some signatures can be so subtle as to elude our senses, however. Tiny differences in the rhythmic timing of a performance or an emphasized beat, for example, may be so minuscule as to escape notice and may not show up in sheet music.

That is especially true, perhaps, in jazz. So researchers turned to artificial intelligence. In a new paper in Nature Machine Intelligence, three University of Cambridge researchers used AI to help better define the musical tics of 20 of the most celebrated jazz pianists of all time.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The researchers trained several machine-learning models on 84 hours of recordings, including 1,629 performances by 20 famous jazz pianists, such as Chick Corea, Thelonious Monk, Oscar Peterson and Bill Evans. Those performances were then converted into a digital music format called MIDI, which can show which notes are played when and how low or high they were played on the piano keyboard.

Using those data, the researchers then tested the AI on whether it could identify who was playing using other recordings. The models fared well: One was able to identify the right musician more than 94 percent of the time. Another that was trained to spot more granular differences, such as what notes each piano player used to construct melodies and chords, was almost as accurate, identifying the musician correctly 91 percent of the time.

Understanding how these jazz greats played is valuable: it helps reveal how individual artists influenced each other and can also be used to train young musicians.

The Cambridge scientists also created a tool to enable you to hear and visualize the differences between the pianists. The web app provides handy graphs describing each player’s tendencies and provides some illustrative—and beautiful—sound samples showing how they used melody, harmony, rhythm and dynamics to create their unique sonic fingerprints.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe