Piano score rearrangement into multiple difficulty levels via notation-to-notation approach

Abstract

Musical score rearrangement is an emerging area in symbolic music processing, which aims to transform a musical score into a different style. This study focuses on the task of changing the playing difficulty of piano scores, addressing two challenges in musical score rearrangement. First, we address the challenge of handling musical notation on scores. While symbolic music research often relies on note-level (MIDI-equivalent) information, musical scores contain notation that cannot be adequately represented at the note level. We propose an end-to-end framework that utilizes tokenized representations of notation to directly rearrange musical scores at the notation level. We also propose the ST+ representation, which includes a novel structure and token types for better score rearrangement. Second, we address the challenge of rearranging musical scores across multiple difficulty levels. We introduce a difficulty conditioning scheme to train a single sequence model capable of handling various difficulty levels, while leveraging scores from various levels in model training. We collect commercial-quality pop piano scores at four difficulty levels and train a MEGA model (with 0.3M parameters) to rearrange between these levels. Objective evaluation shows that our method successfully rearranges piano scores into other three difficulty levels, achieving comparable difficulty to human-made scores. Additionally, our method successfully generates musical notation including articulations. Subjective evaluation (by score experts and musicians) also reveals that our generated scores generally surpass the quality of previous rule-based or note-level methods on several criteria. Our framework enables novel notation-to-notation processing of scores and can be applied to various score rearrangement tasks.

1 Introduction

Musical scores represent music as notation, structuring musical notes and also conveying performance instructions. The structure and instructions in musical scores often go beyond what can be represented in simple note-level forms like MIDI. When playing or practicing a musical instrument, having scores that match an individual’s skill level is also crucial. These scores not only ensure that the player can play the piece but also provide an appropriate level of challenge that facilitates skill improvement. However, preparing scores of varying levels of difficulty can require a considerable amount of effort. Therefore, an alternative method of rearranging scores into different levels of difficulty is desirable, because it would benefit both individual players and music education as a whole. In this context, this paper proposes a novel method for rearranging musical notation on scores into various difficulty levels.

Fig. 1

Overview of notation-level end-to-end score rearrangement framework handling multiple difficulty levels

In the field of music research, the difficulty of musical scores has been a noted topic of study. Several recent works on piano reduction [1, 2] have considered difficulty when rearranging ensemble scores into solo scores. Difficulty estimation for solo scores has also been researched in various ways [3, 4]. However, the task of rearranging solo scores into different difficulty levels is a relatively new research area and has not been extensively studied. Fukuda et al. [5] have conducted pioneering research using a rule-based approach, which simplified scores by removing notes without rearranging them. However, this approach was limited to generating easier scores. More recently, Gover et al. [6] have shown that a data-driven approach can be employed to tackle this task. They showed that a sequence of musical notes can be translated into another sequence of notes with a lower difficulty level. However, the study was limited to note-level (MIDI-equivalent) rearrangement of scores. In this study, we extend the data-driven approach to address the score rearrangement task more comprehensively. We process notation-level musical information and handle multiple difficulty levels to achieve a more thorough approach to score rearrangement.

First, we aim to handle musical information extensively on the notation level. There are two types of symbolic music representation used in music research: note-level and notation-level [7]. The former expresses MIDI-equivalent information (e.g., note timing and pitch), whereas the latter represents musical symbols (e.g., clef, chord symbols and notes) and musical attributes (e.g., beam, tie and slur). Although the former is widely used in music research [8,9,10,11,12,13], it cannot represent abstract musical information such as playing instructions and note groupings in musical scores, which are indispensable for authentic scores. Recent studies have shown that the latter representations, which can contain such information, are also successfully used with sequence models [7, 14] and that a designed score token representation outperforms notation formats [15]. Based on these findings, we employ and improve the score token representation to rearrange piano scores in the notation domain, handling musical expressions in scores.

Second, we aim to rearrange scores into multiple levels of difficulty using a single model. Musical scores are commonly assigned discrete difficulty levels, typically ranging from 3 to 9 levels [3, 4]. However, previous studies of score difficulty conversion [5, 6] have only looked at a single conversion to an easier level. In this study, we address the challenge of converting scores into multiple levels of difficulty, including both easier and harder levels. Handling multiple levels within a single model can also be beneficial when dealing with limited availability of musical scores. Recent deep learning models typically require a large amount of training data. However, acquiring a large amount of scores is not always feasible. In addition, the complexity of notation-level information surpasses that of note-level information, making its training more challenging and requiring more scores. To overcome these challenges, we propose a method to train a single model capable of handling various difficulty levels, enabling learning from a limited amount of scores.

Our contributions are summarized as follows:

• 1 We propose an end-to-end framework for rearranging musical scores on the notation domain (Fig. 1), which enables direct conversion of score notation.

• 2 We devise training schemes for a single model capable of rearranging scores into multiple difficulty levels.

• 3 We also propose ST+, an extended score token representation with new token types and improved structure compared to the original ST representation [15].

2 Technical background

In this section, we briefly describe the technical background of the sequence-based approach we adopt.

2.1 Symbolic music processing using sequence models

Previous studies in symbolic music processing have shown that sequence models, especially Transformer-based models [16], can effectively process MIDI [8] and musical scores [15] as sequences. These models have consistently exhibited impressive performance across a range of music-related tasks, including music generation [8,9,10,11,12,13], music style transfer [17], and music transcription [18]. Various Transformer variants have been explored and proved to be effective in these tasks.

Recently, novel approaches combining Transformers with other model architectures (e.g., state space models [19]) have emerged [20, 21], showing even higher performance than Transformers. One such example is the MEGA model [20], which combines the attention mechanism [16] with state space models [19] and achieved high performance in a wide range of tasks [22]. MEGA also achieved strong performance on a machine translation task, which resembles our score rearrangement task, in a sequence-to-sequence setting [20]. Leveraging both the established performance of Transformers in music-related tasks and recent architectural improvements, we adopt the MEGA model to attempt a sequence-to-sequence transformation of musical notation.

2.2 Token representations for symbolic music

To handle symbolic music with sequence models, many proposals for note-level (MIDI-equivalent) token representations have been made [8,9,10,11,12,13], exploring improvements in music modeling performance [8, 10] and processing efficiency [9, 12]. Some representations have also been designed to handle multi-track MIDI information [10,11,12], using either a track-major [11] or bar-major [10, 12] structure. In the former, the sequences of each track are arranged sequentially, while in the latter, the sequences of each bar are connected in series.

In contrast, research on notation-level token representations remains scarce and largely unexplored. In this study, we investigate the effective structure of notation-level token representations for rearranging scores, based on the score token (ST) representation [15] proposed in a previous study. ST represents basic musical symbols and attributes in piano scores (the $\dag$ types in Table 1) and arranges them in a staff-major structure, where the sequences of two staves in a piano score are concatenated sequentially (Fig. 3(b)). We also consider a bar-major structure for the notation-level representation (Section 3.2) and compare these structures in our experiment.

Table 1 Token symbols in proposed ST+ representation. $\dag$ types are inherited from ST [15]

3 Proposed method

We formulate score rearrangement between difficulty levels as a sequence-to-sequence problem and propose an end-to-end framework for rearranging musical scores on the notation domain (Fig. 1). We tokenize musical notation of scores into notation-level token sequences (Fig. 3(a)) and train a sequence model to translate their notation between difficulty levels. Our approach includes schemes that enable training across multiple difficulty levels (Section 3.1) and an extended notation-level score representation (Section 3.2). This allows for the direct conversion of musical notation, in a “notation-to-notation” manner.

3.1 Multiple difficulty training

We propose training schemes that allow training a single sequence model that translates musical notation between multiple difficulty levels. Our scheme consists of the following two steps:

Fig. 2

Illustration of score pairing (Section 3.1.1) and difficulty conditioning (Section 3.1.2) schemes, showcasing a scenario where three levels of scores are available for the same song

3.1.1 Score pairing

To fully leverage available scores, we first make all available score combinations for the same song. We then train a model with paired scores bidirectionally (to easier and harder levels) (Fig. 2(a)). The resulting number of paired score data for a song is ${}_n C_2$, where n is the number of available scores for the song. It significantly increases along with the number of available scores for the song and thus facilitates model generalization by increasing training data.

3.1.2 Difficulty conditioning

We also propose a conditioning scheme that enables handling multiple difficulty levels in a single model. We adopt a recent finding in multilingual translation [23] that facilitates translation between low-resource language pairs. We represent difficulty levels of scores as conditioning tokens (similar to language tokens in translation) and prepend them to score sequences. We prepend $\{D_{src} , D_{tgt}\}$ to the source sequence, and $D_{tgt}$ to the target sequence (Fig. 2(b)), where $D_{src}$ and $D_{tgt}$ are conditioning tokens that denote difficulty levels of the source and target scores, respectively. Following these conditioning tokens, score notation is represented using the notation-level token representation described in the next subsection (Section 3.2).

3.2 Extended score token representation (ST+)

We represent musical notation as token sequences. We propose ST+ score token representation, which extends and improves the original ST representation [15] in two aspects:

Fig. 3

Proposed ST+ representation (Section 3.2) and its structural difference from original ST [15] representation

3.2.1 Articulations and chord symbols

First, we extend ST’s expression by introducing new token types for articulations and chord symbols (Table 1), aiming to incorporate a wider range of musical elements into score rearrangement. For articulation, we include four types commonly used in piano scores: accent, slur, staccato, and tenuto. Each articulation type is represented by a single token, except for a slur, which requires two tokens to indicate its start and end (Fig. 3(a)). As for chord symbols, we introduce two types of tokens: chord and bass. The chord token represents a root note and a chord quality, whereas the bass token represents a bass note (Fig. 3(a)). The latter appears only when a bass note is specified. The subsequent len token represents the duration of a chord in the same way as for notes and rests. These chord-related tokens are included as shared elements (Fig. 3(b)) only in the source sequences to facilitate efficient inference. All other token types are inherited unchanged from [15] (Table 1).

3.2.2 Bar-major structure

Second, we reorganize tokens from a staff-major order to a bar-major order (Fig. 3(b)), with the goal of (1) improving score modeling by placing elements in the same bar close together, and (2) sharing common tokens between staves (e.g., time and key signature) for consistency and efficiency. This structural change also allows other musical notation to be efficiently included as shared elements (Fig. 3(b)), making future extensions more convenient.

4 Experimental setup

4.1 Dataset

We created our dataset by collecting piano scores from a commercial sheet music store¹. We collected 1957 solo pop piano scores on four difficulty levels (102 beginner, 691 elementary, 738 intermediate, and 428 advanced scores), arranged by various human arrangers, with the condition that multiple scores of different difficulty levels are available for the same song. These difficulty levels show relatively consistent trends; for instance, the beginner level typically focuses on one note per hand at a time, the elementary and intermediate levels allow for up to two and three simultaneous notes per hand, respectively, and the advanced level has no such limits. In addition, note density and pitch width (see definitions in Section 5.1.1) also tend to increase as the difficulty level rises (as partially shown in Fig. 4).

To establish a mapping between these scores, we paired the scores of the same song (Section 3.1) and aligned them. The aligned scores were then fragmented together into 4- to 8-measure segments allowing for overlap. We tokenized these segments into sequence pairs (Fig. 2(b)), resulting in a total of 130,930 paired segments. To ensure the matching of keys in the paired segments, we transposed the source scores if necessary. With this transposition step, the model (described in Section 4.2) learned key-independent musical transformations. We split the segments song-wise 8:1:1 for the training, validation, and test sets, respectively. To facilitate model generalization, we applied modest pitch augmentation only to the training set, independently of the key-matching step, by transposing both the source and target scores by the same pitch interval. The pitch interval was limited to the range of -2 to +2 semitones to ensure that model learns to generate pitch-sensitive notation (e.g., clef and stem direction) correctly.

4.2 Model

We employed the MEGA model [20] (Section 2.1) to handle and compare the performance of various token representations. We used the official implementation² of the model with an encoder-decoder architecture built on the fairseq framework [24]. We used the following small model configuration: embedding sizes $d_\mathrm{model} = 48$, $d_\mathrm{FFN} = 96$, $v = 96$, and $z = 24$; number of layers is 3 for both the encoder and decoder. The resulting number of parameters was approximately 0.3M, which is less than 1/200 of the “MEGA-base” setting used for a machine translation task [20]. We avoided using the “MEGA-chunk” variant, which incorporates chunk partitioning mechanism, due to frequent grammatical errors.

4.3 Baselines

We utilized three token representations with the MEGA model: ST+, ST [15], and REMI+ [10]. We employed ST as a notation-level baseline and REMI+ as a note-level baseline. To ensure a fair comparison, we represented articulations and chord symbols also in ST, in the same way as in ST+. With this modification, the only difference between ST+ and ST in the experiment lies in their structure (Table 2). Among note-level representations (Section 2.2), we selected REMI+ to utilize its representations for chord symbols, time signatures, and instrument types. We used its instrument-type tokens to represent the two staves (i.e., right and left hands) of piano scores for our purpose. Additionally, we represented a chord as notes on the same timing using REMI+. The resulting note-level representation corresponds to that used in a previous study of note-level score rearrangement [6].

We also employed another baseline method referred to as “rule-based” [5], which simplifies scores using a set of rules consisting of three patterns to remove notes. We re-implemented these rules, adjusting the thresholds to match the difficulty levels of our dataset. Table 2 summarizes the methods and representations used in the experiment.

Table 2 Comparison of methods and representations employed in our experiment. Bold shows the same approach as ours

5 Results

To simplify the presentation, we show the results for the typical cases in which intermediate scores are rearranged into the remaining three difficulty levels (as illustrated in Fig. 1). We used all 3810 segments that conform to these cases in the test set for objective evaluation (Section 5.1) and a random selection from the same subset for subjective evaluation (Section 5.2).

5.1 Objective evaluation

5.1.1 Difficulty

Referring to a previous study on score reduction considering difficulty [2], we employed the following three simple metrics for assessing difficulty quantitatively:

• Note density: the number of notes in a measure;

• Pitch width: the semitone range between the highest and lowest pitches in a measure;

• Polyphony: the maximum number of simultaneous notes in a measure.

We calculated these metrics for the right-hand and left-hand staff and compared the distributions of their metric values across different difficulty levels.

Fig. 4

Quantitative difficulty evaluation with three metrics (Section 5.1.1) for right-hand staff (top) and left-hand staff (bottom)

Figure 4 shows the distributions of metric values for both the generated and ground-truth (human-made) scores on each difficulty level. We can see that the metric value distributions of the generated scores (ST+) exhibit a shift towards higher values as the difficulty levels increase (from left to right). Additionally, many of these distributions resemble those of the human-made scores at the corresponding difficulty levels. These observations indicate that our proposed method effectively controlled the difficulty levels of the generated scores and successfully generated scores that were comparable in difficulty to human-made scores across three targeted difficulty levels.

Table 3 presents the aggregated results by averaging the Jensen-Shannon (JS) divergence values between the distributions of the generated and human-made scores across the employed metrics. Bootstrap testing (one-sided, 1000 iterations) reveals that our ST+ attained significantly lower JS divergence values than other methods across all three difficulty levels and their average, except for ST+ vs. ST on elementary, where both performed equally well. The result indicates that ST+ was able to generate scores that most closely resemble the difficulty levels of human-made scores.

Table 3 JS divergence from human-made scores averaged over all the difficulty metrics. Bold indicates lowest JS divergence, i.e. closest metric distributions to human-made scores

5.1.2 Articulations

Articulations are one of the characteristics of score notation that can only be handled by notation-level representations. Table 4 shows the observed rates of articulation, indicating that the trained models successfully generated articulations. The rates of articulation varied with difficulty in a manner similar to human-made scores, demonstrating the successful control of articulation generation using our method. When comparing the two representations, ST+ achieved significantly closer rates ($p<0.001$, z-test) to the human scores at all difficulty levels (including beginner, where two representations performed equally well), suggesting that ST+ is superior to ST in accurately emulating the quantitative tendency of human notation. We also present the example of generated articulations later in Section 5.3.

Table 4 Rates of notes (or chords) with articulations (%) for notation-level representations. Bold shows closest value to human-made scores

5.1.3 Output validity

The trained sequence model should also generate grammatically correct and properly structured sequences in order to rearrange scores validly. Table 5 shows two types of error rates observed in sequence-based models:

• Syntax error: grammatical errors related to token ordering;

• Structure error: disagreement in the number of measures between staves (for right and left hands) or between the input and output.

Overall, syntax errors were quite seldom (only found in a REMI+ segment) and structure errors were also infrequent in all representations. The error rates did not differ significantly between representations on z-tests, except for ST vs. REMI+ ($p<0.05$) for structure errors. When comparing ST+ and REMI+, although ST+ involves a greater variety and complexity of tokens, its error rates were not significantly larger, implying that ST+ could be used without compromising output validity compared to note-level counterparts.

Table 5 Sequence-wise error rates (%) for three token representations

5.2 Subjective evaluation

We also conducted a subjective evaluation using randomly selected 18 samples (6 samples each from 3 levels) from the test set. For each sample, the scores rearranged by different methods were presented in a random order alongside the original (source) score and rated by 9 participants (6 score experts and 3 musicians) on five-point scales ranging from 1 (poor) to 5 (good). We used the following four criteria for the evaluation:

• Preservation: Are the melody and chords well preserved?

• Difficulty: Does the difficulty change adequately?

• Arrangement: Is the score playable and naturally arranged?

• Notation: Is the score readable and well-formatted, including articulations?

Prior to the score evaluation, participants were screened to ensure their ability to read scores. All scores were rendered by MuseScore 3³, an open-source music notation software, and were eliminated clues to infer employed methods.

The results are presented in two parts (in Fig. 5 and Table 6) because the rule-based method [5] is limited to generating scores on easier difficulty levels (i.e., beginner and elementary). We compare the proposed method with the rule-based method in the former part, and with other methods in the latter part. We use a one-sided Welch’s t-test to test for significance.

Fig. 5

Mean opinion scores (MOS) of all methods averaged over beginner and elementary levels. * and ** denote $p<0.05$ and $p<0.01$, respectively; shown only vs. ST+

Figure 5 shows mean opinion scores (MOS) averaged over the easier levels. Although ST+ and the rule-based method perform equally on preservation, ST+ outperforms the rule-based method on difficulty and notation ($p<0.01$) as well as arrangement ($p<0.05$), suggesting that our method generated more appropriate scores than the rule-based method in many aspects.

Table 6 Mean opinion scores (MOS) averaged over all three levels of difficulty

Table 6 shows the overall MOS for all difficulty levels, where ST+ outperformed REMI+ ($p<0.01$) on preservation and arrangement and also had higher scores on other criteria. The result suggests that our method (ST+) rearranged scores with quality better than the note-level method (REMI+) on several criteria. When comparing ST+ and ST, although not statistically significant, ST+ had higher scores than ST on some criteria (especially, on preservation and notation), implying that the bar-major structure in ST+ (Fig. 3) is a promising alternative to the staff-major structure [15].

5.3 Rearrangement example

Figure 6 shows the rearrangement example of the proposed method. We can see that the method generated valid scores with different playing difficulties while preserving the musical contexts of the original score (Fig. 6(c)). We observe that the generated scores are completely rearranged, rather than simply by deleting or adding notes. We also see the articulations (slurs) properly generated in Fig. 6(d). The characteristics of the generated scores are generally consistent with those observed in the original dataset (Section 4.1).

Fig. 6

Example of rearranged piano scores from a intermediate-level score (c) into other three difficulty levels (a, b, d), which were generated by the model trained with ST+ representation

6 Ablation studies

In this section, we look at some ablation studies to see what factors are effective in training. We used the proposed ST+ token representation for all ablations and evaluated the same pairs of difficulty levels as in Section 5. We also used z-tests for significance testing between conditions.

6.1 Multiple difficulty training

First, to evaluate the effectiveness of our training schemes (Section 3.1), we trained separate models for each difficulty level without utilizing our schemes. These models were trained under the following conditions: (1) no difficulty conditioning was applied; (2) only scores from a single difficulty pair were used, such as beginner-intermediate pair for training the beginner model. We used the difficulty pair in one direction only (e.g., intermediate to beginner) because bi-directional training is only possible in the presence of a conditioning scheme. For convenience, we refer to this training method as single-pair and our proposed one as multi-pair. The pitch augmentation procedure (Section 4.1) was used to isolate the effect of difficulty conditioning and score pairing.

Table 7 Structure error rates (%) when training with multiple difficulty pairs vs. single difficulty pair

Table 7 clearly shows that single-pair training leads to high error rates, making the resulting output unusable. The error rates were significantly lower when employing multi-pair training ($p<0.001$), demonstrating the effectiveness of our training scheme in avoiding basic errors. This result suggests that even with an insufficient amount of score data for single-pair training, our multi-pair training enables sufficient generalization of the model in terms of structural validity.

6.2 Pitch augmentation

Next, we trained the integrated model for multiple difficulty levels without the pitch augmentation procedure (Section 4.1) to investigate the effectiveness of the procedure.

Table 8 Error rates (%) when training with or without pitch augmentation

Table 8 shows the effectiveness of the augmentation procedure. While syntax errors did not occur even without augmentation, structure errors were frequently observed when the model was trained without augmentation ($p<0.001$). The result suggests that the augmentation procedure also promotes the generalization of the model in terms of structural validity across various musical lengths of input.

The finding also provides insight into the previous ablation study (Section 6.1). Without pitch augmentation, which reduced the number of training data, there was a significant increase in structure errors, similar to single-pair training. This suggests that the increase in errors observed in single-pair training was also attributable to the reduction in the number of training data.

6.3 Chord symbols

Finally, to evaluate the effectiveness of chord symbol representation (Section 3.2.1), we compared the model’s performance in generating scores that align with the harmonic structure of the original (source) scores. We trained and inferred both with and without chord symbol representations and evaluated using two criteria:

• Root or bass: whether the root or bass note⁴ of each chord is reproduced as a note;

• All: whether each constituent note of each chord is reproduced as a note⁵.

Table 9 Reproduced rates (%) of chord constituent notes when training with or without chord symbol representations. Bold shows closest value to human-made scores

Table 9 shows that including chord symbol representations improves the reproduction rates of chord constituents on both criteria ($p<0.001$). These results indicate that chord symbol representations in the proposed ST+ representation work effectively, as they facilitate the consideration of harmonic structure during score rearrangement.

7 Discussion

In this section, we summarize our findings in terms of three key points, discussing extensions and limitations.

7.1 Notation-level score rearrangement

Our notation-level method (Section 3) generally yields favorable outcomes compared to existing note-level or rule-based methods in both the objective (Section 5.1) and subjective (Section 5.2) evaluation. Additionally, our method successfully handles articulations (Sections 5.1.2 and 5.3). These findings reveal that (1) data-driven score rearrangement is possible not only at the note level [6] but also at the notation level, and (2) the notation-level approach can generate better rearrangements than note-level [6] or rule-based [5] ones. Our proposed approach enables a comprehensive rearrangement of musical scores, effectively handling notation-specific symbols and instructions. Future research will reveal which aspects of the notation-level approach (or representation) are particularly influential.

7.2 Multiple difficulty levels

Our training schemes (Section 3.1) are effective in handling multiple difficulty levels within a single model (Section 5.1.1). The schemes also contribute to reducing errors significantly (Section 6.1). These results highlight the effectiveness of our training schemes, revealing that a single model can successfully handle multiple types of musical scores using these schemes. This approach could also be applied to score rearrangement in other musical aspects, such as musical style or instrumentation, where considering multiple types of scores is desirable. From a difficulty perspective, incorporating multi-faceted or continuous difficulty conditioning will also be meaningful future extensions.

7.3 ST+ representation

New token types introduced in ST+ (Section 3.2.1) enable the successful handling of articulations (Sections 5.1.2 and 5.3) and consideration of chord symbols (Section 6.3) in score rearrangement. Additionally, the bar-major structure in ST+ (Section 3.2.2) contributed to superior quantitative results to the staff-major structure in ST [15] (Sections 5.1.1 and 5.1.2). Although the qualitative evaluation did not reveal a significant difference, it also show promising results for the bar-major structure. Overall, ST+ can serve as a better representation than ST in score rearrangement. ST+ could be further extended to represent other musical symbols not included in this study.

7.4 Limitations and extensions on difficulty changing

From the perspective of comprehensive score difficulty conversion, particularly into the entry-level scores, there are other aspects to consider: score shortening, performance aids (such as fingerings), and transposition. Although this study did not address these aspects, they can be treated rather independently from the rearrangement of score notation addressed in this study. For instance, score shortening and performance aids can be treated as tasks related to music structure analysis [25, 26] or fingering estimation [27,28,29,30], respectively. Additionally, transposition could be considered by employing a relatively simple key-change algorithm. The transposed scores could be handled robustly by our model because it was already trained on the dataset where the source scores were also partially transposed (Section 4.1). By performing these tasks independently in the pre-processing or post-processing stage of our score rearrangement, a more comprehensive score difficulty conversion could be achieved.

8 Conclusion

We proposed a novel notation-level score rearrangement method with a single sequence model for multiple difficulty levels. Our method successfully rearranges scores into various levels of difficulty in the form of notation, uniquely handles articulations through notation-level rearrangement. Our evaluations reveal that our method generally produces more appropriate scores than existing note-level or rule-based approaches. We also introduced the ST+ representation, which contributes to better quantitative results and can be a better alternative to ST [15]. Our framework enables direct notation-to-notation rearrangement, which provides a novel way to process musical scores and is also applicable to other score rearrangement tasks (e.g., style transfer and instrumentation).