The Stranger

This is another very well known song by Mr. Joel... It is 5:06 in length and the climax occurs at 3:13

5:06/3:13 = 1.585

This is close enough I think to be considered significant correlation with Fibonacci.

I am psyched about how much patterning I've noticed in Billy's greatest hits..no wonder they are greatest hits....Fibonacci left his mark...


To recap, 4 songs definitely follow fibonacci, this 1 is borderline, and 1 was a bit too far away. But overall, every song is within reasonable distance from 1.618 and Billy so far can be considered a definite prophet of Mr. Fibonacci.

The Stranger

This is another very well known song by Mr. Joel... It is 5:06 in length and the climax occurs at 3:13

5:06/3:13 = 1.585

This is close enough I think to be considered significant correlation with Fibonacci.

I am psyched about how much patterning I've noticed in Billy's greatest hits..no wonder they are greatest hits....Fibonacci left his mark...


To recap, 4 songs definitely follow fibonacci, this 1 is borderline, and 1 was a bit too far away. But overall, every song is within reasonable distance from 1.618 and the album as a whole so far can be considered a definite prophet of Mr. Fibonacci.

New York State of Mind

This timeless classic is 6:o3 in length. The golden section occurs from 3:20 to 3:56, with a dramatic pause at 3:44. I found this to be a significant point in the song....

6:03/3:44 = 1.62!

Billy has done it again! This is the 4th of 5 songs so far on GHV1 that have conformed to Fibonacci.

This is becoming a very promising venture..!

We'll Be Together Again

The next song on the Great American Song Book is entitled "We'll Be Together Again," originally performed by Frank Sinatra and covered by Rod Stewart.

The Frank version is 266 seconds in length and has an extremely long instrumental climax (almost a minute long) ranging from 127 seconds to 185 seconds. The golden section comes at almost the halfway point in the climax, at 165 seconds

266/165 = 1.618

The Rod version is a little bit shorter, clocking in at 234 seconds. It too has a very long instrumental climax, although again a little bit shorter ranging from 118 seconds to 147 seconds. The golden section comes at about 145 seconds in, very close to the end of the climax.

234/145 = 1.613

To recap, both songs appear to conform to the golden section. However, since both songs have very long climaxes, it's pretty easy for them to conform. The Sinatra version is definltey more credible because the golden section comes almost exactly halfway through the climax, where it is at the tail end of Rod's.

Say Goodbye to Hollywood

Track 4 off GHV1 is Say Goodbye to Hollywood. The song is 3:42 long and has a clear golden section which begins at 1:49 and ends at 2:22. The interesting part is that a distinct hesitation or pause in the instrumental section, which I believe to be its climax, occurs at 2:17.

3:42/2:17= 1.62! FIBONACCI!

Billy is 3 for 4 right now and the one he's missed on was just outside the range....so far this is very exciting and I hope to find more corresponding hits from Billy as I continue researching GHV1.

Time for More Billy Joel

Track 3 on Greatest Hits Vol. I is "The Entertainer". This isn't one of my personal favorites but it's on the cd nonetheless. The song is 3:38 in length and the golden section (a short one of about 12 seconds) occurs at 2:20 in.

218/140 = 1.557

This is close but I think just far enough to discount from displaying the presence of fibonacci. However, it is at least worthy of being notedly not far off.

I will continue on in my search, so far Billy has made me proud..

Someone To Watch Over Me

I couldn't leave for Spring Break having been diasspointed by Rod.

I searched some more and was able to find another example of Rod working his magic.

"Someone to Wacth Over Me" is pretty old, but very recognizable. Judy Garlands version is very nice, but certainly not a golden section song. It's 195 seconds long so the golden section should be right at two minutes in and at that point there is nothing going on. Also none of her dramatic points match up or even approximate any Fibonacci numbers.

Now the Rod version on the other hand...

it does match up with several Fibonacci numbers, as well as being close on a few others (i found stuff at 8, 22, 31, and 55 seconds, all on or near Fib numbers).

The climax occurs at 130 seconds, when Rod elevates his voice a little extra for this part. With the song being 211 seonds long,

211/130=1.623...close enough for me. Heres another example of rod lengthening the song and having the climax hit the golden section.

That's more like it Rod!

What a Wonderful World

For the first time I've been disappointed by Rod.

The original "What a Wonderful World" done by Louis Armstrong is one that just about everyone loves to poorly sing along to.

His version is 139 seconds long. There's the one verse where he sings higher, and i used the midpoint of that as the climax. it happened to be at 80 seconds in

139/80= 1.73...ehh, not good enough. (however, if you use the end of the verse, the ratio becomes 1.63, but i honestly didnt feel the end was any more special than the whole verse)

When I saw that Rod's version was long I figured I would definately find a golden section song. Especially after listening to it, I felt there would be something. It basically is the regular song, then a sax solo then some more singing. Unfortunately tho, the total length was 270 seconds and the midpoint of the sax solo was 133 seconds in, so...

270/133 = 2.03, nowhere near the golden section.

No Fibonacci numbers on either version here either.

That's okay Rod, you're allowed one every now and then.

Moonglow

I agree with the previous post. That idea is sort of summarized by what I found looking at "Moonglow."

There were a few versions but the one i was able to download actually had no words. That wasnt really a problem though, I was still able to pick out dramatic moments and the climax. I didn't find anything interesting relating to the Fibonacci numbers here. The climax also was non-interesting.

173/76 (highest note in the song, happens during a harp solo i think)= 2.2, no golden section.

The thing about Rod, and what we've found so far, is that he can take a ballad like song like this, and make it more like a Fib/golden section song. That's exactly what I see here. None of the points match up with Fibonacci numbers, but they are clsoe, within 5 or 6 seconds. and the climax occurs at 137 seconds in, the same high note as in the original...

213/137= 1.55, not golden section but much closer

I think this is almost a summary of what Rod is doing. He is taking the originals and adding sections to them and changing them slightly to make them more likely to be appreciated by a larger audience.

Interesting stuff.

Rod's Magic

I think the pattern is more in how he covers the songs that the ones he picks. All the songs he covers are Americana classics, but the way he transforms them are is the truly fascinating aspect of what we've been finding. He seems to always lenghten the song and seems to nail a golden section each time. I know that his covers are not the biggest hits or get the most radio airplay, but there has to be something to this. Let's keep looking at Rod to see if we can find more...

They Can't Take that Away from Me

Hello everyone,

More good Stuff from Rod. Here's another Frank Sinatra cover (maybe there's something to the fact that he's doing a lot of Sinatra).

The Sinatra version is 161 seconds long. I found no evidence that this was a Fibonacci song. None of the dramatic points lined up with any of the right numbers. The climax came right around 120 seconds in. The instruments and Sinatra's voice both peak at the same time.

161/120= 1.35...clearly not a golden section song.

Rod's version, however, conforms on both accounts.

There are dramatic points at 8, 21, 53 (the fib number is 55), and 144 seconds, all right on or very near the fibonacci numbers.

The climax comes at 126 seconds in, with a buildup from the instruments leading into a strong vocal from Rod. Being 205 seconds long...

205/126= 1.62...right on

Having said all this, does anyone see anything that maybe attracts Rod to cover these songs? Since they are not golden section songs to begin with, is there any pattern to the songs he chooses to cover?

Captain Jack

Track 2 on the Greatest Hits Vol. 1 is another classic, Captain Jack (of "'ll get ya high tonight" fame). The song is balladesque and personifies a drug habit under the clever misnomer of "Captain Jack" and chronicles the problems that many people encounter as a result.\

Anywho, the song is 7:15 in length and the golden section, albeit short, occurs at 4:35 in....

435/275 = 1.582

This is a on the edge of consideration for Fibonacci but I will give old Billy the benefit of the doubt. For a song of this length, I feel the correlation is stronger despite being .029 astray of 1.618, the magic number. For longer songs, the climax and/or golden section could occur, conceivable, at more possible points...so it seems the range we accept should expand a bit to account for this...


So far, I'm going to say GH Vol. 1 is 2 for 2 on having fibonacci's imprint...Go Billy!

It's too good to keep quiet..

Perhaps against the wishes of the team at this current moment, I have researched Billy Joel's Greatest Hits Volume 1 because it's a cd I own personally and have listened to for years since I took the cd from my parents! That being said, I found some very prmising results..

The first track of the cd is the extremely famous "Piano Man". I think just about every person in the world can sing along with this song whenever it is on the radio or playing at the bar and whatnot..

The song is 5:36 long and the golden section begins at 3:27 into the song...

336/207 = 1.623

This is a great start to my research because the first song was a hit and aligned with Fibonacci pretty closely.....

I will move through the album and more great stuff is to come!

The Way You Look Tonight

Ed, how about you hold off on your other artist until the first volume of the Great American Songbook is complete.

The next song I looked at was "The Way You Look Tonight." The song was originally sung by Frank Sinatra and than covered by Rod for the Songbook.

First, the Frank version:
the song clocks in at a duration of 202 seconds. There is a very long instrumental part, complete with piano and saxaphone players that ranges all the way from 124 seconds -142 seconds.

202/124 (start of climax) = 1.629 very close to the golden section which means that the climax definitely hits the golden section at some point.

Now the Rod version:
The song is slighlty longer, with a duration of 234 seconds. Again, there is a very long instrumental climax ranging from 116 seconds -142 seconds. Although the two songs have pretty much the exact same climax, Rod's version does not conform to the golden section because of its longer length.

234/142 (the end of the climax) = 1.647. There are a few more instrumental points in this song that do not allow it to conform.

I think this is the first song we've come across so far that has the original artist conforming to the golden section, but not Rod.

Over the weekend I am going to post a link that lists all of the songs we have tested and which songs/artists have conformed.

What do you think?

I was thinking, because I am having trouble acquiring the Great American Songbook albums that i would concentrate on a different artist that I have definite access to. I could analyze all three of the billy joel greatest hits albums... If you guys think it's silly to change course, lemme know, but I could more effectively research knowing that I have a large pool of Billy's music at my disposal.


Tell me what you guys think...

Everytime We Say Goodbye

Guys, after what I found on this one, I'm convinced there is something to this.

There were a few versions of this song, but i chose to look at the Ella Fitzgerald one first. It was 216 seconds long, with no real Fibonacci points and a climax at 150 seconds. The instrumental was so subdued thatI chose the part right after it as the climax.

216/150=1.44, not a golden section song.

Now heres the interesting part.

Rod's version has like a small intro verse added to the front, about 25 seconds long. Hold onto that for a second.

The song is 218 seconds long/climax at 132 seconds in(the same part as the Fitzgerald one)=1.65 pretty close to the golden section.

But if you took out that first verse that Rod added in, the song would be 193 seconds long with a climax at 107 seconds in for a ratio of 1.80...could Rod have added in this first verse in order to make his song much closer to a golden section song?

This is very intriguing to me.

The Nearness of You

Some more interesting stuff in this one.

This cover was originally a Nore Jones song, unless she covered it, but I was unable to find it by anyone earlier. The first thing that is weirdly apparent is that Nora Jones' voice and Rod's sound very similar. Check it you you'll understand what I mean. Anyway as for Fibonacci stuff, I would call either of these Fibonacci songs, but interestingly, the Nora Jones version had one Fibonacci instance, at 89 seconds in there is a piano piece. The Rod version also had only one Fibonacci piece, you guessed it, at 89 seconds in. Weird.

The Nora Jones version is definately a golden section song.

183 seconds long/climax at 114=1.605...thats close enough in my book.

The Rod version is 180 seconds long, and i picked midway through an instrumental as the climax, so

180/109= 1.65...not right on the dot, but certainly close enough to worth mentioning.

The Very Thought of You

Here's another Sinatra song covered by Rod on the new album. Whether or not he knows about the golden section, he's obviously smart enough to emulate some great singers...

The song "The Very Thought of You" is a little slow for my taste. Both of them sing it pretty much the same way and in the same style.

The Sinatra version is 211 seconds long ans i felt the climax was a twenty second long instrumental in the middle of the song. I picked the midpoint, so

211/144=1.46...not a golden section song

Rod's version, while it does include a similar instumental, when listening to the song i didnt feel it was the climax. I felt more comfortable calling one of his lines a little bit after this the climax. this occured at 154 seconds in.

200/154= 1.29...so again, not a golden section song.

I tried using the same method i did from the Sinatra version, the midpoint of the insturmental...but the ratio only came out to 1.78, not real close to the golden section.

No Fibonacci numbers to speak of in either version.

See you soon with more...

You Go To My Head

The first song I decided to look at off of the Great American Songbook Volume 1 was "You Go To My Head." This song was originally performed by Billie Holiday, than Frank Sinatra, and than obviously covered by Rod Stewart for the Songbook.

I'll take each version one at a time:

The Billie Holiday version is 171 seconds long. There are a lot of instrumental points throughout the song that come close to the fibonacci numbers, but not close enough in my estimation to really say that it conforms. The big instrumental climax starts at 160 seconds in with a beautiful saxaphone.

171/160 = 1.068..not a golden section song

The Frank Sinatra version is a little bit longer, clocking in at exactly 3:00 minutes. It was hard to pick an instrumental climax for this song, but I decided to go with 2:16 when a violin plays for a few seconds.

180/136 = 1.32...closer but still not a golden section song

Last but not least, the Rod Stewart version. This version is the longest, with a duration of 4:17. There is a very long instrumental climax starting at 2:11 and going until 2:35.

257/155 = 1. 658...this is using the end of the climax. While it is close to the golden section, I can not put it on our list because the end of the climax was the only part that was close to it.

To recap: none conformed to Fibonacci or the golden section, but Rod's version was the closest.

Nothing Compares to you

Rod takes on Sinead O'connor's hit "Nothing Compares to You" with the help of Tony Braxton...

The song is a live performance and is 5:00 in length. The golden section lasts from 2:56 to 3:14. This would put the midpoint at 3:05.

300/185 = 1.6216

This is extremely close to 1.618....there seems to be something about Rod...

His aura never ceases to amaze me!



Happy birthday to two great men born on Feb 17th....my father Ed Sr. and Seth's little brother Zach!

Slightly straying from the plan...

I have had, still, much trouble finding the versions of the "Great American Song Book" tracks because of my limited downloading resources...I was, however, was able to find a cover by Rod of Otis Reading's "Dock of the Bay".

The track is 2:43 in Rod's version and the golden section, albeit short, occurs at 1:38 and lasts until 2:08, which would make 2:03 the midpoint

183/112 = 1.634

This is fairly close to Fibonacci and, in my opinion, worth noting at the very least..

I will search for more Rod covers...

Good Point

I find this conversation really interesting. Since we've found a few Rod Stewart hits that conform to the Fibonacci numbers, lets see if his cover songs do the same. We should go through that CD and see what we can find. It would be cool if the original versions didnt conform to the golden section, but Rod's version does. His albums of covers are called "The Great American Songbook" and there are four versions. Here are the songs on the first:

1. You Go To My Head (feat Dave Koz)
2. They Can't Take That Away From Me (feat Arturo Sandoval)
3. The Way You Look Tonight
4. It Had to Be You (feat Michael Brecker)
5. That Old Feeling (feat Arturo Sandoval)
6. These Foolish Things (feat Dave Koz)
7. The Very Thought of You
8. Moonglow (feat Arturo Sandoval)
9. I'll Be Seeing You
10. Everytime We Say Goodbye (feat Dave Koz)
11. The Nearness of You
12. For All We Know
13. We'll Be Together Again
14. That's All

Now to be honest, I'm really not familiar with any of these songs. Lets see what we can find...remember, do the original version And the Rod version. Maybe we can find the trick to his success...

Something I've noticed...

I have had trouble finding the songs on Rod's new album...

I was able to locate "Have you ever seen the rain?" because it was released as a single as well and is perhaps more widely distributed...

That being said, I have not been able to locate recordings of the other covers on the new album...is anyone else having this problem? Or does someone actually own the cd?

Rod's Covers

Going with Joe's notion, I stumbled across "Have you ever seen the rain?", which is a CCR song that Rod decided to cover on his newest album...

The song is track 1 and is 3:12 long...The golden section clearly starts at 2:10 in.

192/130 = 1.477

Unfortunately, this track's golden section does not correspond to Fibonacci...perhaps I will have better luck with subsequent tracks..

TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK

Hey guys. I'm sure you guys know about Rod's latest CD. It basically is just Rod covering some of the greatest songs from years past. I was wondering if you guys thought it would be interesting to check out some of these tracks. I had a few things in mind.

-Maybe the songs Rod chose to cover show some Fibonacci pattern, and maybe that had something to do with him covering them. We could check for the pattern in the originals as well.

-Since we have shown that Rod has a bunch of golden section songs, maybe he is aware of this fact and chose to change the songs a bit to make them a golden section song.

These are just some of my ideas but let me know what you guys think!

"You're In My Heart, You're In My Soul"

One of Rod's greatest love songs "You're In My Heart, You're In My Soul" was the next song I decided to take a look at.

duration = 267 seconds
instrumental climax = 167 seconds

there was not a truly defined climax in the song. At this point, there was a little piano solo that I used as the instrumental climax.

267/167=1.598 very close to the golden section!

This song is very interesting as it relates to Fibonacci numbers. The song opens up with about 10 seconds of instrumental and there are instrumental pauses throughout the song. As you really analyze the song more, the instrumental pauses all seem to be extremely close to the Fibonacci numbers. For example, there is an instrumental chorus around 21 seconds, 34, 55, etc.

One reason why this song might be so popular is because of its close relation to Fibonacci. People could be drawn to it because they hear an instrumental pause at each Fibonacci number.

Very interesting stuff!

Have I Told You Lately

Here's another popular Rod hit. This time however, I didn't find anything of particular interest.

The song is 240 seconds long, and the climax is 158 seconds in, at the end of a nice instrumental piece.

240/158=1.51...not close enough to be a golden section song.

Also, I didnt see anything that really matched up with any Fibonacci numbers. Oh well, I guess they can't all be winners.

Forever Young

I have to admit to not being a huge Rod Stewart fan. I'm not totally oblivious to his stuff but I do not know much more than his really mainstream pop hits. However, since we are looking at hits, this doesn't turn out to be too much of a problem. I just looked up what I consider to be his most famous song, Forever Young.

I found no indication of the Fibonacci sequence, however it was a golden section song.

It's 246 seconds long/climax at 151 seconds=1.62.

I find it very interesting that this pop hit is a golden section song. This Rod Stewart thing is turning out to be something real cool.

More Rod

Also off Vagabond Heart is the duet "It takes two" with Tina Turner...

The song is 4:13 seconds long and, in my opinion, does not contain a distinguishable golden section. Another strike on Rod's record..

Let's not quit on him yet though!

Do Ya Think I'm Sexy

Whats up everyone. Hey thats pretty cool that we found some good stuff from 1991. This Rod Stewart thing has some potential as well.

The first song i chose to look at was "Do Ya Think I'm Sexy," unfortunately, I found nothing special here. No Fibonacci numbers to speak of.

Duration- 317 seconds
Climax- 161 seconds, as Rod sings an "OHHH" right before a fairly intense makeout scene in the video, I might add.

317/161= 1.98, so no golden section here.

See you soon with some more Rod.

TIME FOR A CHANGE

1991 has seen its fair share of both fibonacci and golden section songs, to recap:

Top songs from 1991 that conform to the Fibonacci numbers:
Jesus Jones - "Right Here Right Now"
Bryan Adams- "Everything I Do"
Bonnie Raitt - "Something to Talk About"

Top songs from 1991 that conform to the golden section:
R.E.M.- "Losing My Religion"
Rod Stewart - "Motown Song"
Rod Stewart - "Rhythm of My Heart"
Rod Stewart - "Have I Told you Lately"

3 Rod Stewart songs from the top 100 songs of 1991 subscribe the golden section. Let's see if we can find more. Rod, we're researching you now...

Losing My Religion

Next on my list is the R.E.M. classic "Losing My Religion." This is a great song and also one of the classic MTV videos.

duration = 264 seconds
climax starts = 166 seconds

ratio = 1.59

very close to the golden section...but not close enough to any Fibonacci numbers.

1991 is looking a little better than 1990, but still no conclusive evidence.

Have I told you Lately?

Track 10 off the very same "Vagabond Heart" by Rod Stewart is this wedding classic that Van Morrison popularized back in the day. This was an interesting case and i'll get to that in a second. Firstly, the album version of the song is 4:00 in length and has a clear golden section that runs from 2:10 to 2:40 when the chorus picks up again. I chose to take the midpoint of the section, at 2:25 as my marker...

4:00/2:25 = 1.655

This is a pretty significant deviation from 1.618 but is at least in the vicinity.

Now for the interesting part. The live performance version of this song is 3:53 seconds... The golden section starts at 2:09 and ends at 2:39, which leaves us with 2:24 as the midpoint.

3:53/2:24 = 1.618! Exactly Fibonacci!

Furthermore.....pertaining to the alternate sequence... to refresh everyone's memory, the sequence is 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,144,233,377,610,987.

The first sung words of the song (Have I told you lately that I love you) begin at 13 seconds.
The 2nd sung words (Have I told you there's noone else above you) begin at 21 seconds.
A distinct build up in melody occurs at 56 seconds (just barely past 55)
Rod belts out a high note, "We should give thanks and pray!" at 89 seconds
The song itself is 233 seconds long and the golden section's midpoint is at 144 seconds!

Conclusions:
The live performance of this song is a very strong case of the presence of Fibonacci!
Rod Stewart is the man.

Rod Stewart does it again!

Rhythm of my Heart - Track 1 off of Rod Stewart's widely known and universally loved "Vagabond Heart".

The song is another one of Rod Stewart's classics with another extraordinary music video. The song is 4:13 in length. At 2:35 into the song, in my opinion, the climax takes place as a short drum solo culminates in Rod screaming "Oooohh I got lightning in my veins!" and reintroducing the chorus..

4:13/2:35 = 1.632

This is not dead on like "The Motown Song" was but certainly close enough to be noteworthy and begin to see a trend of sorts in Rod Stewart's musical mastery of the world.


I will have to delve deeper into the songs of Rod Stewart to see if the trend continues..

From a Distance

Today i chose to look at a Bette Midler classic, "From a Distance," number 15 on the list.

Feeling as manly as ever as I played the song a few times I actually found some Fibonacci stuff. For instance the singing starts 13 seconds in, there is a dramatic pause 55 seconds in, and there is a sharp high note 89 seconds in. I dont know how many fibonacci numbers we need in order to call them Fibonacci songs, but I think this one fits the bill.

The song is 278 seconds long, and the climax comes in my opinion at 179 seconds in for a ratio of 1.55. Not exactly a golden section song, but considering the Fibonacci sequence that i found in it, the song overall is one that I would call interesting, if not a success.

PS Any comments on how many Fibonacci numbers we want to see before granting it "Fibonacci" status?

MARIAH CAREY BLOCK

I thought it might be interesting to see if there were any connections or correllations with a few different songs from one artist on the list. At first glance i noticed a few Mariah songs so i picked three of them.

The first one I picked was ''Someday" which was number 13 on the list. As it turns out this song was pretty bland in terms of fibonacci stuff. I didnt notice any pattern or any real dramatic points at any of the fibonacci numbers. The climax was 168 seconds in. Since the song is 248 seconds long, that ratio of 1.47 is off the mark from the golden section.

The second song was number 22 on the list, "Emotions." This song made me think for a while. I found no Fibonacci numbers in it, but the interesting part has to do with the climax. The first time i ran through the song i noted that I thought the climax was at 170 seconds in. At this point Mariah hits what is certainly the highest note in the song. However once I went back and checked the point where the Golden section climax would be, I had to take a second look. Since the song is 249 second slong, the climax should be right at 153 seconds in. At that point in the song there is a dramatic pause. So I listened to the song again straight through and while the highest note is at 170 seconds, what i really considered the climax was indeed at this 153 second mark, for a ratio for 1.62, right on the golden section. This served as a warning to make sure you take note that the climax not nessecarily be the highest note in a song.

The last song i looked at in this block was "I dont wanna cry," number 25 on the list. I marked the climax at 166 seconds in, at a point where Mariah's singing is backed up by drums that are not as prominant throughout the rest of the song. The track I had was 270 seconds long which would make the ratio a little far off the mark, however, i noticed the end of the track gets cut off, so the version I had was not the entire lenght of the song. Depending on how many seconds are left, perhaps this could be a golden section song also.

The Motown Song

I would like to start by saying that this is perhaps my favorite Rod Stewart song. In addition, the music video is one of the most entertaining I've ever seen. Now that I've professed my love for the work of Rod Stewart....let's get to Fibonacci!

The song is 3:58...There is a clear climax to this song that takes place when Rod emphatically screams "Bring over some of your old motown records!" This occurs at 2:31, however the final build up to this climax commences at 2:27 when Rod says, "I know what we're feelin' can't be wrong!" and ends at the chorus being reintroduced...

3:58/2:27 = 1.619!

This is EXTREMELY CLOSE TO FIBONACCI, within a thousandth...

As far as the alternate sequence, another strike out because the song is 238 seconds long, closest to 233 but that doesn't really help us.

MORE ROD TO COME..

Something to Talk About

This gem by Bonnie Raitt, "Something to Talk About" appears at number 55 on the list.

The song is 225 second long. I noted the climax at 169 seconds in, giving a ratio of around 1.3, not near the golden section. The point where a golden section climax would occur is 139 seconds in. At this point there is an instrument solo, however, I would not consider this the climax.

Again, as in Bette Middler's song, I noted a few points on interest only a second away from the Fibonacci numbers, such as when the instruments kick in, and when the singing begins, as well as some dramatic instumentals. I wonder if this is a coincidence or not. But it seems to me as if this song is another that could be considered to follow the Fibonacci sequence of numbers.

Everything I Do

Hey guys. I found some interesting stuff on the number 1 song from 1991, Bryan Adams "Everything I Do." For starters, the track is 377 seconds long, a Fibonacci number. Also unlike many of the songs I've looked at, this one starts with a nice strong note the second it starts out, and 1 is also part of the sequence. The singing begins within a second of the Fibonacci 13. And although those are the only spot on matches I found, throughout the song there are dramatic parts which happen within ten seconds of the other Fibonacci numbers. I think we may have found a solid "Fibonacci" song.

As for the climax, since the song is 377 seconds long, a golden section song should climax right at 233 seconds in. At that point in the song, everything stops and there is a second or two of silence, before the rest of the song kicks in. Sounds like that could definately be considered a climax to me. It's interesting that this was number 1 on the list. Let's keep checking some more songs out, but this one was pretty cool!

Right Here, Right Now

I think most people can remember this song. I would also bet that few could tell you who sang it, I certainly couldn't until looking it up for this project. It turns out this pretty cool song is done by Jesus Jones.

The song is 152 seconds long, a little shorter than most of the other songs weve looked at. The climax comes during a nice high note 137 seconds in. That gives us a ratio of 1.1, nowhere near a golden section song.

However, this is another song that could possibly considered a Fibonacci sequence song. Although not all the points that I marked were exactly on the money, I found four points of interest within three seconds of a Fibonacci mark. The instruments kick in at 8 seconds. The singing starts at 20 seconds in, 1 short of the Fibonacci 21. There is a dramatic symbols crash at 36 seconds in ( the Fib number is 34), and at 58 seconds in, the singer for the first time lets us here the full chorus with an emphasis on the last part of it.

So these things which Ive noted are not exactly on point, but in my opinion they do represent a certain pattern, the pattern that perhaps is captured in the Fibonacci numbers.

Damn Yankees- "High Enough"

I decided to look at Damn Yankee's power ballad, "High Enough." Many poeple might not remember Damn Yankees anymore but it was an 80's hair metal band comprised of Ted Nugent, Tommy Shaw from Styx, and two other guys. This was really one of the last power ballads to reach high up on the charts before grunge took over and killed the 80's metal movement...something I'm still sad about to this day!

Anyway, "High Enough" is close to a golden section song, but not close enough.
The duration of the song clocks in at 258 seconds with the instrumental climax starting at 168 seconds, making the ratio about 1.53. It is also does not conform to the fibonacci numbers.

So far, 1991 hasn't been working out too great...let's hope we get some songs. It's important to go through as many songs as possible so we can hopefully come up with a true relationship between hit songs and fibonacci numbers/the golden section.

Unbelievable

This one from EMF happens to be a personal favorite of mine. It appears on the list at a very respectable number 6. I think most people know this song from all of those throwback 90's CDs that used to be advertised on TV back in the day.

The song is 208 seconds long. At about halfway through theres a piece different from the rest of the song, a little faster, as it builds to the climax. I marked the climax at 113 seconds in, at the "Whoo" after this piece. This gives us a ratio of 1.8. This is a little outside the range we are looking for, but we are getting closer. Let's keep looking guys, we're almost there for this year I can feel it!

Losing My Religion

This 1991 hit by REM, unfortunately, did not have a golden section that corresponded with Fibonacci's sequence. The climax of the 4:28 song is at 3:05 seconds, calculating to 1.3405. This is not even close to 1.618.

I will move on to my other songs from 1991 in hopes of finding something more usable...



On the subject of Hip hop and R&B, I think we may run into problems finding a golden section like you said Seth, so let's keep looking and see what we find....

Motown Philly

For my first song for 1991, I am looking at "Motown Philly" by Boyz 2 Men. Boyz 2 Men was one of the biggest R&B groups of the 90's and this is one of their biggest hits. Although some people might not know the song by just the title, once you hear it, it is unmistakable.

Unfortunately, this song does does not conform with the golden section or fibonacci numbers. To be honest, I couldn't even really find a climax to the song. Which leads me to this question: Will finding the golden section be harder in R&B/Rap songs? Since there is no real band playing behind the artists, are there a lot of songs that simply won't have an instrumental climax? I think this will be an interesting point to look at as we go through the 90's and rap becomes more and more popular.

All the Man that I Need

Who doesnt love a nice Whitney Houston ballad. This one, "All the Man that I Need" is number 16 on the list.

I did not find any relationship to the Fibonacci sequence of numbers.

As for the golden section, however, I think this one night fit the bill. Listening to the song the first time i judged the climax to be a fairly long section of instrumentals stringing from 145 seconds to 167 seconds. I used the middle of this as the number that i used to calculate the ratio, giving us 251/156= 1.608. Sure is close enough for me. One note though, while i used 156, that is not the exact point that i feel is the climax, rather the whole piece is in my opinion, but i figure the middle of if is the best single number to use for calculating it. And we can see if we do that here it works out pretty well.

Everybody Plays the Fool

Number 88 on the list was Aaron Neville's take on the classic, "Everybody Plays the Fool." This was the first song i checked out from this year so I was all pumped up to see if 1991 would start off with a bang. No such luck. The climax comes fairly early in the song, at 147 seconds in(as Neville shouts out a nice loud "HEY." The song is 265 seconds long so that gives a ratio of 1.80, too large to be considered a golden section song. An argument could be made for the climax being in the very beginning, when he hits a few nice high notes right off the bat. I hoped these might corresond to some of the Fibonacci numbers, but on this day, I was playing the fool-no relationships here. Great song though. See everyone soon.

The Way You Do the Things you Do

Number 71 on the list is "The Way You Do the Things You Do" by UB40. I picked this song simply because it is one of my favorite songs on the list. This version is great, and it can be enjoyed today by a variety of artists who have covered it.

Not much Fibonacci stuff to report on this song however. The song did not fit the sequence as far as I could tell.

The climax in this song is very subdued but there is really only one point where the singers change the tone of their voices, and that occurs at 126 seconds in. The song is 178 seconds long so the ratio is around 1.4, too far off to be considered a golden section song.

So like I said nothing to exiting here, but one thing I thought of was that maybe eventually we can look at some covers of some Fibonacci songs and maybe we might find something interesting, but that is for the future.

1991

I have chosen the following songs to research for 1991..

#1 Everything I do - Bryan Adams
#11 Motown philly - boys to men
#33 Losing my religion - REM
#38 Summertime - will smith
#50 Rhythm of my heart - Rod Stewart
#99 Motown song - Rod Stewart


Stay tuned for analysis..

More Than Words

"More Than Words" by Extreme, which sounds very unlike the namesake of the band. It is a very recognizable ballad as well as a song on the guitar that many novice guitarists play to college girls in their freshmen dorms. I'm not saying that I've tried it ;).

All kidding aside, this is definitely what I would consider a hit for 1991. So lets take a closer look. The climax occurs 170 seconds into a 333 second song. The climax is when there is a funky guitar break and the singer says "Won't ever let you go" which leads into the chorus.

333 by 170 equals 1.959 which is far off from the desired 1.618. I guess if we are going to show our successes, we might as well show our failures as well. Hopefully, this is one of the few exceptions to the rule.

1991- A NEW YEAR

I think we should stick with the hits from different years because the main objective of this blog is to try to find relationships between the fibonacci numbers and popular music. Remember guys, post if the song conforms to: 1) the golden section, 2) the fibonacci numbers 3) the reverse golden section (which is just the golden section but the opposite way-so basically from the end of the song to the beginning.) Here is a website to the list of the top songs of 1991.
http://www.musicoutfitters.com/topsongs/1991.htm

have fun everybody! maybe we'll find some cool relationships this time...

I agree

I feel as if we are correct in saying the sample size is much too small at this point to formulate any type of conclusion about what type of music or artist may moreso conform to fibonacci's sequence than others. I have done analyzed Pearl Jam's "Ten" and will post about it as we enter grunge rock 1991 and beyond...

The Fibonacci sequence of numbers so far has been a blank for me on all fronts...Any occurrence of it, at this point, would be, as Brandt said, an anomaly....I am skeptical that we will find songs to fit this on a regular basis. Perhaps we should just look up songs that are lengths that allow us to further interpret the sequence's presence...?


Just as a teaser, Pearl Jam does indeed conform to the golden section on several occassions in "Ten" and other albums...

Analysis

I think the sample size may be too small right now to make any solid conclusions. The lack of real rock bands might because that type of music was in style and therefore not included on the list of top 100 songs of that year. I think we should move onto the next year because grunge rock will soon emerge and maybe bands like Nirvana and Pearl Jam will have a golden section.

Pertaining to the Fibonacci numbers, none of the songs I've looked at follow that pattern so even if I found a piece of music with it, I would feel that it is more of an anomaly than a pattern.

1990 comes to an end..

Well I think we've really looked at all of the songs that we thought were hits from the year 1990. We had a pretty good success rate on golden section songs, but NONE of them conformed to the fibonacci numbers.

Here are the songs that conformed to the golden section:
"Hold On"- Wilson Phillips
"Black Velvet"-Alannah Myles
"Love Shack"-B-52's
"Janie's Got a Gun"'Aerosmith
"I Go To Extremes"-Billy Joel
"How Am I Supposed To Live Without You
"Something Happened On The Way to Heaven"-Phil Collins
"Here We Go"-Gloria Estefan

Do we see any relationships between these songs? They are all pop songs, no real rock songs in this bunch. Other than that, I'm not sure if I see anything else of note...what do you guys think?

Love Will Lead You Back

I have to admit that i had no idea who Taylor Dane was as i downloaded this song. However, once she starts to belt this tune, you recognize it instantly. This ones a little too old for us to have had at many dances or parties, but you can just imagine the ten thousand graduation parties that it must have played at back in the day.

So as for Fibonacci, not much to report on this one. The climax comes too late for it to be a golden section (right around 210 seconds in a 274 second song).

And all the dramatic points that i noted while listening don't match up with the sequence at all.

Oh well, i guess they aren't all going to be winners.

Escapade

Number 15 on the list, "Escapade" by Janet Jackson was a song that happened to catch my eye, as I'm an avid Janet Jackson fan.

I was a little dissapointed however, when i saw that this song is not a golden section song. With the climax coming at 182 seconds into a 284 second song, the ratio that gives us of 1.56 is a little too far outside the range for it to be consdiered a golden section song.

As for the Fibonacci numbers, the only thing i was able to find was a pretty strong "Hmmpf" by Janet which kicked the song off. This makes a few times now that I've found the Fibonacci numbers at the point which i feel really gets the song going. Maybe theres something to the way a song begins, as well as where the climax is...

Opposites Attract

This one by Paul Abdul appears at number 14 on the list, the highest one I've looked at so far.

This one is definately a little bit different than any of the other ones I've done so far. It has a fairly standard Paula sound to it. It's almost techno-ish, defaintely a 90's tune.

The only dramatic thing i found that corresponds to the Fibonacci numbers was at the very beginning. At 8 seconds in there is a shriek-like sound which really kicks off the song.

For this song, instead of picking out a climax and seeing if that ratio was close to the golden section, I found where the golden section climax ould be and checked to see if i notcied anything in the song there. I did this particularly because i was really having trouble determining the exact climax. Anyway, at this point (165 seconds in, since the song itself is 265 seconds), while the chorus is being sung, there is a vocal track in the background which seperates this chorus from every other one in the song. Maybe thats pushing it, but it sure seems interesting to me.

Downtown Train

Another hit from 1990: "Downtown Train" by Rod Stewart

The song starts off kind of slow but really starts to rock during the middle of the song. Having completely recovered from that Giants loss, I could use alittle Rod Stewart who only pumped out hit after hit.

The climax occurs at the 192 second mark of the 279 second song. The climax is during the chorus when Rod hits the high note on the "you" while singing "Will I see you tonight?" He really flaunts his considerable talent at that point and you can really feel the emotion. As with the Sinead song, this song does not have a goldensection or follow the fibonacci sequence. Both songs however, are more ballads than pop songs so maybe theres something there

Nothing Compares 2 U

#3 "Nothing Compares 2 U" by Sinead O'Connor

Yes, that little pope picture ripping Irishwomen ranks #3 with this hit. The video is probably the most powerful and simplistic video of that period as well. You can feel and see the song in the face and tears of Sinead. I do not know an individual that does not at least recognize the quality of this song.

The song is 307 seconds long. The climax occurs at 230 second mark when finishes the last part of the bridge (end on the word "try") and the chorus starts again. This unfortunately is not during the golden section, therefore "Nothing Compares 2 U" does not prove the rule.

Hold On

#1 "Hold On" by Wilson Phillips

Not a huge Wilson Phillips fan, but it seems like it would be a crime not to look at the #1 song from that list. I think most people have sung this tune while in their car alone. No self respecting individual openly admits this guilty pleasure of a song. The song is fitting for the decade as its heavily produced with echo effects. But when you're in your car, you don't need no stinkin' producer. You just add the echo in yourself.

Now to the climax, it occurs at the 2:45 second mark when the bridge starts. Theres a short drum solo to signify the beginning. I judged this climax by actually belting out the lyrics along with the song and I gave myself chills at this point of the song. (I'm that good.)

267 by 165 equals 1.6182.

On a side note, Giants lose and I'm in a funk now, hopefully another gem from 1990 will lift my spirits.

Black Velvet

#18 "Black Velvet" by Alannah Myles

I'm suprised that this song is rated so low because its definitely a song most of you out there have heard before. It's hard to do posts with the Giants postseason game against the Eagles coming up tomorrow, but I will try my best.

The climax comes around the 3:00 mark when Alannah emphatically belts out the chorus again. It has much more behind it than the other times that the chorus is sung. Much to my pleasure this occurs close enough to the golden section to make it count.

289 by 180 equals 1.6056.

P.S. LETS GO GIANTS!!!!

Review Shall We?

So what have we learned?

Love Shack, I Go to Extremes, and Something Happened on the Way to Heaven fit closely enough to the golden section sequence to be noted.

None of these songs conformed to the other Fibonacci number set....So far I've struck out..

I Wanna be Rich, Ice Ice Baby, Just Another Day in Paradise, and Blame it on the Rain did not fit the golden section sequence.

We have two very established artists in Phil Collins and Billy Joel that conformed to the Golden section, but the addition of one hit wonder "Love Shack" hurts my hypothesis that time tested artists with proven success better utilize the sequence. However, I think it is fair to say that one may be more likely to come across an occurrance of Fibonacci's golden section in the music of a proven winner such as Billy or Phil.

That being said, I would not discount the possibility of an artist that may be unworthy of idol status fitting the sequence; it may just be less likely .... However, until more research is done, we cannot really come to any conclusions..

So, let's keep searching for more answers!

Good luck gentlemen (and gentlewomen) as we embark on a new year!

The B-52s

Love Shack is undoubtedly one of those songs that has survived for nearly 2 decades as a party anthem for many. I chose this song as a hit because it is a song I associate closely with my childhood and my first exposure to mainstream music. The B-52 haven't the longevity of Billy or Phil but are more towards a one hit wonder. I cannot personally name another song by the group so feel free to call me out on a song that I should know but don't!

The song is 5:18 seconds long and the golden section begins at 3:15 when the lead singer belts, "so comon and bring your juke box money!"

318/195 = 1.6205 - feels like knockin on Fibonacci's door..

Since the song is 318 seconds in length, it does not fit the other Fibonacci sequence..

There were no other correlations that I could make out...