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.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
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..
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..
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
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!
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.
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.
Monday, February 26, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
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...
Saturday, February 24, 2007
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?
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?
Friday, February 23, 2007
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!
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 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!
Thursday, February 22, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
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...
Tell me what you guys think...
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, February 19, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
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...
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...
Saturday, February 17, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
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!
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...
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...
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
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...
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...
Sunday, February 11, 2007
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?
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..
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..
Saturday, February 10, 2007
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!
-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!
Friday, February 9, 2007
"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!
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!
Thursday, February 8, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
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!
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!
Monday, February 5, 2007
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.
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...
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...
Sunday, February 4, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, February 2, 2007
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.
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..
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..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
