Fibonacci in Popular Music

The Stranger

2007-03-03T11:17:00.000-08:00

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

2007-03-03T11:13:00.000-08:00

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

2007-03-03T11:10:00.000-08:00

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

2007-03-02T09:30:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-28T12:12:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-28T09:51:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-27T16:04:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-27T09:48:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-26T13:50:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-25T20:24:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-24T17:32:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-23T17:57:00.000-08:00

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..

2007-02-23T17:49:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-22T13:28:00.000-08:00

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?

2007-02-21T10:55:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-20T19:10:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-19T12:40:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-18T22:22:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-17T11:56:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-15T19:38:00.000-08:00

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...

2007-02-15T16:28:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-13T14:18:00.000-08:00

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...

2007-02-11T15:17:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-11T15:08:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-10T13:56:00.000-08:00

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"

2007-02-09T09:32:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-08T13:59:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-07T22:48:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-06T20:28:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-05T23:39:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-05T14:54:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-04T08:14:00.000-08:00

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?

2007-02-02T14:36:00.000-08:00

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!

2007-02-02T14:13:00.000-08:00

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

2007-01-29T17:49:00.000-08:00

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

2007-01-28T13:16:00.000-08:00

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

2007-01-27T18:07:00.000-08:00

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

2007-01-27T16:34:00.000-08:00

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

2007-01-26T12:01:00.000-08:00

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

2007-01-25T21:26:00.000-08:00

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"

2007-01-25T09:23:00.000-08:00

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

2007-01-24T22:57:00.000-08:00

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

2007-01-23T17:24:00.000-08:00

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

2007-01-23T16:34:00.000-08:00

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

2007-01-23T00:22:00.000-08:00

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

2007-01-21T22:02:00.000-08:00

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

2007-01-21T19:31:00.000-08:00

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

2007-01-20T16:47:00.000-08:00

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

2007-01-20T12:47:00.000-08:00

"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

2007-01-18T17:44:00.000-08:00

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

2007-01-18T14:12:00.000-08:00

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

2007-01-16T11:12:00.000-08:00

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..

2007-01-15T16:50:00.000-08:00

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

2007-01-14T10:47:00.000-08:00

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

2007-01-13T10:41:00.000-08:00

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

2007-01-12T08:34:00.000-08:00

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

2007-01-10T23:22:00.000-08:00

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

2007-01-09T15:55:00.000-08:00

#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

2007-01-07T22:26:00.000-08:00

#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

2007-01-06T14:00:00.000-08:00

#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?

2007-01-04T23:45:00.000-08:00

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

2007-01-02T11:35:00.000-08:00

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...

Milli - Vanilla

2006-12-31T16:18:00.000-08:00

Milli Vanilli - Blame it on the Rain
Vanilla Ice - Ice Ice baby

Unfortunately neither hits fit Fibonacci's sequence. However, I can still discuss the methodology behind choosing them as hits. These artists were the youngest of the artists I have explored for 1990 and perhaps hippest of the year as well. This leads me to believe that I chose these songs because of their appeal to my age group. Because I was only 5 in 1990, by the time I reached reasonable music listening age, these songs had been a couple years old and the artists had received quite a bit of exposure on tv. Arguably, both are 2 hit wonders, so the songs are unique gems that have stood the test of time and held a place in my heart as part of my childhood. No clear connection to Fibonacci's golden section sequence was apparent, so perhaps it is preliminarily ok to say that untested artists that constitute one or two hit wonders have done so without the connection to Fibonacci that battle-tested veteran success stories have been able to cash in on...? We must dig deeper!

Beyond the golden section sequence, the other Fibonacci numbers do not apply. Ice Ice Baby is 271 seconds and Blame it on the Rain is 249 seconds...blank on both counts.

That's all for now!

P.S. Perhaps the success of Ice Ice Baby is solely based on its remarkable similarity in tune to "Under Pressure" by Queen - one of the best bands of all time?

Aerosmith

2006-12-29T08:44:00.000-08:00

The next song that I looked at was "Janie's Got a Gun" by Aerosmith. This song is one of the classic Aerosmith songs. With Steven Tyler's amazing vocals and Joe Perry's great guitar riffs. This song is on Aerosmith's greatest hits as well as countless rock and roll compilations.

The duration of the song is 303 seconds with a kick ass guitar solo that runs for about 20 seconds, the tail end of it being at 189 seconds into the song. 303/189 = 1.603. Definitely close enough to conform to the golden section!

The song, however, does not conform to any fibonacci numbers

The Fabulous Mr. Joel

2006-12-28T16:46:00.000-08:00

Billy Joel - I go to Extremes

Where do I begin, Billy Joel is the king of longevity. I can roll 20 songs of his off the top of my head at any time because EVERYONE knows and loves Billy Joel and his wonderful piano melodies and memorable lyrics. This particular song is off Greatest Hits Vol. III, which may not be his most highly regarded album, but produced several songs worth remembering, including this one. Once again, my definition of a hit revolves around a successful artist continuing to pump out great music that never seems to get old over time.

4:19 / 2:39 = 1.629 - not too far off...

I didn't find any correlation between the sequence numbers and this song. It is 259 seconds long, which is not a Fibonacci sequent number...

On to the next song I suppose!

Michael Bolton

2006-12-27T17:55:00.000-08:00

Yes guys, I did it..I looked at a Michael Bolton song. I'll admit, "How Am I Supposed to Live Without You" is a guilty pleasure of mine. While many people won't admit that they like this song, it really is a hit single. Not only is it extremely radio friendly and recognizable, but it is arguably one of the top love songs of all time. Bolton was huge in the early 90's and his music continues to be very popular.

Golden section: 291 seconds in duration with a long dramatic guitar climax which encompasses over 15 seconds of the song, the halfway point being at roughly 180 seconds into the song.

291/180= 1.616..this is definitely a golden section song!!

I can just picture the entire crowd going crazy as this solo plays and Michael regains his strenghth to finish out this power ballad!

Unfortunately, this song does not conform to the fibonacci sequence as the times do not match up.

More Phil Collins

2006-12-26T10:25:00.000-08:00

Just Another Day in Paradise

The song does not follow the golden section sequence...and...being 322 seconds in length, does not fit the alternate Fibonacci sequence either. Maybe this song is just so sweet it would be a hit no matter what sequence it does not not correspond with?

Phil Collins

2006-12-26T09:48:00.000-08:00

So, going along with what Seth said, I will list the songs I chose and then state a reason to why I believe them to be a hit....

Phil Collins - Something Happened on the way to Heaven

As a personal favorite of mine, I tend to classify any well known Phil Collins song as a hit because the man has had such a successful career as both front man for Genesis and as a solo artist. I suppose you could say that I might define a hit by the artist that sings the song, in this case a very well known, successful artist with decades worth of longevity that merits his songs, including SHOTWTH, lots of light FM airtime..

4:51 / 2:59(instrumental) = 1.626 - not too shabby

The song is 291 seconds in length, which means it, too, does not fit the other sequence. That seems to be it for this one.

Calloway - I wanna be rich

2006-12-25T15:37:00.000-08:00

Merry Xmas to all!

While this 1990 hit does not contain a golden section that fits 1.618, I will still look to see if it conforms with the other Fibonacci Sequence numbers. The numbers are, just to review, 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,144,233,377,610,987

The song is 275 seconds in length, which means it cannot be analyze for this sequence of numbers...However, upon listening to the song for connections anyway, I found a few notable moments that might merit recognition.

The first dramatic note of the song is at the 8 second mark. The actual first verse of the song is first sang at 34 seconds in. Furthermore, the song is mid instrumental at 89 seconds in. There is another significant instrumental, which leads to the golden section at 144 seconds.

For the record, the song is 4:35 and the golden section, in my opinion, occurs at 2:40 in (1.718)

I will examine my other top hits of 90 songs for appearances of fibonacci.

Vogue

2006-12-24T16:22:00.000-08:00

Madonna's famous 1990 song "Vogue" was my first choice to look at. I think this is definitely a hit that has stood the test of time for many reasons. It is one of Madonna's most famous songs, most people know what the song is after the first few bars, and it even spawned one of the most famous dances of the 90's by the same name.

While looking at "Vogue" I noticed that at about 189 seconds into the song, there is a dramatic element that really brings the entire song together. Madonna builds up the chorus, really singing her heart out, a dramatic pause occurs, and than the song continues.

Going with the golden section, the duration of the song is 290 seconds, with the dramatic element happening at 189 seonds making the ratio 1.53..a little too far away to be a true golden section song.

Also, this song does not conform to the fibonacci sequence because it does not fit into one of the times specified.

I'll keep you updated with my next song...

Oh Girl

2006-12-22T20:45:00.000-08:00

The next song i took a look at was #84 on the list, "Oh Girl" by Paul Young.

These results were not as exciting as the last one. While i did find the song to be somewhat close to a golden section song (222 seconds long/142 second climax=1.56), the song did not exhibit any of the other fibonacci numbers. Noting the major instrumentals, initial vocals, and other dramatic points in the song left me with a bunch of random numbers that certainly do not conform to the sequence.

One for two so far, not too bad.

Here We Are

2006-12-21T14:38:00.000-08:00

I think the song "Here We Are" by Gloria Estefan , which was number 74 on the list, has some of the things you are talking about.

For starters, don't ask me why, but this was the first song i chose to look at. The climax of the song occurs 180 seconds in, when Gloria dials it up a notch in the, "here we are ONCE again...". Anyway, since the song is 292 seconds long, that gives a ratio of 1.62, clearly a golden section song.

I also noted a couple of other things having to do with the fibonacci numbers. For instance, at 21 seconds in, all the instruments kick in for the first time. Also, at exactly 33 seconds in is when the first vocals are heard. I would argue these are fairly significant periods in any song. I wonder how many more of the songs from the list exhibit stuff like this...

This is definately an interesting way to analize these songs a little bit deeper.

Also..

2006-12-20T15:02:00.000-08:00

guys, we should really start to look at other aspects of fibonacci other than just simply the golden section.

We should look to see if these hit songs conform to the fibonacci sequence. The fibonacci sequence is a little bit different than the golden ratio in that it has very specific times to look at. A song must have a duration in seconds (or very close) to: 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,144,233,377,610,987

Than, if a dramatic element happens at one of the other numbers in the string above (in seconds), it is a fibonacci sequence song.

For example, if song X is 377 seconds long and has a dramatic element 144 seconds into it, it conforms to the fibonacci sequence.

The List

2006-12-19T19:39:00.000-08:00

Guys, I can see already that we are all going to have different opinions on what a "hit" song is and why. Since this is our first time really trying to find relationships between the golden section and hit songs, lets each do it our own way. I propose we go through the list of the top 100 songs of 1990, analyze ones that we think are worthy, and than explain why we chose the song and why we think it is a hit. After that, we can have a list of all of the songs that we found that conform to the rule and hopefully see a pattern form. Maybe every fibonacci song from 1990 was on the billboard charts for atleast 10 weeks, maybe every song was a rock song, or maybe the hit songs from 1990 were NOT fibonacci songs at all. We'll soon find out...

I like it

2006-12-18T15:06:00.000-08:00

I think the idea of going through the decade of our childhood year by year is a good idea....I am down for starting at 1990 and working our way towards more recent times... From the list that you(seth) provided, i have chosen the following songs to analyze for fibonacci's sequence..

#7 Another day in paradise - Phil Collins
#22 I wanna be rich - Calloway
#46 Ice Ice Baby - Vanilla Ice
#47 Blame it on the rain - Milli Vanilli
#59 Something happened on the way to heaven - Phill Collins (im a fan what can i say?)
#78 Love Shack - B52s
#82 I go to extremes - Billy Joel

I will take this on in addition to my side endeavor of the music of Pearl Jam, which dominated the early 90s so that fits with this line of thinking...I hope that I will be able to find all of these songs but I will do as best as I can....It's good that we are going in a clear direction....

Sinead

2006-12-17T17:44:00.000-08:00

How can you not include "Nothing Compares 2 U"? That is one of the top songs of the 1990s let alone 1990. She was definitely one of the most influential artists of the early 1990s along with Nirvana, The Red Hot Chili Peppers, and Pearl Jam.

1990

2006-12-16T15:01:00.000-08:00

Let's start with the first year of the major decade of our lives, 1990. I looked online and found the top 100 songs of 1990 (http://www.musicoutfitters.com/topsongs/1990.htm). However, a lot of the songs on this list have definltey NOT stood the test of time. Number 2 is "It Must Have Been Love" by Roxette..I've never heard of this song! So the first thing we have to do is go through this list or other ones that we can find and come up with songs that we find worthy enough as "hits" to run the fibonacci tests on.

just from this list alone, the songs that I would look at are:
5. "Vogue", Madonna
12. "How Am I Supposed To Live Without You", Michael Bolton
36. "We Didn't Start the Fire" Billy Joel
38. "Downtown Train", Rod Stewart
46. "Ice, Ice, Baby", Vanilla Ice
56. "U Can't Touch This", MC Hammer
62. "Janie's Got a Gun", Aerosmith
65. "Free Fallin' ", Tom Petty

Now this is just my opinion of the biggest "hits" of 1990- the songs that have stuck around as part of American pop culture. BUT..this is just one persons opinion. Maybe we should look at the top 5 from the year to see if they conform to the rule and than look at the songs that we all classify as the biggest hits. Please respond to this post saying what you think and what songs you are going to look at

Directed Effort

2006-12-14T18:41:00.000-08:00

We all seem to be all over the place with this. In order to have a directed effort and maybe draw clear conclusions, I suggest that we pick a year and we all look at all of the songs that may have hit #1 during the course of the year and see which ones have golden sections or follow the fibonacci sequence. Thoughts? If there are no objections, I say we start immediately.

Hits...

2006-12-12T08:20:00.000-08:00

I agree that songs at the top of the charts are not necessarily hits. There have been one hit wonders whose songs have obviously lost steam over time and than there are bands like the Grateful Dead who never have number 1 singles but songs that will live forever. What I think we should do is pick an artist (or maybe a year or a genre) determine all of their hits, and work from there. It will give us a clear direction of where we are going with this. Thoughts?

Hits

2006-12-11T11:25:00.000-08:00

I do not think commercial success or radio play should be the sole determinants of a hit. Although those factors have a large part in it, I think another criteria should be if its easily recognizable today or even if it transcends generations.

Also I think we should see if there is any correlation in the types of music (i.e. only pop songs, rock songs, ballads, rap, etc.) that exhibit the golden section.

HITS

2006-12-10T00:00:00.000-08:00

Hey dudes and dudette,

As far as a hit goes, I think we could either take a scientific approach, which would be seeing what songs have been chart toppers or what albums have gone platinum or double or triple platinum or whatever....or.. we could use a more subjective approach and ask questions to determine a hit. For instance, when you think of a hit, is it a song that most everyone will have heard or heard of....? If so, it's probably a hit. Is it a song you would recognize on the radio despite not knowing what it's called or who sings it? Does simply being played on the radio make a song a hit?

I think that both methods have legitimacy and should be incorporated in our research tactics. I agree that we should each take an artist and go further to see just how well their work conforms to the fibonacci sequence.

p.s. Can't wait for Xmas woooohoo!

HIts...

2006-12-09T11:29:00.000-08:00

Obviously, not all fibonacci songs are going to be hits and not all non fibonacci songs are going to be duds..I think we've seen that already. However, I think some very popular artists/groups that have a lot of hit songs also have a lot of fibonacci music. For example, as you guys have posted about earlier, Springsteen and the Beatles have a lot of golden section songs that have sold a lot of records and been a part of American music for years.

I agree that we really should try to find relationships with our discoveries. Maybe we should all start to concentrate on one artist, think of all of their "hits", see which ones (if any) relate to the golden section, and than make a determination as to whether this artist's music is popular or not because of fibonacci. Any thoughts?

p.s. im becoming obsessed with this too!! it's so damn cool!

We may be onto something...

2006-12-08T12:27:00.000-08:00

Hey guys. So here's the thrid installment of my research on Blink 182. By far, Enema of the State was there most popular album. If you remember from their previous albums, i found only a couple fibonacci songs on each. On this one, however, i found four of them. And with the album being only twelve tracks long, that is a fairly high percentage in my opinion.

Track 3, "aliens exist" is 192 seconds long. the climax is 120 seconds in for a ratio of 1.6.

"Whats My Age Again" , Blink's most popular song is 148 seconds long. With the climax coming at 92 seconds in. this gives a ratio of 1.608, very close to the exact fibonacci number.

"Dystentary Gary" is 165 seconds long with the climax coming 102 seconds in. thats a 1.617 ratio.

"All the small things" is another song which got a lot of radio time from this album. at 168 seconds long and a climax at 105, is has a 1.6 ratio.

honorable mention goes to track 10, "Mutt". this song was made famous in American Pie. while its playing there is also a breif cameo by blink (they are the guys in the room with the monkey if you wanna check it out). At 203 seconds long and a climax at 124 seconds in, it has a ratio of 1.63, alittle outside of our range, but still pretty close.

As for the album as a whole, it is 2123 seconds long. at 1312 seconds in nothing particularly noteworth happens, so i dont see any fibonacci relationship there.

I find this very interesting for a couple of reasons. I think this makes a strong case that popular music and fibonacci songs are somehow related. i just think it would be too weird if such a high percentage of their hit songs showed the relationship, and there was zero correlation. The question to ask though, i think, is whether the public more or less picks these songs because they like them, or if they were sort of destined to be popular when they were produced because they contained the fibonacci ratio. of course this is way too small a sample to make any definative statements, but we are certainly getting into something here...

next up will be the Mark Tom and Travis Show, Blinks live CD.

This is AWESOME!!

2006-12-08T11:25:00.000-08:00

guys, this is so damn cool..I can't believe we're really finding this much music that conforms to the golden section. I hate to admit it but I've really become a little obsessed with finding this music. Now, whenever I listen to music (in the car, on my ipod, on my computer) I ALWAYS see if it has any fibonacci relationship.

Now, the big thing that I want to get out of this is: Are most fibonacci songs hits? Meaning, do they tend to have the longest shelf life and are the most well known? If we can find that most of the songs that conform to this pattern are indeed "hits" than we may really be on to something.

what is everyones thoughts?

Blink 182- Part 2 - Dude Ranch

2006-12-07T11:15:00.000-08:00

Hi all. Heres the second installment of my research on Blink 182.

Dude Ranch was Blink's second released album. Altough it is fairly well known today by people into this sort of music, it did not really get popular until after their next couple of albums were released. Part of that has to do with the fact that once they became more well known people wanted more so they looked for some prior albums. Another reason, however, is that in the live CD, they refer to this CD in some of there dialog, and then play a few songs from it.People were exposed to it and liked what they heard. So onto fibonacci...

Here i had similar results to the last album, Chesire Cat. Out of 15 songs, this time i found three that fit the fibonacci numbers. Track 4 "Boring", track 10 "Emo" and track 11 "Josie" showed ratios of 1.6, 1.63, and 1.62 respectively.

I had initially expected that "Dammit", the most famous song from this album, as well as what many consider to be Blink's best song, would exhibit the fibonacci ratio, but no such luck.

the entire album is 2727 seconds long meaning the "fibonacci number" would be just after 26 minutes in. this occurs in the song "Emo." while at this point there is a nice instrumental which happens to be a personal favorte of mine, i do not see this as the climax of the album.

ill see everyone next time with blinks most famous album, Enema of the State.

Blink 182- Part 1- Chesire Cat

2006-12-06T17:43:00.000-08:00

Hello everyone. Im curious to see how this whole thing fits in with one of my favorte bands, Blink 182. Most fans of Blink will agree that their success increased with each album until probably the last one they put out, which did not do as well as the previous ones. This seems to coincide with the evolution of their music from a garage punk rock band, to popular punk rock, finally to a new sort of sound which could hardly be considered punk rock. I think it would be cool to see if there are any correlations between the number of hits on each of their albums and the Fibonacci sequence.

So every couple of days I will review an album in the order that they were released. Heres what i found on the first album, Chesire Cat.

This is perhaps the Blink album most appreciated by punk rock purists. As such, few of the tracks on here ever made it to air. However, some of them did become more popular when they were re-released on Blinks' live CD , The Mark, Tom and Travis Show.

There are 16 tracks on this CD but only 15 of them are songs. Out of those only two conformed to Fibonacci: "Carousel" and "Does My Breath Smell" , however, the latter can be disputed as the climax of the song is fairly ambiguous. I find it particularly interesting though, that "Carousel" is one of the two songs that was re-released on the later album. I will definately explore that more when i get to the Mark, Tom and Travis Show.

As for the album as a whole, it is 2530 seconds long, meaning the "Fibonacci climax" would be right around 26 minutes in. I did not find anything special at that point in the album, only a short instrumental which could harldy be confused with the climax of that song or the album.

Ill see everyone in a couple of days with my findings on Dude Ranch.

PEARL JAM - EVEN FLOW

2006-12-05T15:50:00.000-08:00

One of my very favorite bands is Pearl Jam, the dominant early 90s grunge band featuring another great Eddie besides the one making this post, Mr. Eddie Vedder. In their popular hit "Even Flow", Eddie rips off a sick guitar solo at 3:01. The song is 4:54 in length...

294/181 = 1.624

Fibonacci is not far off and it's great to see an example of the sequence in such a well known band that happens to be one of my playlists' regular artists..

This is also a fine example of a facemelting guitar solo serving as the climax of a great song...

Long live Pearl Jam!

Journey

2006-12-04T23:15:00.000-08:00

I wanted to look at one of the best arena rock bands of the 1980's, Journey. I started with their hit single "Anyway you want it."

duration = 203 seconds
climax = 126

203/126 = 1.611..pretty much directly on the golden section!

The climax is a bone crushing guitar solo that definitely gets the crowd pumped up just in time for Steve Perry to come back in with his magical vocals to close out the song.

Hey Mama (no offense Amy)

2006-12-04T17:02:00.000-08:00

The next Black Eyed Peas song I looked at off the Elephunk album was "Hey Mama." This again is easily recognizable but it sadly did not pass my grandfather test. However, I decided to look at it anyway since its off a top selling album as well as received tons of radio play.

The song was hard to come up with a climax as it followed a pattern that would suggest multiple climaxes. One of those climaxes occurred at the 2:12 mark where Fergie sings "Common Papa" and it leads into the chorus. However, one could argue that the climax could have occurred right before the other choruses as well. If you guys have extra time, take a listen and let me know what you think. I really wish there was some way we could pool together or even tag the songs we identify, so we can all download them in case others on the blog do not have the CD.

Duration: 214 seconds
Climax: 132 seconds (although you could argue other spots)

214 by 132 equals 1.6212

Let's Get It Started

2006-12-03T11:50:00.000-08:00

Fitting song title to start linking hits to the golden section, "Let's Get It Started" by the Black Eye Peas which is hard to argue against it being a hit. Its the censored verison because this blog is PG-13. The album, Elephunk, sold millions as well as the song is probably recognizable to both males and females and to most ages. I even played the song to my grandfather and while he couldn't name the artist, he knew of the song.

The climax starts at the 2:18 mark where you here the "yaya"s that lead into a rap solo thats ends before the last chorus. Its sort of the moment where you are all pumped up waiting for the last "Let's Get It Started".

Duration: 217 seconds
Climax: 138 seconds

217 by 138 equals 1.5725 which is close enough by our rules. I believe this is the first rap song and Black Eyed Peas song we've done. I'll at more soon to see if theres any correlation.

Nickelback

2006-12-02T19:45:00.000-08:00

As I racked my mind to think of other popular music artists to analyze for Fibonacci's Sequence, I thought of the suprisingly popular Canadian group Nickelback....

Their recent song "Far Away" is 3:58 in lenght. The instrumental climax occurs from 2:16 to 2:38 in the song

2:38 - 2:16 = 22 seconds

Adding 11 seconds to 2:16 leaves us with 2:27 as the middle of the climax

3:58 / 2:27 = 1.619

THIS IS VERY CLOSE TO FIBONACCI!

I will continue to probe into the works of Nickelback despite the annoying voice of lead singer Chad Kroger...

Another from our friends The All American Rejects

2006-12-01T20:01:00.000-08:00

In the first really popular song (to my knowledge) by the AAR, "Swing, Swing", the climactic guitar solo begins at 2:10 of the 3:28 second song.

208 / 130 = 1.6

This falls within a reasonable deviation from the Fibonacci Sequence and represents the second AAR song that I have discovered to correspond appropriately....

What every man needs

2006-12-01T16:10:00.000-08:00

"Pretty Woman" by Roy Orbison, I got the song off "The All-Time Greatest Hits of Roy Orbison." Its amazing how timeless this song really is, I bet you if you played the song for someone under the age of 12, they would either recognize or love the song.

The climax of the song is when Roy goes to hit the high note on "tonight" during the verse "Come with me baby, Be mine tonight." I think most people have a guilty pleasure of trying to match Roy on that note whether in their car or in the shower. Well, at least I do.

Duration: 178 seconds
Climax: 110 seconds

178 by 110 equals 1.6182. That's as close as we'll probably get folks. There's got to be some sort of correlation between all these hit songs and the golden section.

Magical Mystery Tour

2006-11-30T17:42:00.000-08:00

"Magical Mystery Tour" is the third Beatles album that I will be focusing on. While there are many hits on the album ("Penny Lane", "I am the Walrus", "Strawberry Fields Forever"), only one song conforms to the golden section. The not so well known "Your Mother Should Know" fits in perfectly with the sequence:

duration = 149 seconds
climax = starts at 92 seconds
149/92 = 1.619

There is a very clear climax in this song that makes it easy to determine where it begins. The song switches over from an upbeat pace to a slower one that gradually forms into the end of the song.

After reviewing each song individually, I went to the album as a whole. The entire Magical Mystery Tour album is 2213 seconds. In order for it to conform to the golden section, the climax would have to come at approximately 1374 seconds into the album. 1374 seconds occurs at exactly 11 seconds into "Strawberry Fields Forever". Now, what is interesting about this is that Strawberry Fields starts off with 10 seconds of instrumental work and John Lennon starts singing at exactly 11 seconds in. That being said, it really can be considered a golden section album.

However, it could very easily be argued that the first 10 seconds of "Strawberry Fields Forever" is not necessarily the climax of the album (there is no evidence to support it). It is interesting though that the first 10 seconds of the song is probably the most recognizable and famous instrumental verse on the entire album.

Thoughts?

More off Darkness on the Edge of Town

2006-11-29T15:41:00.000-08:00

The target this time, "Candy's Room" by Bruce Springsteen. A song about a girl but its better than 99% of them out there which is saying alot. There must be hundreds of thousands of songs on the topic. This is off the same album my last post was off of which is exciting as I'll look for more golden sections off Darkness on the Edge of Town.

The climax occurs after an initial guitar solo and the actual climax starts when Bruce slides on the guitar twice going from low to high. Its one of the rare climaxes I can actually play on my own guitar as it only involves me sliding my fingers down the strings.

Duration: 168 seconds
Climax: 100 seconds (as describe above)

168 by 100 equals a golden section of 1.68 even.

More Bruce

2006-11-27T15:27:00.000-08:00

The song for today is "Adam Raised a Cain" by Bruce Springsteen off arguably Bruce's best album, Darkness on the Edge of Town. While every song off this album is a winner, my favorite Springsteen album would be his first, Greetings from Asbury Park.

On to the song, the song has obvious biblical references like many Springsteen songs (i.e. his use of Mary as the female character in his songs that he commented on during his VH1 behind the music show). The climax of this song comes after a long instrumental that ends with a long section of cymbal being played. The instrumental includes some great guitar riffs that you should check out. The climax is when Bruce starts singing again, you really feel the intensity in his voice. Bruce growing up did not get along with his father and you can really tell some pent up anger in this song

Duration: 274 seconds
Climax: 164 seconds

274/164 = 1.6707

Another song which is great and yet has a golden section. Coincidence?

What We Have So Far

2006-11-25T14:52:00.000-08:00

so guys, after about a month of posting, these are the songs that we have determined conform to the golden ratio: lets all check these to make sure they really do and please tell us if you disagree with one of them.

All American Rejects- Move Along
The Beatles - I'm Looking Through You
The Beatles - In My Life
The Beatles - Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds
Ben Folds Five - Army
Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth
Bruce Springsteen - Where the Bands Are
Greenday - Boulevard of Broken Dreams
James Gang- Funk #49
Jackson 5- ABC
John Denver - Take Me Home Country Road
Michael Jackson - Wanna Be Starting Somethign
Mighty Mighty Bosstones - I Never Had to
Razorlight - Golden Touch
Spoon - The Way We Get By
Supremes - Band of Gold
Van Halen - Jump

so there's the list so far..keep up the good work!

Boulevard of Broken Dreams

2006-11-24T09:53:00.000-08:00

As I was parusing a list of popular songs of the past couple of years, I took a closer look at Boulevard of Broken Dreams by Greenday, off the American Idiot album from late 2004....
To my delight, 2:42 into the 4:22 song begins the climatic guitar instrumental...

262 seconds / 162 seconds = 1.617 so close to Fibonacci!

This is one of the better examples I've found so far because of its nearly dead on alignment with the Fibonacci Sequence 1.618.

Laces Out!

2006-11-23T13:59:00.000-08:00

Hello everyone.

Here's something i found a little interesting in Tom Petty's "Freefallin", and U2's "Stuck in a Moment." First, I figured out what I believed the climax to be and found the ratio that the ratio was a little lower than what we have been looking for. I than calculated where the climax would have to be in order for it to work out, and what I found was that in "Freefallin" it would have to be at 153 seconds, and in "Stuck in a Moment". it would have to be at 169 seconds. What is interesting is that both of these songs follow a similar pattern. A few verses, a chorus, an instrumental period, then precisely at the "Fibonacci second" the singer starts the slower, dramatic verse. After thinkin about Brante's post, I realized that is the point in a live performance where the crowd will be going crazy, so that could also technically be considered a climax. Go ahead check it out.

another type of music

2006-11-20T13:50:00.000-08:00

hey guys...and recently gal.

so what kind of music do you like? ...well, anything but country. We've all heard this conversation before. And while this may be one of the most universally used and agreed on statements, there have been plenty of country artists who have managed to slip there way into pop culture. John Denver is certainly among those in that category. And the first song i think of is Take Me Home Country Roads.

Duration- 193 seconds
Climax- 120.

That gives us 1.608, right around the ratio we are looking for. I'm going to look for more of this with some other country/pop artists.