I have been listening to Aerial, the new album from Kate Bush, and it just gets better with every hearing.
One of my favourite tracks is "Pi":
"a sentimental ode to a mathematician, audacious in both subject matter and treatment. The chorus is the number sung to many, many decimal places." - Observer Review
But something kept nagging me about the song. Was Kate really singing Pi to 150 decimal places?
I got hold of the lyrics and checked them against an online version of Pi. All was well for the first 53 decimal places but then Kate sang "threeeeee oneeeee" when she should have sang "zeeeeeeerooo" instead. She recovered for the next 24 digits but then it went to hell in a handbasket when she missed out the next 22 digits completely before finishing with a precise rendition of her final 37 digits.
It may seem a bit pedantic to make a fuss but if you are going to sing Pi then you should make an effort to get it right.
"Sweet and gentle and sensitive man
With an obsessive nature and deep fascination for numbers
And a complete infatuation with the calculation of PIOh he love, he love, he love
He does love his numbers
And they run, they run, they run him
In a great big circle
In a circle of infinity"
If Simon Singh can get Katie Melua to re-record her song because of a error about the age of the universe then maybe I can get Kate to re-record Pi.
Real Pi: 3.
1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510
5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679
8214808651 3282306647 0938446095 5058223172 5359408128
Kate Bush Pi: 3.
1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510
58231974944 5923078164 06286208
8214808651 3282306647 0938446095 5058223
In case anyone is worried about the accuracy of the published lyrics I did check the audio against the published lyrics and can confirm that they are the same.
And yes I know that I am a bit sad.
[Update 14th March 2006 - Just added another pi related rant.]
My my my... What a toss! Please take care not to rip apart each other`s egos PEOPLE! I`m going outside for a walk. Kate`s coming with me! `Cuz she`s everywhere!!!
Posted by: JustinBlack | September 23, 2006 at 01:22 PM
Kate Bush FTL
Hard 'n Phirm FTW!
Posted by: Miles | September 10, 2006 at 09:16 PM
For God's sake folks, let it go. Enjoy her voice, inflections, and love of life. Perfection lasts only fleetingly, God forever, and you momentarily.
So Kate Bush may have missed a sequence, can you walk on water? I can't. But I am able to swim in her music and completely enjoy her rhythm.
Turn your computer off, and walk outside.
It really is fantastic!
Posted by: Tony | September 01, 2006 at 01:55 AM
none of u know pi so why even try,i challenge all of u
Posted by: kevin lavare | July 11, 2006 at 10:04 AM
I feel I must point out that BARON's statement:
"Who says Kate is singing the digits directly after the 3? It is almost certain
these digits exist somewhere in Pi, in this order, on account of it being infinite."
is in fact incorrect. Since it is a positive value less than 4, Pi is not itself "infinite", rather its decimal expansion is infinite. Further the decimal expansion never repeats, except for isolated sequences which later diverge. This coupled with the fact that its value cannot be expressed using whole numbers and roots (ie: it's "transcendental") makes it certain that any given finite sequence of digits will ap;pear somewhere in its expansion.
Posted by: GNSargent | May 14, 2006 at 10:04 PM
Our Kate may be meticulous in all things, but then there's this:
"Waving it's [sic] arm as the wind blows by"
Posted by: Borealis | April 18, 2006 at 03:20 AM
You said:
I strongly doubt the omittance and alleged tripping over the numbers was anything but deliberate. I am fascinated by the possibility of it being a code of some sort.
I thought exactly the same a while back. If you look at http://www.luttrell.org.uk/pi/index.htm you will find a summary of what I discovered once I applied my little grey cells to the analysis of Pi.
Posted by: Steve | January 13, 2006 at 01:17 AM
Perhaps, she is chanting the numbers of pi as one would chant the name of God. Parts are unspeakable and not meant for human ears. Or, perhaps, she was going by the Biblical aproximation, which was surprisingly accurate ; ) See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi It is truly an amazing song. I strongly doubt the omittance and alleged tripping over the numbers was anything but deliberate. I am fascinated by the possibility of it being a code of some sort. What could she mean? I would love to hear her sind an extended version that lasts an hour; could you imagine?
Posted by: nancy | January 07, 2006 at 02:36 AM
Who says Kate is singing the digits directly after the 3? It is almost certain these digits exist somewhere in Pi, in this order, on account of it being infinite.
Posted by: Baron | December 20, 2005 at 10:51 PM
The song is about a man who is obsessed with Pi, the song is NOT Pi itself.
Skipping numbers could represent following his journey and obsession passing through time and then picking it back up only to find that he is still going at it.
If one were writing an essay about the Old Testament of the Bible and quoted the book of Genesis and then later quoted the book of Numbers, it would not mean that the author of the essay was claiming that the essay was the Bible itself, nor would the existence of unused passages from the Old Testament contained between those passages quoted from Genesis and Numbers make the quoted passages incorrect.
"Pi is a constant, which means if you omit (not truncate) or change the order of any of its known digits, it isn't Pi anymore."
It's interesting that you wrote an 'out' for yourself by not including truncation as a way of altering Pi. In fact, as current belief holds, Pi is endless. Therefore ANY numeric representation of Pi is merely an approximation of the value. Some approximations are closer than others. Perhaps what you meant to imply is that if one omits or changes the order of any of its known digits, then that approximation becomes less accurate.
As an artistic story about a man obsessed with Pi, the song is not inaccurate. Furthermore, as an approximation of Pi, it's pretty darn close.
And, if Pi is an endless number, it's probably a good thing that Kate stuck with only delivering an approximation of it, or it might have taken a lot longer than 12 years to have released the CD--and I didn't want to wait literally forever for the album.
Posted by: | December 15, 2005 at 05:02 PM
"well she missed out this much:
9986280348253421170679
and the other error you mentioned wasn't there. So i think they must of just cut that bit out whilst editing, because the lyrics were a bit repetitive.
And anyway, how dare you say the lyrics are wrong - where abouts in the song does she actually say "this is the Pi to 150 decimal places"? She just starts singing some numbers."
Hi there! I just wanted to point out that this arguement is absoutely retarded. Pi is a constant, which means if you omit (not truncate) or change the order of any of it known digits, it isn't Pi anymore.
Posted by: jizzmatic2000 | December 12, 2005 at 03:55 AM
If that's what Kate says pi is, then thats good enough for me.
I'm hacking my calculator and patching my maths libraries.
Long live the Bushy Pi!
Posted by: Jame Mc Parlane | December 08, 2005 at 12:14 AM
You are all missing the point. Why don't you trust that Kate makes sure things are done "just right"? The supposed mistakes in pi are all deliberate, and she has actually used them (and lots of other tricks) to embed a secret message in the song. It is our job to decode what that message is.
This anagram will prove later on (after all is revealed) that I have already succeeded in decoding the secret message:
"Heavy-hearted, contrary warmth"
Posted by: Steve | December 07, 2005 at 12:27 AM
This is an interestign post. I never thought to check for accuracy. woo hoo kate bush!
Posted by: melissa | December 05, 2005 at 06:05 PM
Feh! Hard 'n Phirm has alread been there.
http://www.keithschofield.com/pi/std.html
Posted by: Heathcliff | November 29, 2005 at 03:04 PM
I think that you are right and Kate did sing "zero" rather than "three one", but she definitely missed the block of numbers and the printed lyrics are definitely wrong.
Posted by: Chris McEvoy | November 29, 2005 at 01:56 PM
Kate Bush was absolutely correct. When she sings the song, she sings "zero" and NOT 'three one'. This is merely an error in the printed lyrics.
I have listened to the song OVER AND OVER again, and I assure you, it is correctly sung and incorrectly listed in the lyrics.
The beginning of the segment in question (582319749.. as listed in the lyrics) starts at around 3 minutes and 45 seconds into the song and you will hear that she is singing, instead, 58209749...
And to be honest, I am surprised that anyone would hear that "zero" as a 'three one'. I had always heard it as a zero. I am disappointed that the printed lyrics do not accurately reflect what she is singing.
I, also, am curious as to the reasons for skipping a set of numbers. Though, that is another matter entirely.
Posted by: txm11013133_ | November 27, 2005 at 09:31 PM
Kate Bush may have misplaced a few digits but it has got me into awe of pi.
A little glimpse of infinity and the relationship between a straight line and a circle that can never be precisely mapped as we live in a universe of approximations.Straght lines become circles only at infinity.
Posted by: Austin Kinsley | November 25, 2005 at 11:23 PM
Safest bet is still that the missing 22 are a deleted verse/chorus.
The other gaffe is sad.
Agreed that there should be a special "extended" edition with the correction and the omission included.
Posted by: Ken Houghton | November 20, 2005 at 07:45 PM
Who cares about the mathematical accuracy of some lyrics. The important thing is the Kate Bush is back!
Like you, I think her latest album just gets better with every listen. (Although it's driving my 12-year-old son nuts to hear it every time we're on the way to soccer).
I'm now 43 and I've been a fan since the age of 17. Here in Canada, many people have never heard of Kate Bush and I try to spread the word whenever I can. They usually love the music or hate it. There seems to be no in between.
I think the last track on the second disc is absolutely brilliant. Listening to it just before my hockey game tonight seemed to give me a real boost on the ice.
(I think I'm the only guy in Canadian hockey history to get revved up on Kate Bush before a game and, of course, I'd never mention that in the locker room).
Anyways, you people in the UK are lucky to have such a talented person amongst you. If you're looking for anything remotely similar from Canada, try listening to some Jane Siberry or Sarah McLaughlin.
Happy listening. Cheers!
Posted by: Blair | November 17, 2005 at 06:01 AM
First, who knows what numbers Kate has hidden into Pi? Seconldy, I can imagine the recording prosess: "Damn! I skipped a line. Roll back the tape. Lets see.. Where was I?"
Posted by: Hans | November 15, 2005 at 07:08 AM
Kate Bush wins again. She's offering us a glimpse of a "sweet...obsessive" mind with a "complete infatuation of pi" and by dancing through the sequence, she pries it out of its geeky hole. If one plays the game carefully, one finds not only three alterations of the actual pi sequence but differences between the lyric sheets (booklet and website)and the sung sequence. Small things...
Posted by: Robert | November 15, 2005 at 01:52 AM
well she missed out this much:
9986280348253421170679
and the other error you mentioned wasn't there. So i think they must of just cut that bit out whilst editing, because the lyrics were a bit repetitive.
And anyway, how dare you say the lyrics are wrong - where abouts in the song does she actually say "this is the Pi to 150 decimal places"? She just starts singing some numbers.
Posted by: Peji | November 14, 2005 at 04:55 PM
I can see how her error could ruin those "lyrics" beyond repair. They were so soothing and poetic before, now look what she went and did. Waaa oh waa oh waa oh waaaa oh waaaaa oh, it's unbelievable!
Posted by: Ian Lloyd | November 14, 2005 at 01:20 PM
But the best Craftsmen always make one deliberate mistake in anything they create so that the Gods don't punish them for their arrowgance.
Posted by: Chris McEvoy | November 13, 2005 at 05:35 PM
Chris, I am passionate about you. In 12 years time, when I make my next record, there'll almost certainly be a high concept song cycle about Web Usability, as a love offering to you.
Kate
Posted by: Kate Bush | November 13, 2005 at 03:14 PM
Hey Chris - I got the Kate Bush album for my birthday and it's great.
My theory is that kate Bush has been looking all her life for a man who is so geeky that he would notice an error in the Pi song. She'll be reading your blog and fantasising about you now, you lucky bugger,
In 12 years time, when she makes her next record, there'll almost certainly be a high concept song cycle about Web Usability, as a love offering to you.
Posted by: bruce | November 13, 2005 at 03:13 PM