Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner VIRTUOSO TECHNIQUE!!!

Copulation time in Dung Flies

The MVT [marginal value theory] can be applied to situations other than foraging in which animals experience diminished returns. Consider, for example, the mating copulation duration of the yellow dung fly. In the dung fly mating system, males gather on fresh cow droppings and wait for females to arrive in smaller groups to lay their eggs. Males must compete with each other for the chance to mate with arriving females—sometimes one male will kick another male off of a female and take over mating with the female mid-copulation. In this instance, the second male fertilizes about 80% of the eggs.[7] Thus, after a male has mated with a female he guards her so that no other males will have the opportunity to mate with her and displace his sperm before she lays her eggs. After the female lays her eggs, the male must take the time to search for another female before he is able to copulate again.

The question, then, is how long the dung fly should spend copulating with each female. On one hand, the longer a male dung fly copulates the more eggs he can fertilize. However, the benefits of extra copulation time diminish quickly, as the male loses the chance to find another female during long copulations. The MVT predicts that the optimal copulation time is just long enough to fertilize about 80% of the eggs; after this time, the rewards are much smaller and are not worth missing out on another mate.[7] This predicted value for copulation time, 40 minutes, is very close to the average observed value, 36 minutes.

Beautifully stated! Well, in terms of piano, my 36 minutes was up about 45 years ago.

So what you're saying is that the flies are missing out on 4 minutes of copulation time?

Hey, thank Wikipedia! I'm just the vehicle.

A vehicule? You're an oracle!

Oracles were thought to be portals through which the gods spoke directly to people. In this sense they were different from seers (manteis, μάντεις) who interpreted signs sent by the gods through bird signs, animal entrails, and other various methods.

Hmm, I guess you're right. In the beginning was the word, and the word was Wiki!

This is a great example of music-learning as a conscientious learning process rather than an innate thing that you just somehow "get" incrementally if you have the requisite talent.

Anyway, people are coming up with all of these counterexamples to try and prove exactly what it is that is innate that you need to achieve mastery. So far the examples have been like, "Well, obviously you can't pick a random dude off the street and make him into a virtuoso!" (No, we agree on this) "Well, the guy can't spend 18 hours a day practicing in counter productive ways, e.g. starting off with Rachmaninoff!" (We agree on this too.) "Well, even if you hurled all the resources and teachers Mozart had at some random person, he wouldn't become a virtuoso talent." (Yes, we agree on that too - that a fundamentally uninterested random guy on the street would NOT become Mozart. This is not a difficult argument to make.) I don't know why we assume that the act of practicing productively is innate.

I think at this point, naysayers would probably suggest that small children don't make conscientious decisions about how to use their practice time; thus conscientious, well-planned practice time (sustained over a long period of time I should add) must not be the silver bullet if you will -- It doesn't account for child prodigies. This would be a strong point because children't AREN'T metacognitive about what they are learning and how they are learning. I would (again) point to the interest/obsession argument, which is that child prodigies all tend to be inordinately interested in music, spend inordinate time practicing music due to their inordinate interest, and probably learn inordinately efficient ways to learn music due to the exceptional neuroplasticity of children in the window of 2 - 10 years old. We can all think of lots of four year olds we know that are horrible at playing the piano. Can anyone find any examples of four year olds who by their own volition play for, say, 4 hours per day, who are horrible at it (after, say, 5 years)? If anyone can find that counterexample, then I really would officially lay my argument to rest. That would be enough.

Anyway, I'm more interested at this point in finding out what the particularly quality of mind it is that people think it is which is innate to musical talent? Can we isolate it and say exactly what it is and how it is measured? Like besides saying it is the thing that age 4 Martha Argerich had - What exactly is the thing? (Does that question make sense?)

An economising fly can put those 4 minutes in a savings account and when he has enough of them get an extra turn. Heck, that's what I do!

Nope, you didn't misunderstand. I just screwed it up even more. Final edit: You cannot simply "choose" to play the piano at a level comparable to a pianist like Argerich or Perahia.


So, if I would only "learn how to learn", all would be well? That's the magic formula?


Really? So if only I had learned how to learn differential calculus and organic chemistry, I could've gone to medical school after all? And if I had only learned how to learn to play chess, I could kick Garry Kasparov's ass? Who knew????

Just curious, however. Who exactly passed this magic formula on to you?

Never mind. Rhetorical question. I think I may know.

But that's just the thing -- It's just a lot of sarcastic replies to something that's an actual point, and people write journal articles about it and you can even look up the wikipedia article on it if you want ("metacognition"). If it's just a silly conversation for sport huffing and puffing is fine, but you should know that a lot of neuroscience and pedagogy research actually points to the primacy of metacognitive skills, or analyzing and adjusting the way we learn. If you disagree with the notion personally that's fine, but that doesn't mean it's ridiculous. It's sort of an actual thing you can find all over Google Scholar if you are inclined. Just FYI :-)

I'd argue, that sadly, yes, maybe you could have gone head to head with Kasparov if you engaged in some serious, deep, impassioned learning about chess, for a long period of time and especially from a young age. Sadly because I hope it's a joke and not something that you really wanted for yourself. It's sad not to pursue something because you're convinced in advance that you won't be enough. And on the flip side, I think it's flattering to some people to think that most other people aren't enough but because of an in-born gift they, exceptionally, are. I guess that's going to touch a nerve, but it might as well be said.

Wow, I certainly hope Derulux doesn't interpret my "tweaking" as sarcasm, huffing and puffing, etc.! I had no idea that my attempt to add a little levity to this ponderous discussion would result in such a scolding. That's the last time I try that!

I guess it's time to hit the metacognition books.

Sorry :-) I don't mean to assign something that you didn't intend. Please overlook my remarks about huffing and puffing. I just was trying to say that it actually is a real point.

Sorry, I didn't mean to put downer-ness on the fun :-) I won't scold you. I guess I take it over seriously myself.

Ha, ha, no apologies, please. This is your profession, and I understand why you feel strongly about it. I'm just a business IT schlub, so I have no knowledge of the social and/or behavioral sciences. (OK, make that ANY sciences.) But I do know about "metadata" - data about data - so I assume they're analogous terms.

And we all need a barometer of how our posts are being interpreted, so if you thought I sounded sarcastic, I'm sure others did too. Calibrating tone in this inadequate medium is a tricky process, so thanks for the feedback!

Ah! Got it. I agree; that type of choice would take the process right out of the equation. What we can do is choose to do what it takes to get to that level, which is a process-based choice, and one that most people don't make consciously.

In other words, I hear people say all the time, "I want to play like [pick-a-pianist]!" But when you show them how to practice to get to that level, and what they have to do, they suddenly don't have the interest or desire to do it, and so they don't do it. This problem is compounded for anyone who already "knows how to play," because it usually requires a complete reconstruction of how to think about approaching the piano. And most people, especially adults, don't like to change the way they think.


I'm not sure that it's a magic formula, or even the sole ingredient, but I would argue that if you're trying to build an ocean, water is an important component.

But in all seriousness, I believe very strongly that the two most important ingredients are process and desire. If you have one, but not the other, you won't get where you want to go. Or worse, you may actually desire a process that takes you farther away from your goal. But if you mold your desire into a love of the process that takes you where you want to go, then you will get there.


Nope. Starting with diffy-q and org is way to late. You've already cemented in your process of learning information. For most people, by the time they learn these subjects in late high school or undergrad, they've had anywhere from 15-20 years of "how to learn" experience to cement their learning processes. To develop a love of learning in someone is difficult, especially the older they get. To develop a love of learning everything (not just the "important takeaways") is nearly impossible.

Take this to life and the piano. I love puzzles. Love them. I absolutely love figuring out cyphers and codes, and anything that is visual-spatial. So, is there any surprise that I can recognize patterns of notes on the page faster than most people (even though I'm probably in the bottom half of all musicians for "music theory"), when I spend so much of my time away from the piano working on that same exact process/task? Or that I choose to use that basis of knowledge in my approach to the piano? There is a very famous martial arts quote that Jackie Chan reiterated in the latest "Karate Kid". He said, "Everything is kung fu." I expand that: everything is everything. Learning how to pick up a cup helps to teach you the fine motor skills in the hand necessary to play the piano. Typing on a keyboard (technique). Playing a round of golf (grip vs squeeze/tension). Learning to walk (body mapping). Remembering patterns/images (visual-spatial, "notes"). Every single thing we do impacts every single other thing we do.

Case in point: I bet, when you type, you rest your wrists on the keyboard/table. Or you grip your mouse the same way, and use your fingers only to manipulate it, rather than your whole arm.


I am curious, though.. how do you do that "click to reveal" thing? I usually use the quick reply.. is it an option in the full reply?


No worries on my end!


I always assume that the person I'm speaking with didn't intend any insult. I think that way because I don't intend any insult. So, perhaps what would work best for me would be to do something like this:

[insult]You're a jerk![/insult]

Prepared to be even more amazed...

I think that, for some people, learning how to play piano is quite a bit different than learning how to draw stick figures. I am not going to go into all of the myriad details why. But I will point out one thing about it that is relevant to this thread. And that is that it is reasonable to assume that a person with the musical genetic structure pointed out in the Finnish study of inheritable musical ability will find that learning some aspects of music is a different process than learning to, say, draw stick figures. It is quite likely that learning musical things feels more natural to them than drawing stick figures feels, as if they have some mysterious affinity for music, but not for drawing.



Thanks for reminding me of why I have PMs turned off. If what you have to say can't be said in the public thread, I don't want to hear it.



Since we were discussing ability, and not fame, there's no reason I can see that Old Man would have suddenly changed the focus to be about fame, with no warning. But if you want to talk about fame, that's fine - why not start a new thread about it?

I think I find my amazement growing by the word.

If we were to talk about how the brain processes information, we could have a strong argument for music being different from other pursuits. But I'm not interested so much in that, as in the process the human being utilizes to learn that information. In other words, what the person actively chooses to process.


I can say it in public. Sometimes, it's simply a matter of comfort with the information that is going to be disclosed. (In other words, "It's not you; it's me.")


Don't need to. Old Man cleared up perfectly what it was he meant -- and it was something entirely different from either of my initial thoughts.

Good morning. Does anyone know the Austrian author Stefan Zweig?

Maybe we should all get back to basics (as a politician would say ).

If one denies the existence of innate talent, it would mean that if a child does brilliantly at, say, maths at school, it's because he/she puts in the hours, he's been taught well, and he likes the subject and therefore puts all his energy into it. Nothing to do with talent, or innate aptitude. Is that the drift that some people here are saying?

Because, conversely, if a child is poor at maths, he only has himself to blame (or his teacher isn't doing his job properly - but we wouldn't say that about the teachers, would we? ) - it's nothing genetic after all. Nothing to do with the fact that his brain isn't wired up in a manner that would make maths easily understandable - because that would be in his genes. He's obviously not working at it, not putting in the hours, or simply not studying the subject properly.
He obviously needs to buck up if he wants to work in CERN when he grows up......

It is an elusive formula, and a powerful one. You may call it magic if you wish.


I bet it was
and

I can relate to what you are saying, both for myself, and in regards to my two children who are now adults. I also relate to what Derulux is saying, and believe it is very important and potent for anyone want to play (or achieve anything) well. People are wired differently, so that they are drawn to this or that, or relate more to a linear or global presentation, or oral or visual, or whatever - we are not mass produced empty bottles waiting to be filled the same way. So the teaching and learning strategies and environment etc. are also interacting back and forth with the individual person. But the exposure, environment, teaching also play a role. And while learning strategy might come from the individual and good instinct have an influence on that too. That's back to Derulux.

Derulux wrote some things which I find exceedingly important, and they are things that I have been after since learning of them. That is, that there are ways of learning and doing, strategies and approaches if you will, which will cause you to achieve things, and we can spend a lifetime being outside of that. I think, wr, that maybe your person with the natural feel will recognize and be able to draw things out of the teaching faster when there is teaching, because he already knows what to pay attention there. But some type of transmittal of knowledge has to be there. Can someone learn to read without learning the relationship of D to the key between two black keys? Well yes and know - I'll tell my weird story, which might give some different perspectives.

I learned two things in music when I was small, and then nothing for 40 years. We sang to a solfege board when I was about 8 so I internalized the structure of major and relative minor as sound. I knew where C was on a page and on the piano. Nothing else. I was given a recorder, a mouth organ, and then a little keyboard and finally a piano. No teacher, no lessons. I got an old book of sonatinas, mostly Clementi - Mr. Diatonic and "basic sonata form" himself. I sang my way up and down the sonatinas. Children absorb the structure of language and I absorbed things from this - and my relationship (playing, "reading", hearing) to music formed from this.

Decades later I took lessons for the first time on a new instrument, violin, and progressed quite fast until it all unraveled a year later. There were all kinds of twists and turns, false steps, interacting with teachers and musicians here and there. An old teacher in his 80's told me something which two more then said in different words. He said I'd have a hard time because of this combination: a strong instinct in music that grasped things instantly, and no foundations in anything for decades. This gave me a map: to seek the most fundamental things in everything (technique, theory, strategy) - I hypothesized that answers lay there. Strategy (Derulux) also fits in here.

I can give two concrete examples to make this more clear: reading and technique. Btw, I got a piano again around that time.

Reading: Here's what instinct + environment gave me. I was at home in diatonic (most) music which I perceived along the framework of major / natural minor scales (modal like the monks). I heard the music that I read. I anticipated where it would go, and had internalized patterns of all kinds. This came together with visual clues: a phrase repeated in the dominant key will have the same "shape" of notes. Modulations are pepperings of accidentals. I heard mostly along melodic lines, but also the harmonic implications (ti - do = V7-I). I had followed various voices in Bach chorales by ear even when little, delighting in what they did. Anyway, I had all that. My "reading" was a mix of scanning the page for general impressions (modulation starts here), anticipating where the music would go, reconstructing it, hearing it in relative pitch (It could be in C major and I'd play it in G major and never know). My way of "sight reading" consisted of hearing the music like a singer, and then reaching for the sound on whatever instrument - like the sound shines out in that vicinity.

You can do an awful lot with that, and I did. In fact, it took 3 years of lessons before figuring out through a chance event that I didn't "read" in any normal way. Ultimately it's a handicap. Derulux talks about willingness to change habit: that's where I'm at.

What I didn't have were these things: D is a pitch and note in and of itself. I perceived it as Do of D major, Sol of G major etc. It's like seeing the postman, the neighbour, Mary's husband, and never seeing him as always Charlie. I did not know that people see D on the page and reach for a spot on the piano that is D. I could play D7-G, E7-A, G7-C and they were "the same" even if I used them correctly in music. The lack of these are handicaps. Moreover, it's not just a matter of "learning" them. Your entire way of relating to notes and music has to change at the level of your senses and your physical actions. --- And when you do that, at first you will be clumsy, slow, awkward, because this is all foreign and undeveloped. You know you could "zip through" (diatonic) music, playing it fluently using your old tricks.

I am hoping to show how the two views both interrelate. My "instinct" gave me a lot of strategies and insights. But without exposure to true and tried things that work, I couldn't enter that world. At this point I can sight read piano music fairly well though it's still developing, and I wouldn't trade it for the old way for any amount of money.

Technique: 40 years ago I had a piano, envisioned the sound I wanted to hear, but never saw anyone play it. I reached for the sound any which way and was totally unaware physically. My staccato was crisp and sharp, the legatos were legato and climbed in crescendo for the music I played. That same staccato was tensed forearm and hot-stove pecking. The legato was fingers only with the hands drilling into the keyboard the louder it got. That spells limitation and injury. This is what instinct minus environmental support will get you. Essentially I have to relearn almost everything I have done on the piano physically. That means that when you visualize the music becoming louder, you don't allow the reflex to come in that says "tense and push" (or whatever), and you have to replace it with other reflex you have to learn. You may have to become very deliberate and mechanical to get at these new motions. Which you have to acquire somewhere, somehow.

The last bit is STRATEGY - another thing Derulux stressed. This involves how to acquire the skills, how to apply them to the music, and it also involves how to approach and develop a piece of music. Whatever your instincts have led you to do which work, keep it. If you are spinning your wheels, see if there is something you could be doing differently, or why your wheels might be spinning. You may not like what that entails, and my decide not to go through with it. But these things do exist.

Ultimately regardless of whether talent exists or not, whether someone has this talent, it still comes down to what we need to learn in order to play music well on the piano, and how we are going to learn it. That's why the debate is a bit puzzling. It's like everyone has been hypnotized, "When you hear 'virtuoso' - argue." Not everyone who writes "virtuoso" means it literally or even knows what it means.