Late in January 1975, a 17-year-old German girl called Vera Brandes walked out onto the stage of the Cologne Opera House. The auditorium was empty. It was lit only by the dim, green glow of the emergency exit sign. This was the most exciting day of Vera's life. She was the youngest concert promoter in Germany, and she had persuaded the Cologne Opera House to host a late-night concert of jazz from the American musician, Keith Jarrett. 1,400 people were coming. And in just a few hours, Jarrett would walk out on the same stage, he'd sit down at the piano and without rehearsal or sheet music, he would begin to play.
Di akhir Januari tahun 1975, seorang gadis Jerman berusia 17 tahun benama Vera Brandes berjalan ke atas panggung Cologne Opera House. Auditorium itu kosong, hanya bercahayakan lampu pintu darurat hijau redup. Itu hari yang paling mendebarkan dalam hidup Vera. Ia adalah promotor konser termuda di Jerman, dan ia berhasil membujuk Cologne Opera House untuk menyelenggarakan konser jazz larut malam dari musisi Amerika, Keith Jarrett. 1,400 orang datang saat itu. Dan hanya dalam beberapa jam, Jarrett akan keluar di panggung yang sama, ia akan duduk pada piano, dan tanpa geladi maupun lembar musik, ia mulai bermain.
But right now, Vera was introducing Keith to the piano in question, and it wasn't going well. Jarrett looked to the instrument a little warily, played a few notes, walked around it, played a few more notes, muttered something to his producer. Then the producer came over to Vera and said ... "If you don't get a new piano, Keith can't play."
Tapi kali ini, Vera mempertemukan Keith dengan piano yang meragukan, dan tak bekerja dengan baik. Jarrett memandang instrumen itu sedikit ragu, memainkan beberapa notnya, mengitarinya, memainkan beberapa not lagi, menggumamkan sesuatu pada produsernya. Kemudian sang produser menghampiri Vera dan berkata... "Jika kau tak mendapatkan piano yang baru, Keith tak dapat bermain."
There'd been a mistake. The opera house had provided the wrong instrument. This one had this harsh, tinny upper register, because all the felt had worn away. The black notes were sticking, the white notes were out of tune, the pedals didn't work and the piano itself was just too small. It wouldn't create the volume that would fill a large space such as the Cologne Opera House.
Ada kesalahan. Gedung kesenian itu salah menyediakan instrumen. Nada-nada tinggi piano ini bersuara sember dan pelan, karena senar pianonya sudah usang. Tuts hitamnya lekat, Nada tuts putihnya sumbang, pedalnya tidak berfungsi, dan pianonya sendiri juga terlalu kecil. Suaranya takkan bisa memenuhi ruangan sebesar Cologne Opera House.
So Keith Jarrett left. He went and sat outside in his car, leaving Vera Brandes to get on the phone to try to find a replacement piano. Now she got a piano tuner, but she couldn't get a new piano. And so she went outside and she stood there in the rain, talking to Keith Jarrett, begging him not to cancel the concert. And he looked out of his car at this bedraggled, rain-drenched German teenager, took pity on her, and said, "Never forget ... only for you."
Jadi Keith Jarrett pergi. Ia keluar dan duduk di dalam mobilnya, meninggalkan Vera Brandes... untuk menelepon dan mencoba mencari piano pengganti. Ia punya alat penyesuai nada, tapi tak bisa mendapat piano baru. Jadi ia pergi keluar... dan berdiri di tengah hujan, berbicara pada Keith Jarrett, memohon agar ia tak membatalkan konser. Jarrett melihat dari dalam mobil kepada remaja Jerman yang basah kuyup ini, merasa kasihan padanya, dan berkata, "Jangan lupakan ini... cuma untukmu saja."
And so a few hours later, Jarrett did indeed step out onto the stage of the opera house, he sat down at the unplayable piano and began.
Maka beberapa jam kemudian, Jarrett benar-benar melangkah keluar panggung gedung kesenian itu. Ia duduk di piano yang tak dapat dimainkan itu, dan mulai bermain.
(Music)
(Musik)
Within moments it became clear that something magical was happening. Jarrett was avoiding those upper registers, he was sticking to the middle tones of the keyboard, which gave the piece a soothing, ambient quality. But also, because the piano was so quiet, he had to set up these rumbling, repetitive riffs in the bass. And he stood up twisting, pounding down on the keys, desperately trying to create enough volume to reach the people in the back row.
Sesaat kemudian, jelas bahwa sesuatu yang ajaib sedang terjadi. Jarrett menghindari tuts bagian atas, ia tetap pada tuts nada-nada tengah, yang mengeluarkan kualitas suara yang menenangkan suasana. Tapi, juga karena suara pianonya sangat lirih, ia harus mengakali bagian pengulangan dengan nada-nada bas yang bergemuruh Dan ia bermain sambil berdiri, memilin, menekan kuat kunci-kuncinya, berusaha mengeluarkan volume suara agar mencapai penonton di barisan belakang.
It's an electrifying performance. It somehow has this peaceful quality, and at the same time it's full of energy, it's dynamic. And the audience loved it. Audiences continue to love it because the recording of the Köln Concert is the best-selling piano album in history and the best-selling solo jazz album in history.
Itu adalah pertunjukan yang menggetarkan. Yang entah bagaimana membawa kedamaian, sekaligus penuh energi, sangat berdinamika. Dan penonton menyukainya. Penonton terus menyukainya karena rekaman Köln Concert adalah album piano terlaris sepanjang sejarah dan juga album solo jazz terlaris sepanjang sejarah.
Keith Jarrett had been handed a mess. He had embraced that mess, and it soared. But let's think for a moment about Jarrett's initial instinct. He didn't want to play. Of course, I think any of us, in any remotely similar situation, would feel the same way, we'd have the same instinct. We don't want to be asked to do good work with bad tools. We don't want to have to overcome unnecessary hurdles. But Jarrett's instinct was wrong, and thank goodness he changed his mind. And I think our instinct is also wrong. I think we need to gain a bit more appreciation for the unexpected advantages of having to cope with a little mess. So let me give you some examples from cognitive psychology, from complexity science, from social psychology, and of course, rock 'n' roll.
Keith Jarrett dihadapkan pada suatu kekacauan. Ia merengkuh kekacauan itu dan sukses besar. Tapi mari berpikir sejenak tentang insting awal Jarrett. Ia tak mau bermain. Tentu saja, saya rasa siapapun, pada situasi yang sama, akan merasakan hal yang sama, insting kita akan sama. Kita takkan mau diminta melakukan pekerjaan hebat dengan peralatan buruk. Kita tak mau mengatasi permasalahan yang tak perlu. Tapi insting Jarrett salah, dan syukurlah ia berubah pikiran. Dan saya rasa insting kita juga salah. Saya rasa kita harus punya sedikit apresiasi... untuk keuntungan tak terduga dalam mengatasi sedikit kekacauan. Saya beri beberapa contoh, dari psikologi kognisi, dari ilmu kompleksitas, dari psikologi sosial, dan tentunya, <i>rock 'n roll.</i>
So cognitive psychology first. We've actually known for a while that certain kinds of difficulty, certain kinds of obstacle, can actually improve our performance. For example, the psychologist Daniel Oppenheimer, a few years ago, teamed up with high school teachers. And he asked them to reformat the handouts that they were giving to some of their classes. So the regular handout would be formatted in something straightforward, such as Helvetica or Times New Roman. But half these classes were getting handouts that were formatted in something sort of intense, like Haettenschweiler, or something with a zesty bounce, like Comic Sans italicized. Now, these are really ugly fonts, and they're difficult fonts to read. But at the end of the semester, students were given exams, and the students who'd been asked to read the more difficult fonts, had actually done better on their exams, in a variety of subjects. And the reason is, the difficult font had slowed them down, forced them to work a bit harder, to think a bit more about what they were reading, to interpret it ... and so they learned more.
Pertama psikologi kognisi. Baru-baru ini kita tahu bahwa kesulitan tertentu, jenis halangan tertentu, sebenarnya dapat meningkatkan kinerja. Contoh, seorang psikolog Daniel Oppenheimer, beberapa tahun lalu, bekerja sama dengan para guru SMA. Dan ia meminta mereka memformat ulang diktat yang mereka gunakan di beberapa kelas mereka. Diktat yang biasanya digunakan punya format yang lugas, dengan huruf seperti Helvetica atau Times New Roman. Tapi separuh kelas menerima diktat yang terformat dengan lebih intens, seperti Haettenschweiler, atau sesuatu yang sangat ceria, seperti Comic Sans cetak miring. Nah, jenis-jenis huruf itu amat buruk, dan sulit dibaca. Tapi pada akhir semester, para siswa diberikan ujian, dan para siswa yang diminta membaca jenis huruf yang lebih sulit, mengerjakan ujian lebih baik, dalam berbagai mata pelajaran. Dan alasannya adalah, jenis huruf yang sulit memperlambat mereka, memaksa mereka untuk belajar lebih keras, untuk berpikir ekstra tentang yang mereka baca, menafsirkannya ... sehingga mereka belajar lebih.
Another example. The psychologist Shelley Carson has been testing Harvard undergraduates for the quality of their attentional filters. What do I mean by that? What I mean is, imagine you're in a restaurant, you're having a conversation, there are all kinds of other conversations going on in the restaurant, you want to filter them out, you want to focus on what's important to you. Can you do that? If you can, you have good, strong attentional filters. But some people really struggle with that. Some of Carson's undergraduate subjects struggled with that. They had weak filters, they had porous filters -- let a lot of external information in. And so what that meant is they were constantly being interrupted by the sights and the sounds of the world around them. If there was a television on while they were doing their essays, they couldn't screen it out.
Contoh lain. Psikolog Shelley Carson menguji mahasiswa Harvard mengenai kualitas daya saring atensi mereka. Apa maksudnya? Begini, bayangkan Anda berada di restoran, bercakap-cakap. Ada banyak percakapan lainnya yang berlangsung di restoran itu. Anda ingin menyaringnya. Anda ingin fokus pada apa yang penting bagi Anda. Bisakah Anda melakukannya? Jika bisa, Anda punya daya saring atensi yang baik dan kuat. Tapi sebagian orang kesulitan. Beberapa subyek mahasiswa S2 Carson kesulitan. Mereka punya daya saring yang lemah dan keropos -- mereka membiarkan informasi lain masuk. Jadi itu artinya mereka terus terganggu dengan pandangan dan suara di sekitar mereka. Jika ada TV yang menyala saat mereka mengerjakan esai, mereka tak dapat menyaringnya.
Now, you would think that that was a disadvantage ... but no. When Carson looked at what these students had achieved, the ones with the weak filters were vastly more likely to have some real creative milestone in their lives, to have published their first novel, to have released their first album. These distractions were actually grists to their creative mill. They were able to think outside the box because their box was full of holes.
Nah, Anda mungkin berpikir itu adalah suatu kerugian. Tapi tidak. Ketika Carson melihat yang telah dicapai para mahasiswa ini, yang punya daya saring lemah cenderung mempunyai tahapan hidup yang lebih kreatif dan nyata dalam hidup; mempublikasikan novel pertama mereka, meluncurkan album pertama mereka. Semua gangguan itu sebenarnya bahan baku akal kreatif mereka. Mereka mampu berpikir kreatif karena mereka tak punya batasan.
Let's talk about complexity science. So how do you solve a really complex -- the world's full of complicated problems -- how do you solve a really complicated problem?
Mari kita bahas ilmu kompleksitas. Bagaimana menyelesaikan masalah rumit? dunia penuh masalah rumit -- bagaimana menyelesaikannya? Contohnya, ketika Anda mencoba membuat mesin jet.
For example, you try to make a jet engine. There are lots and lots of different variables, the operating temperature, the materials, all the different dimensions, the shape. You can't solve that kind of problem all in one go, it's too hard. So what do you do? Well, one thing you can do is try to solve it step-by-step. So you have some kind of prototype and you tweak it, you test it, you improve it. You tweak it, you test it, you improve it. Now, this idea of marginal gains will eventually get you a good jet engine. And it's been quite widely implemented in the world. So you'll hear about it, for example, in high performance cycling, web designers will talk about trying to optimize their web pages, they're looking for these step-by-step gains.
Ada berbagai macam variabel yang berbeda, suhu pengoperasiannya, materialnya, segala dimensi yang berbeda, bentuknya. Anda tak dapat menyelesaikan semua masalah itu sekaligus. Terlalu sulit. Jadi apa yang Anda lakukan? Satu hal yang dapat dilakukan, mencobanya selangkah demi selangkah. Anda punya semacam prototipe, Anda rekayasa, uji, dan perbaiki. Anda rekayasa, uji, dan perbaiki. Gagasan keuntungan tambahan ini akhirnya akan menghasilkan mesin jet yang bagus. Dan metode ini sudah cukup umum digunakan. Jadi Anda akan dengar, contohnya, dalam bersepeda tingkat tinggi, desainer web akan bicara upaya mengoptimalkan halaman web mereka, mereka mencari keuntungan selangkah demi selangkah.
That's a good way to solve a complicated problem. But you know what would make it a better way? A dash of mess. You add randomness, early on in the process, you make crazy moves, you try stupid things that shouldn't work, and that will tend to make the problem-solving work better. And the reason for that is the trouble with the step-by-step process, the marginal gains, is they can walk you gradually down a dead end. And if you start with the randomness, that becomes less likely, and your problem-solving becomes more robust.
Itu cara yang baik untuk menyelesaikan masalah rumit. Tapi Anda tahu apa yang lebih baik? Kekacauan. Tambahkan sesuatu yang acak, pada proses awalnya, lakukanlah tindakan gila, cobalah hal-hal bodoh yang tak membawa keberhasilan, itu cenderung membuat penyelesaian masalah menjadi lebih baik. Dan alasannya... masalah dengan proses selangkah demi selangkah, keuntungan tambahan, hal itu perlahan membawa Anda ke jalan buntu. Jika Anda mulai dengan sesuatu yang acak, cenderung tidak demikian, dan keterampilan Anda memecahkan masalah menjadi lebih kokoh.
Let's talk about social psychology. So the psychologist Katherine Phillips, with some colleagues, recently gave murder mystery problems to some students, and these students were collected in groups of four and they were given dossiers with information about a crime -- alibis and evidence, witness statements and three suspects. And the groups of four students were asked to figure out who did it, who committed the crime. And there were two treatments in this experiment. In some cases these were four friends, they all knew each other well. In other cases, three friends and a stranger. And you can see where I'm going with this.
Mari bicara tentang psikologi sosial. Psikolog bernama Katherine Philips dengan beberapa koleganya, baru-baru ini memberikan kasus misteri pembunuhan kepada beberapa siswa, dan siswa ini dikelompokan menjadi empat orang per kelompok dan diberikan berkas-berkas dengan informasi kejahatan -- alibi dan bukti, pernyataan saksi, dan tiga tersangka. Dan kelompok empat siswa itu diminta untuk mencari siapa pelakunya, yang melakukan kejahatan. Dan ada dua perlakuan pada percobaan ini. Kadang keempatnya bersahabat, mereka saling mengenal baik. Di kesempatan lain, tiga orang sahabat dan seorang yang asing. Anda bisa lihat arah pembicaraan saya.
Obviously I'm going to say that the groups with the stranger solved the problem more effectively, which is true, they did. Actually, they solved the problem quite a lot more effectively. So the groups of four friends, they only had a 50-50 chance of getting the answer right. Which is actually not that great -- in multiple choice, for three answers? 50-50's not good.
Jelas, saya ingin menyampaikan bahwa kelompok dengan satu orang asing menyelesaikan masalah lebih efektif, itu benar. Sebenarnya, mereka memecahkan masalah jauh lebih efektif. Jadi kelompok dengan empat orang sahabat, kesempatan mereka hanya 50-50 menjawab dengan benar. Yang sebenarnya tak begitu hebat -- soal pilihan ganda dengan tiga jawaban? 50-50 tidak begitu bagus.
(Laughter)
(Tawa)
The three friends and the stranger, even though the stranger didn't have any extra information, even though it was just a case of how that changed the conversation to accommodate that awkwardness, the three friends and the stranger, they had a 75 percent chance of finding the right answer. That's quite a big leap in performance.
Tiga sahabat dan seorang tak dikenal, walaupun si orang asing tidak punya informasi tambahan, walaupun itu hanya masalah bagaimana mengubah percakapan untuk mengatasi kecanggungan, tiga orang sahabat dan seorang asing, mereka punya 75% kesempatan menemukan jawaban yang benar. Itu kinerja yang sangat baik.
But I think what's really interesting is not just that the three friends and the stranger did a better job, but how they felt about it. So when Katherine Phillips interviewed the groups of four friends, they had a nice time, they also thought they'd done a good job. They were complacent. When she spoke to the three friends and the stranger, they had not had a nice time -- it's actually rather difficult, it's rather awkward ... and they were full of doubt. They didn't think they'd done a good job even though they had. And I think that really exemplifies the challenge that we're dealing with here.
Tapi saya rasa yang sangat menarik tak hanya tiga sahabat dan seorang asing melakukan pekerjaan lebih baik, tapi bagaimana perasaan mereka. Jadi ketika Katherine Phillips mewawancarai kelompok empat sahabat, mereka bersenang-senang. Mereka juga mengira melakukan pekerjaan yang baik. Mereka terlena. Ketika ia bicara dengan tiga sahabat dan seorang asing, mereka tidak bersenang-senang -- melainkan lebih sulit, cenderung canggung... dan mereka penuh keraguan. Mereka tak merasa bekerja dengan baik walaupun tidak demikian. Saya rasa itu benar-benar memberi contoh tantangan yang kita hadapi di sini.
Because, yeah -- the ugly font, the awkward stranger, the random move ... these disruptions help us solve problems, they help us become more creative. But we don't feel that they're helping us. We feel that they're getting in the way ... and so we resist. And that's why the last example is really important.
Karena, ya -- jenis huruf yang buruk, orang asing yang canggung, pergerakan yang acak ... gangguan semacam ini membantu kita memecahkan masalah, membantu kita menjadi lebih kreatif. Tapi kita tak merasa mereka membantu kita. Kami merasa mereka menghalangi ... jadi kita menolaknya. Itu mengapa contoh terakhir sangat penting.
So I want to talk about somebody from the background of the world of rock 'n' roll. And you may know him, he's actually a TED-ster. His name is Brian Eno. He is an ambient composer -- rather brilliant.
Saya ingin berbicara tentang seseorang dengan latar belakang dunia rock 'n' roll. Mungkin Anda kenal, ia penceramah TED. Namanya Brian Eno. Ia seorang komposer ambien -- yang sangat pandai.
He's also a kind of catalyst behind some of the great rock 'n' roll albums of the last 40 years. He's worked with David Bowie on "Heroes," he worked with U2 on "Achtung Baby" and "The Joshua Tree," he's worked with DEVO, he's worked with Coldplay, he's worked with everybody.
Ia juga semacam katalis... di belakang beberapa album rock 'n' roll yang hebat 40 tahun terakhir. Ia bekerja sama dengan David Bowie pada "Heroes," ia bekerja sama dengan U2 pada "Achtung Baby" dan "The Joshua Tree," ia bekerja dengan DEVO, ia bekerja sama dengan Coldplay, dan semua orang.
And what does he do to make these great rock bands better? Well, he makes a mess. He disrupts their creative processes. It's his role to be the awkward stranger. It's his role to tell them that they have to play the unplayable piano.
Dan apa yang ia lakukan untuk membuat semua band rock ini menjadi lebih baik? Yah, ia membuat kekacauan. Ia mengganggu proses kreatifnya. ia berperan menjadi orang asing yang canggung, berperan mengatakan pada mereka bahwa mereka harus memainkan piano yang rusak.
And one of the ways in which he creates this disruption is through this remarkable deck of cards -- I have my signed copy here -- thank you, Brian. They're called The Oblique Strategies, he developed them with a friend of his. And when they're stuck in the studio, Brian Eno will reach for one of the cards. He'll draw one at random, and he'll make the band follow the instructions on the card.
Dan salah satu cara membuat gangguan ini adalah melalui setumpuk kartu yang menakjubkan -- Saya punya satu dengan tanda tangannya -- terima kasih, Brian. Namanya <i>The Oblique Strategies</i> (Strategi Serong), ia menciptakannya dengan seorang teman. Dan ketika mereka terjebak di studio, Brian Eno akan mengambil satu kartu. Ia mengambilnya dengan acak, dan ia membuat band mengikuti instruksi kartunya.
So this one ... "Change instrument roles." Yeah, everyone swap instruments -- Drummer on the piano -- Brilliant, brilliant idea.
Jadi yang satu ini... "Ubah peran instrumen." Setiap orang menukar instrumennya -- Dummer pada piano -- Cerdas, ide yang cerdas.
"Look closely at the most embarrassing details. Amplify them."
"Lihat pada detail yang paling memalukan dari dekat. Lalu perkuatlah."
"Make a sudden, destructive, unpredictable action. Incorporate."
"Lakukan tindakan yang mendadak, merusak, tak terduga. Gabungkan."
These cards are disruptive.
Kartu-kartu ini mengganggu.
Now, they've proved their worth in album after album. The musicians hate them.
Nah, mereka membuktikan potensi mereka dari album ke album. Para musisi membenci mereka.
(Laughter)
(Tawa)
So Phil Collins was playing drums on an early Brian Eno album. He got so frustrated he started throwing beer cans across the studio.
Phil Collins memainkan drum di album awal Brian Eno. Ia frustrasi sampai melempar kaleng bir ke sebrang studio.
Carlos Alomar, great rock guitarist, working with Eno on David Bowie's "Lodger" album, and at one point he turns to Brian and says, "Brian, this experiment is stupid." But the thing is it was a pretty good album, but also, Carlos Alomar, 35 years later, now uses The Oblique Strategies. And he tells his students to use The Oblique Strategies because he's realized something. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't helping you.
Carlos Alomar, gitaris rock yang hebat, bekerja sama dengan Eno pada album David Bowie "Lodger," dan pada suatu saat ia berpaling pada Brian dan berkata, "Brian, percobaan ini bodoh." Tapi masalahnya, album itu cukup bagus. Tapi juga, Carlos Alomar, 35 tahun kemudian, saat ini menggunakan <i>The Oblique Strategies</i> Dan ia menyuruh muridnya menggunakan <i>The Oblique Strategies</i>. karena ia menyadari sesuatu. Hanya karena Anda tak menyukainya bukan berarti tak membantu Anda.
The strategies actually weren't a deck of cards originally, they were just a list -- list on the recording studio wall. A checklist of things you might try if you got stuck.
Strategi itu sebenarnya bukan setumpuk kartu pada awalnya, tapi hanya sebuah daftar -- daftar pada dinding studio rekaman. Hal-hal yang bisa dicoba saat pikiran buntu.
The list didn't work. Know why? Not messy enough. Your eye would go down the list and it would settle on whatever was the least disruptive, the least troublesome, which of course misses the point entirely.
Daftar itu tak berhasil. Tahu sebabnya? Tidak cukup kacau. Mata Anda akan merunut daftarnya dan akan memilih yang paling tak mengganggu, yang masalahnya paling kecil, yang tentunya akan menghilangkan intinya.
And what Brian Eno came to realize was, yes, we need to run the stupid experiments, we need to deal with the awkward strangers, we need to try to read the ugly fonts. These things help us. They help us solve problems, they help us be more creative.
Dan yang Brian Eno sadari adalah, ya, kita perlu melakukan percobaan bodoh, kita perlu berurusan dengan orang asing yang canggung, kita perlu membaca jenis huruf yang buruk. Hal-hal ini membantu kita, membantu kita memecahkan masalah, untuk menjadi lebih kreatif.
But also ... we really need some persuasion if we're going to accept this. So however we do it ... whether it's sheer willpower, whether it's the flip of a card or whether it's a guilt trip from a German teenager, all of us, from time to time, need to sit down and try and play the unplayable piano.
Tapi juga ... kita benar-benar harus dibujuk jika kita akan menjalankannya. Bagaimana pun kita melakukannya... apakah dengan sedikit niat, apakah dengan selembar kartu, atau dengan serombongan anak remaja Jerman, kita semua, dari waktu ke waktu, perlu duduk dan mencoba bermain piano yang rusak.
Thank you.
Terima kasih.
(Applause)
(Tepuk tangan)