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.
Hujung Januari tahun 1975, seorang gadis Jerman berusia 17 tahun bernama Vera Brandes naik ke pentas di Dewan Opera Cologne. Auditorium itu kosong. Ia hanya disinari lampu gelap tanda keluar kecemasan yang malap. Inilah hari yang paling mengujakan dalam hidup Vera. Dia merupakan promoter konsert termuda di Jerman, dan dia telah memujuk Dewan Opera Cologne untuk anjur konsert jazz lewat malam daripada ahli muzik Amerika, Keith Jarrett. 1,400 orang akan datang. Hanya beberapa jam lagi, Jarett akan naik pentas yang sama, dia duduk di piano dan tanpa latihan atau nota muzik, dia akan mula 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."
Namun ketika ini, Vera perkenalkan Keith kepada piano yang dipersoalkan, dan ia tidak lancar. Jarrett lihat instrumen dengan berhati-hati, bermain beberapa nada, berjalan sekelilingnya, bermain beberapa nada lagi, berbisik kepada penerbitnya. Kemudian penerbit datang kepada Vera dan cakap... "Jika awak tak dapatkan piano baru, Keith tak boleh main."
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 berlaku kesilapan. Dewan opera telah sediakan instrumen yang salah. Piano ini berlaras nada tinggi, kasar dan gemercing, kerana kain feltnya sudah lusuh. Nada hitamnya melekat, nada putihnya sumbang, pedalnya tak berfungsi dan piano itu pun terlalu kecil Ia takkan dapat hasilkan bunyi yang memenuhi ruang besar seperti Dewan Opera Cologne.
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."
Lalu Keith Jarrett pergi. Dia keluar dan duduk di dalam kereta, tinggalkan Vera Brandes untuk dapatkan telefon dan cari piano ganti. Dia berjaya dapatkan penala piano, tetapi gagal dapatkan piano baru. Jadi dia keluar dan berdiri dalam hujan, beritahu Keith Jarrett, merayu jangan batalkan konsert. Dia melihat di luar keretanya melihat remaja Jerman yang kusut dan kuyup, kasihan melihatnya, dan cakap, "Jangan lupa...hanya untuk awak."
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.
Lalu beberapa jam kemudian, Jarrett benar-benar keluar naik pentas dewan opera, dia duduk di piano yang tidak boleh dimainkan dan mula.
(Music)
(Muzik)
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.
Sebentar kemudian jelas kedengaran sesuatu yang ajaib berlaku. Jarrett mengelak nada tinggi, dia kekal bermain nada tengah pada kekunci, yang memberikan irama menyenangkan dan persekitaran berkualiti. Serta disebabkan bunyi piano sangat perlahan dia perlu tetapkan sela berulang dan berkeroncong pada bes Dia berdiri memusing, menekan kekunci nada, berusaha keras hasil bunyi cukup kuat untuk hadirin barisan belakang dengar.
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.
Ia adalah persembahan yang menggemparkan. Ia mempunyai kualiti yang tenang, tetapi pada masa yang sama penuh bertenaga, ia dinamik. Hadirin menyukainya. Hadirin terus menyukainya kerana rakaman Konsert Köln merupakan album piano terlaris dijual dalam sejarah dan album solo jazz terlaris dijual dalam 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 telah diberikan sesuatu yang kucar kacir. Dia hadapi kucar kacir, dan ia memuncak. Ayuh fikir seketika tentang naluri awal Jarrett. Dia tidak mahu bermain. Tentulah, saya fikir kita pun, dalam situasi yang hampir sama, akan berperasaan yang sama, kita ada naluri yang sama. Kita tidak mahu diminta buat kerja yang baik dengan alat rosak. Kita tidak mahu lalui halangan yang tidak perlu. Namun naluri Jarrett salah, dan nasib baik dia ubah fikiran. Saya fikir naluri kita juga salah. Saya fikir kita perlu sedikit menghargai kelebihan yang tidak dijangka kerana berhadapan sedikit kucar kacir. Biar saya berikan beberapa contoh dari psikologi kognitif, dari sains yang rumit, dari psikologi sosial, dan tentulah rock 'n' roll.
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.
Mulakan dengan psikologi kognitif. Kita sudah lama tahu yang beberapa jenis kesusahan, beberapa jenis halangan, boleh memperbaiki pencapaian kita. Contohnya, psikologi Daniel Oppenheimer, beberapa tahun lalu, berpasukan dengan guru sekolah menengah. Beliau tanya mereka untuk tukar format edaran yang mereka beri kepada sesetengah kelas mereka. Edaran biasa akan diformat kepada sesuatu yang jelas, seperti Helvetica atau Times New Roman. Sesetengah kelas mendapat edaran yang diformat kepada sesuatu yang rapat, seperti Haettenschweiler, atau sesuatu yang melantun-lantun, seperti italik Comic Sans. Bentuk tulisan ini sangat buruk, dan sukar dibaca. Namun di penghujung semester, pelajar diberikan peperiksaan, dan pelajar yang diminta untuk baca tulisan yang lebih sukar, mendapat pencapaian yang lebih baik, dalam pelbagai subjek. Alasannya adalah, tulisan sukar memperlahankan mereka, buat mereka berusaha lebih kuat, untuk lebih berfikir tentang bahan bacaan mereka, untuk menafsirkannya... dan belajar lebih lagi.
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.
Satu lagi contoh. Psikologi Shelley Carson menguji siswazah Harvard untuk kualiti tapisan perhatian mereka. Apa maksud saya tentang itu? Apa maksud saya, bayangkan anda dalam restoran, anda sedang berbual, ada pelbagai jenis perbualan sedang diutarakan dalam restoran, anda mahu tapiskannya, awak mahu fokus perkara penting bagi anda. Bolehkah anda lakukannya? Jika boleh, anda ada penapis perhatian yang baik dan kuat. Namun sesetengah orang sukar lakukannya. Sesetengah pelajar subjek Carson sukar melakukannya. Mereka mempunyai tapisan lemah, tapisan yang lolos -- membiarkan banyak maklumat luar masuk. Perkara yang dimaksudkan adalah mereka sentiasa diganggu oleh pandangan dan bunyi dunia sekeliling mereka. Jika ada televisyen yang dibuka semasa mereka menulis karangan, mereka tak boleh padamkannya.
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.
Anda mungkin fikir ia adalah kekurangan... tetapi tidak. Apabila Carson melihat pencapaian pelajar-pelajar ini, pelajar yang mempunyai tapisan lemah lebih cenderung dapat tanda aras yang kreatif dalam kehidupan mereka, yang menerbitkan novel pertama mereka, yang lancarkan album pertamanya. Gangguan ini sebenarnya penggiling kepada kilang kreatif mereka. Mereka dapat berfikir di luar kotak kerana otak mereka penuh dengan lubang.
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?
Jom cakap tentang sains yang rumit. Bagaimana anda selesaikan masalah -- dunia penuh masalah rumit -- bagaimana selesai masalah amat rumit?
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.
Contohnya, anda cuba membuat enjin jet. Ada terlalu banyak pembolehubah yang berbeza, suhu kendalian, bahan, semua dimensi yang berbeza, bentuk. Anda tidak boleh selesaikan semua masalah serentak, ia terlalu sukar. Apa yang anda lakukan? Antara yang anda boleh buat ialah selesaikan satu demi satu. Anda ada prototaip anda pulas, anda uji dan anda perbaiki. Anda pulas, anda uji, anda perbaiki. Saranan perolehan yang kecil akhirnya memberikan enjin jet yang baik. Ia telah dilaksanakan secara meluas di dunia. Contohnya, anda dengar tentangnya dalam berbasikal berprestasi tinggi, pereka web akan bercakap cara mengoptimumkan laman web, mereka mencari hasil langkah demi langkah.
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.
Ia satu cara baik untuk selesaikan masalah rumit. Namun anda tahu cara membuatkannya lebih baik? Sedikit kucar kacir. Anda tambah secara rawak, di awal proses, anda buat gerak yang gila, anda cuba perkara bodoh yang tidak berkesan, dan ia akan buat tugas selesai masalah lebih baik. Ia disebabkan masalah dengan proses langkah demi langkah, perolehan yang kecil, adalah ia boleh membawa anda hingga ke jalan mati. Jika anda mula dengan rawak, ia kurang terjadi, serta penyelasaian masalah menjadi lebih kukuh.
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.
Bercakap tentang psikologi sosial. Ahli psikologi Katherine Phillips bersama rakan sekerjanya, baru-baru ini beri masalah misteri pembunuhan kepada beberapa pelajar, dan pelajar ini terdiri daripada empat orang sekumpulan dan mereka diberikan dosir berserta maklumat tentang satu jenayah -- alibi dan bukti, penyataan saksi serta tiga orang disyaki. Kumpulan pelajar berempat diminta untuk mendedahkan pelakunya, yang melakukan jenayah. Ada dua perlakuan dalam eksperimen ini. Sesetengah adalah empat orang rakan, mereka saling mengenali. Sesetengah yang lain, tiga kawan dan seorang orang asing. Anda boleh teka ayat 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.
Sudah tentu saya akan cakap kumpulan bersama orang asing selesaikan masalah lebih efektif, benar, mereka efektif. Sebenarnya mereka selesai masalah dengan sangat efektif. Jadi kumpulan yang empat rakan, mereka hanya ada peluang 50-50 menjawab dengan betul. Bukanlah hebat sangat -- soalan pelbagai pilihan, tiga jawapan? 50-50 tidak bagus.
(Laughter)
(Ketawa)
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 rakan dan seorang asing, walaupun orang asing tidak ada maklumat tambahan, walaupun ia hanya satu kes bagaimana ia mengubah perbualan untuk sesuaikan kejanggalan, tiga rakan dan orang asing, mereka ada 75 peratus peluang menemui jawapan betul. Ia satu pencapaian yang besar.
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.
Namun paling menarik adalah bukan sekadar tiga rakan dan seorang asing lebih baik, namun perasaan mereka. Apabila Katherine Phillips temuramah kumpulan rakan berempat, mereka berseronok, mereka juga fikir mereka lakukan tugas yang baik. Mereka selesa. Apabila beliau temuduga tiga rakan dan seorang asing, mereka tidak berseronok -- ia sebenarnya agak sukar, agak janggal... dan mereka penuh ragu-ragu. Mereka tak fikir buat tugas dengan baik sedangkan sebaliknya. Ia benar-benar menunjukkan cabaran 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.
Kerana, ya -- tulisan yang hodoh, orang asing yang janggal, tindakan rawak... gangguan ini membantu kita selesaikan masalah, ia bantu kita jadi lebih kreatif. Namun kita tak rasa ia membantu kita. Kita rasa ia menyusahkan kita... lalu kita menentangnya. Sebab itu 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.
Jadi saya mahu cerita tentang seseorang dari latar belakang dunia rock 'n' roll. Anda mungkin mengenalinya, beliau seorang ahli TED. Namanya Brian Eno. Beliau seorang komposer ambien -- seorang yang hebat juga.
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.
Dia juga seorang pencetus kepada beberapa album rock 'n' roll yang hebat sejak 40 tahun lalu. Dia bekerjasama dengan David Bowie untuk lagu "Heroes,", bersama U2 untuk "Achtung Baby" dan "The Joshua Tree," dia berkerjasama dengan DEVO, bekerja dengan Coldplay, bekerja dengan 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.
Apa yang dia lakukan untuk buat kumpulan rock ini lebih baik? Dia buat kacau bilau. Dia ganggu proses kreatif mereka. Peranannya menjadi orang asing yang janggal. Peranannya untuk beritahu mereka perlu main piano yang rosak.
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.
Salah satu cara dia wujudkan gangguan ini adalah dengan set kad yang hebat ini -- Saya ada kad yang ditandangani -- terima kasih, Brian. Mereka gelar Strategi Miring, dia cipta bersama seorang rakannya. Ketika mereka buntu dalam studio, Brian Eno akan capai salah satu kad. Dia akan ambil secara rawak, dan dia buat kumpulan tersebut ikut arahan pada kad.
So this one ... "Change instrument roles." Yeah, everyone swap instruments -- Drummer on the piano -- Brilliant, brilliant idea.
Kad yang ini... "Ubah peranan instrumen." Ya, semua orang tukar instrumen -- Pemain dram ke piano-- Idea yang sangat, sangat bijak.
"Look closely at the most embarrassing details. Amplify them."
"Lihat dengan teliti perincian paling memalukan. Kuatkannya."
"Make a sudden, destructive, unpredictable action. Incorporate."
"Lakukan tindakan mengejut, merosakkan dan luar jangkaan. Gabungkan."
These cards are disruptive.
Kad ini memporak peranda.
Now, they've proved their worth in album after album. The musicians hate them.
Sekarang, ia buktikan nilainya dari satu album ke satu album. Ahli muzik bencikannya.
(Laughter)
(Ketawa)
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 bermain dram dalam album Brian Eno terdahulu. Dia rasa kesal dan mula baling tin bir ke hujung 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, pemain gitar rock yang hebat, bekerjasama dengan Eno untuk album "Lodger" David Bowie, dan pada satu ketika dia pusing kepada Brian dan cakap, "Brian, eksperimen ini bodoh." Tetapi album itu agak bagus, malah, 35 tahun kemudian, Carlos Alomar kini gunakan Strategi Miring. Dia beritahu pelajarnya untuk guna Strategi Miring kerana dia sedar sesuatu. Hanya kerana anda tidak suka, tidak bermaksud ia tidak membantu.
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 ini bukanlah satu set dekad pada mulanya, ia hanya satu senarai -- ditulis pada dinding studio rakaman. Satu senarai semak perkara yang boleh dicuba jika 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.
Senarai itu tak berkesan. Nak tahu kenapa? Tidak cukup serabut. Mata anda akan mengikut senarai dan pilih yang paling kurang porak peranda, paling tidak leceh, dan tentulah hilang tujuan sebenar.
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.
Perkara yang Brian Eno sedar adalah, ya, kita perlu jalankan eksperimen bodoh, kita perlu hadapi orang asing yang janggal, kita perlu cuba baca tulisan hodoh. Perkara ini membantu kita. Bantu kita selesai masalah, bantu kita 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.
Juga... kita memang perlukan sedikit pujukan jika kita mahu menerimanya. Apapun cara kita buat... samada dengan tekad sendiri, samada dengan selakan kad atau lawatan serba salah dari seorang remaja Jerman, kita semua, dari semasa ke semasa, perlu duduk dan cuba mainkan piano yang tidak boleh dimainkan.
Thank you.
Terima kasih.
(Applause)
(Tepukan)