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.
Koncom januára v roku 1975 17-ročná Nemka Vera Brandesová vystúpila na pódium kolínskej opery. Hľadisko bolo prázdne. Osvetľovalo ho iba tlmené zelené označenie únikových východov. Bol to najvzrušujúcejší deň Verinho života. V Nemecku bola najmladšou usporiadateľkou koncertov a podarilo sa jej presvedčiť kolínsku operu, aby uviedla večerný jazzový koncert amerického hudobníka, Keitha Jaretta. Malo naň prísť 1400 ľudí. A už o pár hodín mal Jarrett vystúpiť na rovnaké pódium, posadiť sa za klavír a bez skúšky či nôt mal začať hrať.
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."
No práve v tej chvíli Vera predstavovala Keithovi operný klavír, čo neprebiehalo najlepšie. Jarrett sa na klavír prezieravo zadíval, zahral pár tónov, obišiel ho, opäť zahral niekoľko tónov, čosi zamrmlal svojmu producentovi. Ten prišiel k Vere a povedal: „Musíte zabezpečiť nový klavír, inak Keith nemôže hrať.“
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.
Stala sa chyba. Operný dom poskytol zlý nástroj. Tento pri vysokých tónoch vydával ostrý, plechový zvuk, lebo plsť kladiviek bola opotrebovaná. Čierne klávesy sa zadrhávali, biele boli rozladené, pedále nefungovali a celkovo bol klavír príliš malý. Nehral dosť nahlas na to, aby naplnil rozľahlú kolínsku operu.
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."
A tak Keith Jarrett odišiel. Vyšiel von a sadol si do auta, kým sa Vera Brandes snažila telefonicky vybaviť náhradný klavír. Zohnala ladiča klavírov, ale nový klavír nie. Vyšla teda von, stála tam v daždi pred Keithom Jarrettom a prosila ho, aby koncert nezrušil. Díval sa cez okno auta na zablatenú a premoknutú mladučkú Nemku, zľutoval sa nad ňou a povedal: „Nikdy nezabudni... len kvôli tebe.“
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.
A tak o pár hodín Jarret skutočne vystúpil na operné pódium, posadil sa za nemožný klavír a začal hrať.
(Music)
(hudba)
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.
Behom chvíľky bolo zrejmé, že sa deje niečo kúzelné. Jarrett sa vyhýbal vysokým tónom, držal sa prostredných klávesov, čo skladbu robilo nadľahčenou a upokojujúcou. A preto, že klavír hral tak potichu, musel do nej zakomponovať aj opakované dunivé riffy. Dokonca vstal, zvŕtal sa, udieral do klávesov, zúfalo sa snažil hrať tak nahlas, aby ho dobre počuli aj v zadných radoch.
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.
Je to úchvatné predstavenie. Má to v sebe čosi upokojujúce a zároveň je to plné energie, má to šťavu. Obecenstvo si to zamilovalo. A miluje to dodnes, nahrávka z koncertu v Kolíne je totiž najpredávanejším klavírnym albumom a najpredávanejším sólovým jazzovým albumom v histórii.
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.
Keitha Jarretta postavili pred prekážku. On ju prijal a vyšlo to. Na chvíľu sa však zamyslime nad Jarrettovým prvotným inštinktom. Nechcel hrať. Samozrejme, myslím, že každý z nás by sa v podobnej situácii cítil takisto, mali by sme rovnaký inštinkt. Nechceme podávať dobrý výkon so zlými nástrojmi. Ak nemusíme, nechceme prekonávať zbytočné prekážky. No Jarrettov inštinkt nebol správny, a chvalabohu si to rozmyslel. Myslím, že aj náš inštinkt je nesprávny. Podľa mňa by sme mali byť vďačnejší za nečakané výhody plynúce z toho, že si musíme poradiť s menším chaosom. Uvediem niekoľko príkladov z kognitívnej psychológie, z komplexných vied, zo sociálnej psychológie a prirodzene aj z rock 'n' rollu.
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.
Tak najprv kognitívna psychológia. V podstate už nejaký čas vieme, že isté druhy ťažkostí, určité typy prekážok, môžu náš výkon zlepšiť. Napríklad, psychológ Daniel Oppenheimer začal pred pár rokmi spolupracovať so stredoškolskými učiteľmi. Požiadal ich, aby upravili učebné materiály, čo dávali svojim študentom. Učebné materiály zvyčajne majú ľahko čitateľné písmo, povedzme Helvetica alebo Times New Roman. Polovica tried však dostávala podklady s výrazným typom písma, ako Haettenschweiler alebo zábavným, napríklad Comic Sans kurzívou. Sú to naozaj škaredé typy písma a dosť ťažko sa čítajú. No na konci školského roka študentov čakali skúšky a tí, ktorí boli nútení čítať náročnejšie typy písma, ich urobili lepšie, a to z rozličných predmetov. Dôvodom je, že obtiažne písmo ich spomalilo, prinútilo ich vynaložiť trochu viac síl, trochu viac rozmýšľať nad tým, čo čítajú, pochopiť význam, a tak sa naučili viac.
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.
Iný príklad. Psychologička Shelley Carsonová testovala na harvardských študentoch kvalitu ich pozornostných filtrov. Čo mám na mysli? Predstavte si, že ste s niekým v reštaurácii, rozprávate sa, súčasne v reštaurácii prebieha mnoho ďalších rozhovorov, snažíte sa ich vyfiltrovať a sústrediť sa na to, čo je pre vás dôležité. Dokážete to? Ak áno, máte dobrý a silný pozornostný filter. Niektorí ľudia s tým však naozaj bojujú. Aj niektorí z Carsonovej vysokoškolských subjektov s tým bojovali. Mali slabé, priepustné filtre. Vpúšťali množstvo vonkajších informácií. To znamená, že boli neustále vyrušovaní vnemami a zvukmi okolitého sveta. Keby mali pri písaní eseje zapnutú televíziu, nedokázali by si ju nevšímať.
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.
Mohlo by sa vám zdať, že je to nevýhoda... ale nie je. Keď sa Carsonová pozrela na to, čo títo študenti dosiahli, tí so slabými filtrami s väčšou pravdepodobnosťou v živote dosiahli nejaký kreatívny míľnik, vydali svoj prvý román, vydali debutový album. Rozptyly pôsobili ako voda na ich mlyn kreativity. V hlave im vírili zvláštne nápady, lebo ich filter bol zavírený.
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?
Poďme na komplexné vedy. Ako vyriešite komplikovaný – svet je plný zložitých problémov – ako teda vyriešite naozaj zložitý problém?
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.
Povedzme, že sa snažíte vyrobiť prúdový motor. Narazíte na mnoho rôznych premenných, ako prevádzková teplota, materiál, rozličné rozmery, tvar. Takýto problém nemôžete vyriešiť naraz. Je to príliš ťažké. Čo teda urobíte? Jednou možnosťou je skúsiť na to prísť krok za krokom. Čiže máte nejaký prototyp, doladíte ho, otestujete ho, vylepšíte ho. Doladíte, otestujete, vylepšíte. Drobné pokroky vás nakoniec dovedú k dobrému prúdovému motoru. Podobný postup sa dnes využíva takmer všade. Môžete o ňom počuť napríklad pri rýchlostnej cyklistike, tvorcovia web stránok hovoria o optimalizácii web stránok, usilujú sa o tieto postupné pokroky.
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.
Je to dobrý spôsob, ako vyriešiť zložitý problém. Ale viete, čo by ho ešte vylepšilo? Štipka chaosu. Necháte to na náhodu hneď na začiatku, urobíte bláznivý krok, skúsite niečo strelené, čo by nemalo fungovať, a to môže pomôcť lepšiemu riešeniu problémov. Problém pri riešení problému krok za krokom, pri postupných pokrokoch, je v tom, že vás postupne môžu priviesť do slepej uličky. Ak však začnete náhodne, je to menej pravdepodobné a riešenie vášho problému sa stáva istejším.
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.
Poďme na sociálnu psychológiu. Psychologička Katherine Phillipsová a jej kolegovia dali študentom vyriešiť prípady záhadných vrážd. Študentov rozdelili do 4-členných skupín a dali im spisy s informáciami o zločine – alibi, dôkazy, výpovede svedkov, traja podozriví. Požiadali 4-členné skupinky, aby zistili, kto to urobil, kto spáchal zločin. Do experimentu však boli zapojené dvojaké skupinky. V niektorých boli štyria kamaráti, ktorí sa navzájom dobre poznali. V iných boli traja kamaráti a jeden neznámy. Asi už viete, kam tým smerujem.
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.
Zjavne sa chystám povedať, že skupinky s neznámym vyriešili problém efektívnejšie. Je to naozaj tak. Vlastne problém vyriešili omnoho efektívnejšie. Skupinky štyroch kamarátov mali len 50 % šancu prísť na správnu odpoveď, čo vlastne nie je veľká šanca. Ak máte vybrať z troch možností, 50 na 50 nestačí.
(Laughter)
(smiech)
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.
Traja kamaráti a neznámy, hoci neznámy nemal žiadnu informáciu navyše a šlo len o to, ako zmenili konverzáciu, aby sa vyrovnali s rozpakmi, tí traja kamaráti a neznámy mali 75 % šancu zistiť správnu odpoveď. To je výrazný posun vpred.
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.
Čo je ale ešte zaujímavejšie než to, že kamaráti s neznámym podali lepší výkon, je to, ako sa pri tom cítili. Keď sa na to Katherine Phillipsová pýtala skupinky štyroch kamarátov, tvrdili, že sa cítili príjemne a mysleli si, že odviedli dobrú prácu. Boli nadmieru spokojní. Keď sa rozprávala s tromi kamarátmi a neznámym, necítili sa dobre. „Bolo to dosť ťažké, bolo to divné...“ A boli plní pochybností. Nemali pocit, že by podali dobrý výkon, aj keď to tak bolo. Myslím, že toto krásne znázorňuje výzvu, s ktorou sa tu stretávame.
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.
Lebo – škaredé písmo, podivný neznámy, náhodný krok... tieto narušenia nám pomáhajú riešiť problémy a stať sa tvorivejším. My však necítime, že by nám pomáhali. Máme pocit, že nám stoja v ceste... tak sa im bránime. Preto je posledný príklad veľmi dôležitý.
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.
Chcem vám povedať o niekom zo zákulisného sveta rock 'n' rollu. Možno ho poznáte, vlastne je to TED-ster. Volá sa Brian Eno. Skladá upokojujúcu hudbu, je vynikajúci.
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.
A je akýmsi katalyzátorom niektorých najväčších rock 'n' rollových albumov za posledných 40 rokov. Pracoval s Davidom Bowiem na Heroes, pracoval s U2 na Achtung Baby a The Joshua Tree, robil so skupinou DEVO, pracoval s Coldplay, pracoval s každým.
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.
Čo robí, aby vylepšil tieto rockové kapely? Spôsobuje chaos. Narúša ich tvorivé procesy. Jeho úlohou je byť podivným neznámym. Jeho úlohou je povedať im, že musia hrať na nemožnom klavíri.
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.
Jedným zo spôsobov, ako ten chaos vyvoláva, je tento pozoruhodný balíček kariet. Mám so sebou podpísanú kópiu – ďakujem, Brian. Volajú sa Uhýbavé stratégie, vymyslel ich so svojím kamarátom. Keď sa niekedy v štúdiu zaseknú, Brian Eno siahne po jednej z kariet. Náhodne jednu vyberie a kapela musí postupovať podľa inštrukcií na karte.
So this one ... "Change instrument roles." Yeah, everyone swap instruments -- Drummer on the piano -- Brilliant, brilliant idea.
Napríklad táto... „Vymeňte si nástroje.“ Tak si vymenia nástroje. Bubeník hrá na klavíri... Úžasný nápad.
"Look closely at the most embarrassing details. Amplify them."
„Zamerajte sa na najtrápnejšie detaily. Zvýraznite ich.“
"Make a sudden, destructive, unpredictable action. Incorporate."
„Urobte niečo náhle, deštruktívne, nepredvídané. Zapracujte to.“
These cards are disruptive.
Tieto karty spôsobujú chaos.
Now, they've proved their worth in album after album. The musicians hate them.
No album za albumom dokazoval, že majú význam. Hudobníci ich nenávidia.
(Laughter)
(smiech)
So Phil Collins was playing drums on an early Brian Eno album. He got so frustrated he started throwing beer cans across the studio.
Takže na prvom albume Briana Ena hral na bubny Phil Collins. Bol z toho taký frustrovaný, že po štúdiu hádzal plechovky od piva.
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, skvelý rockový gitarista, robil s Enom na albume Davida Bowieho, Lodger, a v istej chvíli sa otočí k Brianovi a vraví: „Brian, je to fakt blbý experiment.“ Ide však o to, že je to vážne dobrý album, a tiež, že Carlos Alomar, o 35 rokov neskôr, sám používa Uhýbavé stratégie. A hovorí svojim študentom, aby ich používali, lebo si niečo uvedomil. Len preto, že sa vám to nepáči, neznamená to, že vám to nepomáha.
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.
Pôvodne však tieto stratégie neboli vo forme kariet, bol to len zoznam. Zoznam na stene nahrávacieho štúdia, zoznam vecí, čo môžete skúsiť, keď vám dôjdu nápady.
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.
Ale zoznam nefungoval. Viete prečo? Málo chaotické. Vaše oko by prebehlo zoznam a zakotvilo by na najjednoduchšej vete, najmenej problematickej, čo samozrejme úplne stráca význam.
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.
Brian Eno si teda uvedomil, áno, musíme robiť tieto blbé experimenty, musíme si poradiť s podivnými neznámymi, musíme sa snažiť čítať škaredé písma. To nám pomáha. Pomáhajú nám riešiť problémy, pomáhajú nám byť kreatívnejší.
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.
A taktiež... potrebujeme nejaké presvedčenie, ak to príjmeme. Nech to spravíme akokoľvek... či už silou vôle, alebo je to zvrat kariet, či výčitky svedomia nemeckej tínedžerky, každý z nás si občas musí sadnúť a snažiť sa hrať na nemožnom klavíri.
Thank you.
Ďakujem.
(Applause)
(potlesk)