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.
Poznog januara 1975, 17-ogodišnja Nemica, po imenu Vera Brandes, se popela na scenu operske kuće u Kelnu. Sala je bila prazna. Jedino ju je obasjavala prigušena, zelena svetlost znaka za izlaz u slučaju opasnosti. To je bio najuzbudljiviji dan u Verinom životu. Bila je najmlađi organizator koncerata u Nemačkoj i ubedila je opersku kuću u Kelnu da bude domaćin kasno večernjem džez koncertu američkog muzičara Kita Džareta. Trebalo je da dođe 1400 ljudi. A samo za nekoliko sati Džaret će išetati na istu scenu, sešće za klavir i bez proba ili partitura počeće da svira.
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."
Međutim u tom momentu, Vera je pokazivala Kitu o kom klaviru se radilo i nešto tu nije štimalo. Džaret je posmatrao instrument pomalo oprezno, odsvirao je nekolike note, obišao ga, odsvirao još nekolike note, promrmljao nešto svom producentu. Potom je producent prišao Veri i rekao: "Ako ne nabaviš novi klavir, Kit neće moći da svira."
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.
Došlo je do greške. Operska kuća je obezbedila pogrešan instrument. Ovaj je imao grub, zveketav gornji registar jer se sav filc izlizao. Crne dirke su se lepile, bele su bile raštimovane, pedale nisu radile, a sam klavir je bio suviše mali. Ne bi mogao da stvori zvuk koji bi ispunio veliki prostor poput operske kuće u Kelnu.
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."
Pa je Kit Džaret otišao. Izašao je napolje i seo u svoj automobil, ostavljajući Veru Brandes da preko telefona pokuša da nađe zamenski klavir. Sad, dobila je klavirskog štimera, ali nije mogla da dobije novi klavir. Pa je izašla napolje i tu je stajala na kiši, razgovarajući s Kitom Džaretom, moleći ga da ne otkaže koncert. On je pogledao iz automobila u ovu jadnu, pokvašenu nemačku tinejdžerku, sažalio se na nju i rekao: "Nikad ne zaboravi... samo zbog 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.
I nekoliko sati kasnije, Džaret je uistinu zakoračio na scenu operske kuće, seo je za nefunkcionalan klavir i počeo.
(Music)
(Muzika)
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.
Za nekoliko trenutaka postalo je jasno da se nešto čarobno dešava. Džaret je izbegavao gornje registre, držao se srednjih tonova na klavijaturi, što je komadu dalo umirujući, ambijentalni kvalitet. Ali takođe, jer je klavir bio tako tih, morao je da podesi te tutnjave, ponavljajuće bas rifove. I on je stajao uvijajući se, lupajući po dirkama, očajnički se trudeći da stvori dovoljno snažan zvuk koji bi čuli oni u pozadini.
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.
To je uzbudljiv nastup. Nekako poseduje spokojan kvalitet i istovremeno je pun energije, dinamičan je. A publici se svideo. Publika ga i dan danas voli jer je snimak kelnskog koncerta najprodavaniji klavirski album u istoriji i najprodavaniji džez solo album u istoriji.
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.
Kita Džareta je zapao nered. On je prigrlio taj nered i vinuo se. No, razmišljajmo na kratko o Džaretovom prvobitnom instinktu. Nije želeo da svira. Naravno, verujem da bi se bilo ko od nas, u iole sličnoj situaciji, osećao na isti način, imali bismo isti instinkt. Ne želimo da zahtevaju od nas da radimo dobro lošim alatom. Ne želimo da budemo prinuđeni da savladavamo nepotrebne prepreke. Ali Džaretov instinkt je bio pogrešan, i hvala bogu da se predomislio. I verujem da i naš instinkt greši. Smatram da moramo više da cenimo neočekivane prednosti izlaženja na kraj s malo nereda. Dozvolite da vam dam neke primere iz kognitivne psihologije, iz kompleksne nauke, iz socijalne psihologije i naravno iz rokenrola.
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.
Dakle, počećemo kognitivnom psihologijom. Već neko vreme nam je poznato da određeni tipovi poteškoća, određeni vidovi prepreka, mogu zapravo da poprave našu učinkovitost. Na primer, psiholog Danijel Openhajmer se pre nekoliko godina udružio s nastavnicima iz srednje škole. Tražio je od njih da promene font skripti, koje daju na nekim svojim časovima. Obične skripte imaju prilično jednostavan font, poput helvetike ili tajms nju romana. Međutim polovina ovih odeljenja je dobijala skripte formatirane nešto intenzivnije, poput hatenšvajlera ili nešto razigranije, poput italik verzije komik sansa. Sad, ovo su zaista gadni fontovi i teško ih je čitati. Međutim, na kraju polugođa, đaci su imali ispite i oni đaci od kojih je zahtevano da čitaju teže fontove su zapravo bolje prošli na ispitima iz niza predmeta. A razlog za to je: teški font ih je usporavao, terao ih je da se malo više trude, da razmišljaju više o onome što su čitali, da to tumače... te su tako više učili.
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.
Još jedan primer. Psihološkinja Šeli Karson je testirala studente na Harvardu iz kvaliteta njihovih filtera za pažnju. Šta pod time podrazumevam? To znači, zamislite da ste u restoranu razgovarate, razni se drugi razgovori vode u restoranu, želećete da ih filtrirate, želećete da se usredsredite na ono što je vama važno. Možete li to da uradite? Ako možete, imate dobre, snažne filtere za pažnju. Međutim nekim ljudima je to teško. Nekim Karsoninim studentima je to bilo teško. Imali su slabe filtere, imali su porozne filtere - koji su propuštali mnogo informacija spolja. A to je značilo da su stalno bili ometani prizorima i zvucima iz sveta koji ih okružuje. Ako je televizija bila uključena dok bi radili eseje, nisu mogli da je ignorišu.
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.
E sad, pomislili biste da je to nedostatak... ali nije. Kada je Karson pogledala šta su ovi studenti postigli, oni sa slabijim filterima su uveliko bili skoloniji nekim istinski kreativnim prekretnicama u njihovim životima: objavili su svoj prvi roman, objavili svoj prvi album. Ova ometanja su zapravo bila žito u njihovom kreativnom mlinu. Bili su u stanju da misle van kalupa jer su njihovi kalupi bili puni rupa.
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?
Razgovarajmo o kompleksnoj nauci. Kako da rešite zaista složen problem - svet je pun komplikovanih problema - kako da rešite uistinu komplikovan problem?
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.
Na primer, pokušavate da napravite mlazni motor. Imate gomile i gomile različitih varijabli, temperaturu rada, materijale, sve te različite dimenzije, oblik. Ne možete rešiti takav problem u jednom pokušaju, isuviše je težak. Pa šta da radite? Pa, možete jedno da uradite, da pokušate da ga rešite korak po korak. Dakle, imate nekakav prototip i podešavate ga, testirate ga, poboljšavate ga. Podešavate ga, testirate ga, poboljšavate ga. Sad, ova zamisao o marginalnoj dobiti će vam vremenom doneti dobar mlazni motor. I prilično je široko primenjivana u svetu. Pa ćete čuti za nju, na primer, u profesionalnom biciklizmu, veb dizajneri govore o pokušaju optimizacije svojih veb strana, traže te postupne dobiti.
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.
To je dobar način da rešite komplikovan problem. Ali znate koji bi bio bolji način? Mala količina nereda. Dodate nasumičnost, rano u postupku, pravite lude pokrete, isprobavate gluposti koje neće funkcionisati i zahvaljujući tome rešavanje problema bolje uspeva. A razlog za to je što je problem s postupnim procesom, s marginalnim dobitima, što vas postupno mogu dovesti u ćorsokak. A ako započnete nasumičnošću to postaje manje verovatno i vaše rešavanje problema postaje spretnije.
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.
Razgovarajmo o psihologiji društva. Dakle, psihološkinja Ketrin Filips je s nekim kolegama nedavno zadala nekim studentima krimi misteriju, a studenti su okupljeni u četvoročlane grupe i dati su im dosijei s informacijama o zločinu - alibiji i dokazi, izjave svedoka i tri osumnjičena. A od tih četvoročlanih grupa je traženo da otkriju ubicu, počinioca zločina. U ovom eksperimentu se postupalo dvojako. U nekim slučajevima se radilo o četiri prijatelja, svi su se poznavali veoma dobro. U drugim slučajevima, bila su tri prijatelja i stranac. I naslućujete na šta ciljam ovim.
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.
Očigledno ću da kažem da su grupe sa strancem efikasnije rešile problem, što je istina, jesu. Zapravo su rešili problem daleko efikasnije. Dakle, grupe sa četiri prijatelja, su imale samo šansu 50-50 da dođu do tačnog rešenja. Što i nije tako sjajno - višestruki izbor za tri pitanja? 50-50 nije dobro.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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.
Tri prijatelja i stranac, iako stranac nije imao nikakve dodatne informacije, iako je to prosto bio slučaj o tome kako to menja razgovor da bi se prilagodilo neprijatnosti, tri prijatelja i stranac, imali su 75 posto šanse da otkriju pravo rešenje. To je priličan skok u učinkovitosti.
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.
Ali smatram da je zaista zanimljivo, ne samo to da su tri prijatelja i stranac bolje odradili posao, već kako su se osećali zbog toga. Pa kad je Ketrin Filips intervjuisala grupe od četiri prijatelja, bilo im je lepo, i smatrali su da su dobro odradili posao. Bili su zadovoljni. Kada je razgovarala s tri prijatelja i strancem, njima nije bilo lepo - zapravo je prilično teško, prilično čudno... i bili su ispunjeni sumnjom. Nisu smatrali da su odradilii dobro posao, iako jesu. I smatram da to zaista predočava izazov s kojim se ovde suočavamo.
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.
Jer, da - gadni font, čudni stranac, nasumični pokret... ovi poremećaji nam pomažu u rešavanju problema, pomažu nam da budemo kreativniji. Međutim, ne osećamo da nam pomažu. Osećamo da nam stoje na putu... pa se zato opiremo. I zato je poslednji primer zaista važan.
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.
Želim da vam pričam o nekome sa iskustvom u svetu rokenrola. Možda ga poznajete, on je zapravo TED-ovac. Zove se Brajan Ino. On je ambijentalni kompozitor - krajnje briljantan.
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.
Takođe je poput katalizatora iza nekih od najuspešnijih rok albuma u poslednjih 40 godina. Sarađivao je s Dejvidom Bouvijem na albumu "Heroes", sarađivao je s U2 na "Achtung Baby" i na "The Joshua Tree", sarađivao je s DEVO-m, Sarađivao je s Koldplejom, sarađivao je sa svima.
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.
A šta on radi da bi učinio ove rok bendove boljim? Pa, pravi nered. Remeti njihove kreativne procese. Njegova uloga je da bude čudni stranac. Njegova je uloga da im kaže da moraju da sviraju na nefunkcionalnom klaviru.
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.
A jedan od načina na koji ih ometa je putem ovog neverovatnog špila karata - ovo je moj primerak s potpisom - hvala ti, Brajane. Zovu ih indirektnim strategijama, a razvio ih je sa njegovim prijateljem. Kada zaglave u studiju, Brajan Ino poseže za jednom od karata. Izvlači nasumice jednu i tera bend da prati uputstva s karte.
So this one ... "Change instrument roles." Yeah, everyone swap instruments -- Drummer on the piano -- Brilliant, brilliant idea.
Na ovoj piše... "Promenite instrumente." Da, svako menja instrumente - bubnjar prelazi za klavir - Briljantna, briljantna ideja.
"Look closely at the most embarrassing details. Amplify them."
"Pažljivo osmotrite najsramotnije delove. Naglasite ih."
"Make a sudden, destructive, unpredictable action. Incorporate."
"Napravite iznenadan, štetan, nepredvidljiv pokret. Uvrstite ga."
These cards are disruptive.
Ove karte ometaju.
Now, they've proved their worth in album after album. The musicians hate them.
Sad, dokazale su svoju vrednost na albumu za albumom. Muzičari ih mrze.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
So Phil Collins was playing drums on an early Brian Eno album. He got so frustrated he started throwing beer cans across the studio.
Dakle, Fil Kolins je svirao bubnjeve na jednom ranom albumu Brajana Inoa. Toliko se iznervirao da je počeo da baca limenke piva po studiju.
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.
Karlos Alomar, veliki rok gitarista, sarađivao je s Inom na albumu Dejvida Bouvija "Lodger" i u jednom trenutku se okrenuo Brajanu i rekao: "Brajane, ovaj eksperiment je glup." Međutim radi se o tome da je to veoma dobar album, ali takođe, Karlos Alomar, 35 godina kasnije sada koristi indirektne strategije. I govori svojim studentima da koriste indirektne strategije jer je shvatio nešto. Samo zato što vam se nešto ne sviđa, ne znači da vam ne pomaže.
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.
Strategije prvobitno nisu bile špil karata, prosto su bile lista - lista na zidu studija za snimanje. Spisak stvari koje možete da isprobate kad ste u škripcu.
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.
Lista nije funkcionisala. Znate li zašto? Nije bila dovoljno neuredna. Vaše oko bi prešlo preko liste i zapelo bi na nečemu što najmanje ometa, što je najmanje problematično, što naravno u potpunosti promašuje poentu.
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.
A Brajan Ino je shvatio da moramo da sprovodimo glupe eksperimente, moramo da se bavimo čudnim strancima, moramo da pokušamo da čitamo gadne fontove. Ove stvari nam pomažu. Pomažu da rešimo probleme, pomažu nam da budemo kreativniji.
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.
Ali takođe... zaista nam je potrebno ubeđivanje da bismo ovo prihvatili. Pa kako god da to uradimo... bilo pukom snagom volje, bilo okretanjem karte ili zamkom krivice nemačke tinejdžerke, svi mi, s vremena na vreme, moramo da sednemo i pokušamo da sviramo na nefunkcionalnom klaviru.
Thank you.
Hvala vam.
(Applause)
(Aplauz)