cerebral vs. non-cerebral art/music.

It irks me a bit that 20th/21st century music has become so distinctly divisive amongst artists and musicians - why must cerebral and non-cerebral music be so absolutely mutually-exclusive in the performance world? Does post-modernism necessarily negate the veracity of post-serialism, or for that matter, vice-versa? If one enjoys Carter, must that distinctly and directly affect one's appreciation for John Adams or Terry Riley? Must all expressionists idealogy conflict with neo-romanticism and tonality in general? I don't entirely understand.

Camps. I don't like camps, but it's impossible to escape them. I don't mean summer camps, but rather schools of thought. Marlboro and Chamber Music Society of Lincoln Center for example, are known for "championing" 20th and 21st century music, yet the only realm of thought in the programming seems to be based in Elliot Carter, Ralph Shapey, Charles Wuorinen, Mario Davidovsky, Milton Babbitt and the like. What happened to post-modernism, aleatoric music, minimalism, and the avant-garde? (Sorry, Mikey)

I don't like to view my own mind-frame as falling into either of these respective camps, particularly since I enjoy both types of music. To fall into a camp (I feel) is intellectually oppressive and altogether limiting an entire breadth of emotional humanity in art.

Cerebral music.

Pros: Generally, extremely complex and more often than not, absolute (as opposed to programmatic). Explores sonority, organization, and structure in a realm that entirely eliminates the hierarchy of pitch. Extreme freedom from tonality and usually based in an intellectual demonstration of complex rhythm patterns, mathematical phasing of sets, etc. Luigi Nono; experimentation with the use of rhythmic pattern set to match the Fibonacci series; to arguably create a tangible connection between the complexity of music/art and basic human function to an audience's ear. Carter; metric modulation and musical set theory. Babbitt; combinatoriality and time-point.

Cons: Intellectually oppressive (a minimalist's and Dadaist's complaint). Disconnected from a direct programmatic meaning, since absolute music "means" nothing, per se. It would be impossible for a cerebral composer to write, for example, a eulogy or symphonic work of much heartfelt meaning and effect on say, the tragedy of 9/11. For that, you need a John Adams or an Arvo Part to give you the transmigration of souls in musical simplicity.

Post-modern non-cerebral music.

Pros: Easily accessible and generally based in simplicity. Minimalism, for an example, was a direct counter-attack to expressionism, claiming it was for the most part, intellectually-oppressive (I keep using this term like I agree with it - I really don't). Usually programmatic, sometimes tonal, always inventive. Also, FUN (this is key). Dadaism and Fluxus for example, were formed on the rebellious pretense that logic, reason, structure, and cerebral thought had basically lead our society to destruction and war. Non-cerebral music carries with it, meaning and subtext - and definitely something to talk about.

Cons: Is it art? This question always comes up. Fluxus, for example, is pretty much attacked by every non-artist who reads about it. Minimalism can be a bore. Many times, post-modernism and the avant-garde go too far into a laughable territory that affects the reputations of not only the artist, but those of us performers and thinkers who fight for the art we make. When Christo put up "The Gates" in Central Park, it was the largest object of art-ridicule in the country - is that because a mass-audience doesn't understand site-specific art installation aesthetics, or is it because "The Gates" was one big pile of post-modern trash? Some Fluxus performance art calls for a cow to be dropped from a helicopter onto a building. Other post-modern music demands for newspapers to be shredded into a piano. Lamont Young's minimalist concerts sometimes go on for 17 hours of inane monotony. "Chance music" and Cage is attacked to this very day, the former for being bullshit and the latter for being one big phony charlatan. Ned Rorem is attacked by nearly every cerebral composer for his unashamed use of french-tonality and unabashed sentiment. Liebermann is constantly accused of sounding entirely unoriginal.

In writing this post, it already appears as though I'm advocating for readers to take a side. I'm not; quite the contrary.

Let's open our minds. Explore. Use our brains, and our hearts. The two are not mutually exclusive.