How Do You Make Music a Body without Organs? Gilles Deleuze andExperimental Electronica
Christoph Cox(This article appeared in German translation as “Wie wird Musik zu einem organlosen Körper?
Gilles Deleuze und experimentale Elektronika” in Soundcultures: Über digitale und elektronische
Musik, ed. Marcus S. Kleiner and Achim Szepanski [Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag], 162–93. A
version in Italian was published in Millesuoni: Deleuze, Guattari, e la Musica Elettronica, ed.
Roberto Paci Dalo and Emanuele Quinz [Napoli: Edizioni Cronopio, 2006].)
Gilles Deleuze wrote about music only in passing. Throughout his philosophical corpus, one findsa scattering of musical examples and references to the classical modernists (Berg, Messiaen, Varèse,
Stockhausen, etc.) who were clearly his cultural heroes. Yet Deleuze never wrote about music withthe same depth and dedication that he devoted to literature, cinema, and painting. It might seem odd,
then, that, in the nine years since his suicide, Deleuze’s philosophy has come to be closely linked
with music and, moreover, with a musical milieu very different from the one that he called his own.
For Deleuze has become the intellectual hero of experimental “electronica”—electronic music with
its roots in hip hop, house, and techno rather than in the tradition of classical modernism. This
relationship was initially marked by the release, a year after Deleuze’s death, of two compilations ofexperimental electronica presented in his honor: Mille Plateaux’s In Memoriam Gilles Deleuze and
Sub Rosa’s Folds and Rhizomes for Gilles Deleuze. Since then, the discourse around electronica
has referenced Deleuze at every turn.
What accounts for the curious connection between this philosophical ontologist and a music scene
about which he knew little and wrote nothing? It is that Deleuze helps us to think how music might
become a body without organs. This indeed is the achievement of contemporary electronica in its
various forms (minimalist house and techno, ambient and noise composition, etc.). This
achievement, however, is made possible by a genealogical series that connects heterogeneous
moments in the history of 20th-century sonic experimentation, moments that are marked by a single
powerful trait: the impulse to deterritorialize musical form and substance.
The Plane of Consistency and the Body without Organs
What is a body without organs?
Rewind. All of Deleuze’s philosophy is an effort to construct a post-theological, naturalist ontologythat reconceives beings in terms of becomings and events, actual existents in terms of virtual
potentialities, fixed forms in terms of mobile particles and flows, homogeneous structures in termsof heterogeneous aggregates and connections, and hierarchical organizations in terms of a smooth

2horizontal surface populated solely by dynamic singularities, affects, intensities, speeds, andhaecceities.1 Beings, forms, structures, and organizations, Deleuze tells us, are simply ways inwhich an essentially fluid and heterogeneous nature is temporarily contracted, captured, contained,or slowed down to the point at which its movement is imperceptible.
The theologian or philosopher of being (the Platonist, the Christian, the Kantian) will always assert
the existence and primacy of a transcendent plane (a “plane of transcendence” or “plane oforganization,” Deleuze calls it) that directs, organizes, and forms nature and becoming fromwithout. (The philosopher of being says: beings are what becomes, the subject organizes
experience, providence or progress directs the movement of history, the score governs musicalperformances, etc.) Yet, true to the naturalism of his philosophical heroes—Spinoza, Nietzsche, andBergson—Deleuze asserts that there is only one plane, “the plane of immanence” or “the plane ofconsistency,” and that the existence of all beings and organizations can and must be accounted forby reference to materials and processes operating on this plane alone.2“Plane of consistency” is one name for Deleuze’s basic conception of nature and the world.
Another is the body without organs (BwO): “the unformed, unorganized, nonstratified, or
destratified body and all its flows,” “that glacial reality where the alluvions, sedimentations,coagulations, foldings, and recoilings that compose an organism—and also a signification and a
subject—occur.” In short, the BwO is the virtual field of the body, the domain of the basic particles
and forces (“singularities,” “affects,” “intensities,” “ideas,” “perceptions,” etc.) from which anactual organism composed. “[I]n order to extract useful labor from the BwO,” Deleuze writes with
Félix Guattari, the organism “imposes upon it forms, functions, bonds, dominant and hierarchizedorganizations, organized transcendences.” Yet, Deleuze and Guattari insist that the BwO always
subsists and reasserts itself: “the body suffers from being organized in this way, from not havingsome other sort of organization, or no organization at all”; hence “a body without organs [. . .] iscontinually dismantling the organism, causing asignifying particles or pure intensities to pass orcirculate.”3 Through experimental practices, Deleuze and Guattari tell us, we can make ourselves
BwOs.4So long as we think of the body as a given functional form, says Deleuze alluding to Spinoza, wewill not know what a body can do, what it is capable of.5 To become a BwO is to destratify thebody, to reconnect it with the intensive, impersonal, transhuman matter that composes andsurrounds it, to open it up to new connections and assemblages, to explore the innumerable things it
can do beyond the restricted set of habitual actions that characterize the organ-ized body.6 When
one does this, one transforms the body from a given entity with a specified functionality and3direction of activity to a construction site of exploration and connection. One no longer actualizes
merely the specific set of affects that constitute, for example, Man as a normal, rational,
heterosexual, productive human being but the entire (or, at least a larger) range of affects of which
this body is capable.7
Fast Forward: An ontology of being—that is, an “arborescent,” taxonomical ontology of things,
forms, and species—will insist on making distinctions between nature, the human body, and music.
(Music, it says, is a particular product of human beings who are particular parts of nature.) But
Deleuze’s ontology of events, becomings, and haecceities does not distinguish in this way. For
Deleuze, a body is simply a contraction of forces and flows. “A body can be anything,” he writes;“it can be an animal, a body of sounds, a mind or an idea; it can be a linguistic corpus, a social
body, a collectivity.”8 If music can be a body or an organism, so, too, can it become a body without
organs, a plane of consistency, or plane of immanence. With reference to John Cage and the classic
minimalists Steve Reich and Philip Glass, Deleuze and Guattari hint at this possibility:
Certain modern musicians oppose the transcendent plan(e) of organization, which issaid to have dominated all of Western classical music, to the immanent sound plane,
which is always given along with that to which it gives rise, brings the imperceptible
to perception, and carries only differential speeds and slownesses in a kind ofmolecular lapping: the work of art must mark seconds, tenths and hundredths ofseconds. Or rather it is a question of a freeing of time, Aeon, a nonpulsed time for a
floating music, as Boulez says, an electronic music in which forms are replaced bypure modifications of speed. It is undoubtedly John Cage who first and mostperfectly deployed this fixed sound plane, which affirms process against all
structure and genesis, a floating time against pulsed time or tempo, experimentation
against any kind of interpretation, and in which silence as sonorous rest also marks
the absolute state of movement.9
Suggested by Deleuze and Guattari passing, it is this musical idea that I want to unfold here. In theprocess, we will see that Cage and the classic minimalists, to whom Deleuze and Guattari attribute
this practice, mark only a few of the many efforts at making music a BwO. Indeed, over the courseof the twentieth century, through a kind of uneven development and by way of clandestineconnections, each of the major domains of Western music (classical, jazz, and rock) has been
submitted to this process—a process that experimental electronica takes to its nth power.
The Classical Work of Music and Its Deterritorialization
The 18th and 19th centuries in Europe saw the development and perfection of the classical work ofmusic. Emerging from a fluid and non-literate musical practice, the classical tradition gradually
instituted fixed works of art embodied in transcendent musical scores.10 Once thoroughly temporaland open-ended, existing only as evanescent performance and non-identical iterations, music

4
became a thing, a being, a kind of Platonic model that governed performance from without and in
fidelity to which it was judged. This musical work (the score or Platonic ideal of the work) was (andis) not only atemporal but silent. Instantiated in musical performances, it nonetheless remained
outside of their temporal and physical flow.
The classical work is governed by another transcendent mode of organization: tonality. The tonalsystem insures that musical unfolding is always tied to the tonic, from which it emerges, to which it
returns, and which governs its selection of pitches along the way. Thus is musical becoming tied tobeing in the form of origin and telos; and thus is that thoroughly temporal art, music, transformed
into a mere passage between those two fixed points. The sonata, song, and rondo forms thatdeveloped concurrently with the tonal system provided more overarching conceptions ofdevelopment, tying musical becoming to formal and narrative expectations (absence-presence,
conflict-resolution, etc.).11 Finally, the classical work found its apotheosis in the symphony,performed by an orchestra that is a vast hierarchy of parts, levels, and structures comparable to amilitary organization, governed by the authoritarian conductor, himself subservient to that absent(transcendent) genius, the musical composer.12
Such was the elaborate organ-ization of music at the beginning of the 20th century. And it is thisthat the vanguard music of the 20th-century slowly dismantled. Arnold Schoenberg accomplishedarguably the first deterritorialization of the classical work. Between 1907 and 1909, Schoenberg
abandoned tonality altogether, allowing his music to flow over the entire range of the chromaticscale. As such, his atonal pieces are fluid and without any inclination to resolve. No longer
unfolding according to given external principles, they force the listener to follow their errant pathfrom within. But Schoenberg would soon reterritorialize his music via the twelve-tone system,
which again constrained tonal variation and directed musical development according to a pre-given
scheme. Indeed, in the decades that followed, this reterritorialization became more and more severe,as Integral Serialism submitted every musical element (rhythm, dynamics, texture, etc.) to serialorgan-ization.
Several other musical personae contributed to the deterritorialization of the classical work. Notable
among them was Edgard Varèse, who freely abandoned the term “music” in favor of thedescription “organized sound,” calling himself “not a musician, but ‘a worker in rhythms,
frequencies, and intensities.’”13 Varèse equally abandoned any real interest in form, pitch, or
melody. Instead, he turned to the substance of sound itself, to the exploration of timbre, color, andloudness.14 In place of properly musical descriptions, he characterized his compositions in richly
physical terms, drawing conceptual resources from chemistry, geometry, and geography. “Thinking

5of form as a point of departure, a pattern to be followed, a mold to be filled,” Varèse wrote, is a
mistake. “Form is a result—the result of a process,” an impersonal process that, he believed,
mirrors the formation of crystals:
There is an idea, the basis of an internal structure, expanded and split into different
shapes or groups of sound constantly changing in shape, direction, and speed,
attracted and repulsed by various forces. The form of the work is the consequenceof this interaction. Possible musical forms are as limitless as the exterior forms of
crystals.15
Prophetically anticipating the advent of electronic music and noise composition, Varèse wrote in
1936:
When new instruments will allow me to write music as I conceive it, the movementof sound-masses, of shifting planes, will be clearly perceived in my work, taking theplace of the linear counterpoint. When these sound-masses collide, the phenomenaof penetration and repulsion will seem to occur. Certain transmutations taking placeon certain planes will seem to be projected onto other planes, moving at different
speeds and at different angles. There will no longer be the old conception of melody
or interplay of melodies. The entire work will be a melodic totality. The entire work
will flow as a river flows.16
Varèse’s American successors, John Cage and Morton Feldman, further deterritorialized themusical work. Cage’s major contribution was to liberate music from human subjectivity, thereby
opening up the “transcendental” or “virtual” field of music. 17 Cage insisted that music precedes
and exceeds human beings. “Music is permanent,” he wrote “only listening is intermittent.”18“Chance” and “silence” were his transports into this transcendental domain. “Chance”
procedures allowed the composer to bypass his subjective preferences and habits in order to makeway for sonic conjunctions and assemblages that were not his own, or, indeed, anybody’s (an“impersonal” and “preindividual” music, as Deleuze would call it). And “silence,” for Cage,
named a sort of musical plane of immanence: not the absence of sound (an impossibility, he pointedout), but the absence of intentional sound that opens our ears to liberated sound molecules.19
Feldman, too, dedicated himself to exploring this “transcendental” sonic field. Claiming no interest
in musical systems, structures, or forms, Feldman tried simply to provide a space for the experienceof sounds themselves: their births, lives, and deaths. “I don’t have any secret,” Feldman once
remarked, “but if I do have a point of view, it’s that sounds are very much like people. And if you
push them, they push you back. So, if I have a secret: don’t push the sounds around.”20 As aresult, Feldman’s compositions (or “assemblages,” as he preferred to call them21 ) drift, devoid ofsyntax or connective tissue, concerned only with the growth and decay of sounds, which glide by adifferent rates and speeds.22

6Musique Concrète and Elektronische Musik: Schiz/Flux and the Univocity of SoundAn even greater shock to the classical musical work came with the advent of electronic music in its
two basic forms: musique concrète (the tape composition that emerged from Pierre Schaeffer’s
Paris studio in the late 1940s) and elektronische Musik (the classic electronic music of theEuropean and American studios established in Cologne, Milan, and Princeton during the 1950s).
Both practices bypassed musical notation and the standard chain-of-command that ran from thecomposer through the conductor to the performer and listener. Instead, concrète and electronic
compositions were experimentally constructed in the studio by a composer who was also the sole
performer. At the same time, musique concrète and elektronische Musik foregrounded the univocityof the aural plane. Recording tape effectively dissolved the distinction between “music,” “sound,”and “noise,” providing a neutral surface that could register any sound whatsoever and make it the
raw material for composition. Hence, musique concrète could dispense with the entire tonal andinstrumental apparatus, ignoring traditional musical sonorities and the various discrete instruments
and instrumental families that produce them. The electronic signal equally affirmed the univocity ofsound, folding the entire musical apparatus back onto a stream of electrons generated by an
oscillator. Emerging from this univocal sonic phylum, electronic sounds are distinguished solely by
speeds and slownesses, by the contraction or dilation of flows by way of filters and modulators—afact beautifully illustrated in Stockhausen’s Kontakte, where, half way through the piece, a gurgling
sweep is slowed down to the point at which it is heard as a woody pulse.
Though distinguished by the sources of their material (musique concrète works with found sounds,
elektronische Musik with sounds built, or “synthesized,” from scratch), both compositional
practices operated essentially by way of collage or montage: the cutting and splicing of sonicfragments to create musical assemblages. As such, they very literally model the “schiz” and“flux” that characterize Deleuze and Guattari’s “desiring machines,” those basic connections
between singularities and intensities that arise from and dissolve back into the body without organs.
Indeed, in relation to the highly regulated and controlled body of classical music, musique concrète
and elektronische Musik are polymorphously perverse, celebrating the ability to connect any part (orsound) with any other. This is particularly evident in musique concrète, which (like its heir,
turntablism) delighted in connecting, for example, piano tones and percussive knocks with thesounds of train whistles, spinning tops, pots and pans, and canal boats.23 As such, a musiqueconcrète composition is what Deleuze calls a becoming or a rhizome, “a pure and dispersed
anarchic multiplicity, without any unity or totality, whose elements are welded and pasted together
by the real distinction or the very absence of a link.”24

7

Like Cage and Feldman, musique concrète and elektronische Musik also disclosed music’s
transcendental dimension. Though they began with documentary material, musique concrète
composers such as Pierre Schaeffer celebrated the fact that tape music could give access to sounditself, liberated from source or reference.25 Via various techniques (eliminating a sound’s attack or
decay, slowing it down or speeding it up, playing it backwards, etc.), Schaeffer and others
succeeded in abstracting sounds from their sources, thus eliminating all referentiality and shortcircuiting the auditory habits of listeners. Their ability to do this was aided by the fact that tapemusic was “performed” without any visual element to speak of: no performers or instruments, justpure sonic matter emitting from loudspeakers.
As such, electronic music is often criticized as “cold,” “impersonal,” “dehumanized,”“abstract.” Indeed, these descriptions are apt. Electronic music is anti-humanist music and ought tobe affirmed as such. It opens up music to something beyond the human, the subject, and the person:
the veritable non-organic life of sound that precedes any actual composition or composer, the virtual
realm of preindividual and prepersonal sonic singularities and affects. Rather than a music of
human desire (the singer, the performer), it is a music of machinic desire: the desiring machines ofmusic and of the musical body without organs.
Minimalism: Non-Pulsed Time and the Plane of ImmanenceElectronische Musik and musique concrète liberated sonic singularities and affects. But it wasclassic minimalism that made these fully audible. Minimalism also further challenged the classicalwork of music by opening it up to the outside and by constructing an immanent musical plane.
Trained in the serial tradition, La Monte Young, Terry Riley, Philip Glass, Steve Reich, Pauline
Oliveros, Tony Conrad and others came to form links with non-classical musics, notably rock, jazz,and non-Western traditions such as Ghanaian drumming, Indonesian gamelan, and Indian raga.
Instead of writing for classical ensembles, they were inspired by rock bands to form their own
bands, for whom they composed and with whom they performed.
More importantly, the minimalists were guided by an immanent conception of musical process anda new conception of musical time. They rejected the idea that music should be governed by a“plane of transcendence,” a hidden principle that guides and constrains music from without.
Instead, they were interested in “immanent” musical processes that composer and listener alike
could inhabit and on which they could be carried along. “Music no longer has a mediative function,referring to something outside itself,” wrote Philip Glass, “but it rather embodies itself without any

8mediation. The listener will therefore need a different approach to listening, without the traditional
concepts of recollection and anticipation. Music must be listened to as a pure sound-event, an act
without any dramatic structure.”26 Along the same lines, Reich wrote in a methodological essay:“The use of hidden structural devices in music never appealed to me. I am interested in perceptible
processes. I want to be able to hear the process happening throughout the sounding music.”“While performing and listening to gradual musical processes,” he continued, “one can participate
in a particular liberating and impersonal kind of ritual. Focusing in on the musical process makes
possible that shift of attention away from he and she and you and me outwards towards it.”27This is precisely what Deleuze calls “non-pulsed time,” as opposed to the “pulsed time” ofclassical composition. “Pulsed time” has nothing to do with regular, repetitive pulses (a key featureof musical minimalism to which we will turn in a moment). Rather, it is the time of narrative
development. It organizes the musical piece into identifiable sections and landmarks, allowing thelistener to know where s/he is and where s/he is going; and it sets up conflicts to be resolved that
actively solicit the listener’s sense of narrative time. Hence, Deleuze tells us, pulsed time is the timeof the Bildungsroman, the novel of education, which “measures, or scans, the formation of a
subject.”28
The “non-pulsed time” of the minimalists is something else entirely. As Reich notes, it is totallyimpersonal and processual, caring nothing for “he and she and you and me” or for “hidden
structural devices.” Minimalist compositions are not organ-ized by the composer (“My music has
no overall structure but generates itself at each moment,” Glass has said; “once the process is set
up and loaded, it runs by itself,” notes Reich)29 ; nor do they chart the progress of a hero, whether
it’s the composer, the solo instrument, or the listening subject. Rather, as Belgian minimalist Wim
Mertens notes, “[t]he music exists for itself and has nothing to do with the subjectivity of thelistener [. . . .]; the subject no longer determines the music, as it did in the past, but the music now
determines the subject.”30 That is, the non-pulsed time of minimalist composition places composer,
performer, and listener on a wave of becoming that flows, shifts, and changes, but extremely
gradually so that one loses any clear sense of chronological time (what Deleuze calls “Chronos”)
and instead is immersed in a floating, indefinite time, a pure stationary process (Deleuze’s“Aeon”).31 Hence the extraordinary length of so many minimalist compositions (e.g., Glass’s
Music in Twelve Parts is over four-hours long, Terry Riley’s Poppy Nogood’s All Night Flightlasted twice that long, and La Monte Young’s Theater of Eternal Music performances lasted
indefinitely). Immersed in such extended pieces, one loses track of form and clock time and instead
becomes aware of something else: intensive duration (“time in its unstructured existence,” asMorton Feldman put it).32 One also becomes aware of what Deleuze describes as “speeds and9slownesses between unformed elements, and affects between nonsubjectified powers, as a functionof a plane that is necessarily given at the same time as that to which it gives rise (the plane ofconsistency or composition).”33 Reich puts it in more musical terms: such extended, gradualmusical processes open one’s ears to “[t]hat area of every gradual [. . .] musical process, where
one hears the details of the sound moving out away from intentions, occurring for their own
acoustic reasons [. . . .] the impersonal, unintended, psychoacoustic by-products of the intended
process [. . . . ] sub-melodies heard within repeated melodic patterns, stereophonic effects due tolistener location, slight irregularities in performance, harmonics, difference tones, etc.”34 Minimalist
pioneer Tony Conrad offers a similar description: “Pitched pulses, palpitating beyond rhythm andcascading the cochlea with a galaxy of synchronized partials, reopen the awareness of the sinetone—the element of combinatorial hearing. Together and in pairs in all combinations, the partials
combine. The ear responds uniquely.”35 In short, minimalist practice forgoes not only musicalform but fixed and deliberate notes and tones, releasing instead what Deleuze calls “sonorous
molecules.”To generate and focus attention on these sonic particles and intensities, the minimalists developed anumber of musical strategies. The long duration of performances is one of them (one that, perhaps,
they owe to Feldman). But there is another, even more fundamental enabler: the fabrication of aplane of consistency on which these particles and intensities could be distributed and from which
they could be made to appear. In the early 1970s, critic and composer Tom Johnson (responsible
for the tag “minimalism”) described it this way:
The form of their pieces is always flat. They are not interested in building toclimaxes, or in manipulating tension and relaxation, or in working with large
contrasts of any kind. They keep their music flat, never allowing it to rise above or
fall below a certain plane. In a way, this flatness is related to the idea of ‘all over’
painting. In both cases, there is an attempt to make all areas of the form equal inimportance. The term ‘static’ is often used in reference to their music, since it neverleaves this one level and never seems to be moving toward anything. Traditionally
this word has been considered derogatory when applied to music, and in many
quarters it still is. But in listening to the music of these composers, one soon
discovers that static does not necessarily mean boring, the way we always thought it
did. Many interesting things can happen all on one plane. A pitch changes slightly, arhythm is altered, something fades in or out. They are not big changes, but they arechanges, and there are more than enough of them to sustain one’s interest, provided
that he can tune in on this minimal level.36
Minimalist music constructed this plane via two different means: the drone (La Monte Young, Tony
Conrad, Pauline Oliveros, Charlemagne Palestine) and the pulse (Terry Riley, Philip Glass, Steve
Reich, Arnold Dreyblatt). Both provide a kind of uniform surface on which sonic micro-particles
are distributed. Continuous or repetitious, both highlight duration, process, and difference. They

10
instruct the listener: “Don’t listen for harmonic movement, formal development, or narrative
progression. You won’t find any. Instead, listen to process, moment-to-moment movement, small
shifts and changes in timbre, texture, loudness, speed.” Instead of the measured arc of the musicalnarrative, they focus attention on the flat plane and the nomadic elements distributed upon it.
Free Jazz as Anti-Production
The history of jazz reveals a movement of deterritorialization similar to that to which classical music
was subjected. Established on the productive tension between composition and improvisation, thetune and its dismemberment, territory and deterritorialization, jazz has always celebrated the errant
flow of a musical material never fully harnessed to structure and form. Yet from swing throughbebop, jazz maintained the standard functional organization of music into background/foregroundand melody/harmony/rhythm, assigning instrumental roles accordingly. Hence, periodic solos
notwithstanding, the drummer’s role was to keep time along with the bassist and pianist, who were
expected to maintain the underlying harmonic structure of the tune beneath the horn player’s
melody or improvisations upon it.
The emergence of Free Jazz in the 1960s challenged precisely these features. In relation to theorganized and hierarchized body of jazz, it served as a force of anti-production, disarticulating
standard connections and dismantling established hierarchies.37 Free Jazz said: “Forget the tune,
forget background and foreground, ignore established instrumental roles. Instead, treat each
instrument as a sound-making device on par with every other. Play as an collective ensemble andrelease a collective energy.” Hence, pieces such as John Coltrane’s Ascension unleash torrents ofsound, wild and intensely vibrating distributions of sonic particles and blocks.38
The allied tradition of improvised music pushed these tendencies further.39 Improvisation became
the occasion for a mutual becoming: one musician meets another, perhaps for the first time, andmusic is made between the two, drawing each musician into a zone of indeterminacy with theother.40 The aim is to play with the other and against one’s established tendencies: music as a lineof flight, a disarticulation of mental and manual habits. Improvised music equally deterritorialized
the musical instrument and standard performance practice. Instead of treating instruments as a fixed
entities to be mastered by virtuoso technique, improvising musicians came to explore the immense
variety of ways in which their instruments can be made to generate sound: rubbing the body of theviolin or the upright bass, playing only the mouthpiece or bell of a horn, singing into a drum head,
etc.41 Paraphrasing Spinoza, the improviser says “we don’t yet know what an instrument can do.”Unsettled in this way, instruments, musicians, and music itself are freed up for new connections andassemblages.

11Rock Desedimented
Notwithstanding its reputation for sonic and erotic liberation, few musical genres are more rigidly
stratified than rock. Like classic jazz, rock is built from a standard instrumentation organizedaccording to a basic spatial and auditory hierarchy: (from front to back) voice, lead guitar, rhythm
guitar, bass, and drums. Rock is deeply human music that invests desire in conventional ways. It
may be about the body and sexuality; but, for the most part, rock’s sexuality is genital andorgasmic. The rock song’s verse-chorus-verse structure organizes desire into short cycles oftension and release. Obsessed with presence and authenticity, rock cathects desire onto the voiceand the story of love, loss, and rebellion it cries. Rock is equally tied to the visible gesture of thehuman hand. Hence, it fetishizes the live event and devalues recordings, studio effects, synthesizers,
drum machines—anything not immediately visible, sensible, or present.
Of course, rock has always had a counter-tradition: the minimalist drones of the Velvet
Underground, the machinic pulses of Kraftwerk, Can, and Neu, the ambient soundscapes of Brian
Eno, etc. But only in the 1990s did these forces come together with others to fully challenge rock’s
core ideology. As always, the provocation came from the outside—in the first place, from disco.
Emerging from a largely black, Latino, and gay underground, disco unsettled rock’s macho
sexuality. Machinic and repetitive, it equally threatened rock’s investment in presence, authenticity,
humanism, and genital sexuality. Focused on the dancefloor (a mobile assemblage of bodies) andthe ambiguous figure of the DJ (at once creator and mere medium), disco challenged rock’s
individualism and its cult of personality.
In response, rock lashed out with an overtly racist and homophobic campaign, shouting “disco
sucks” and organizing occasions for the mass destruction of dance records (the most spectacularly
violent of which occurred on the night of July 12, 1979, when rock DJ Steve Dahl presided over abonfire of disco vinyl between games at a baseball doubleheader in Chicago’s Comiskey Park). But
such displays only confirmed what a profoundly disruptive tremor disco had sent through body ofrock. Mainstream rock plodded on. But rock’s experimental fringe slowly began to forge allianceswith the emerging DJ Culture that coalesced around a loose collection of musical forms: house andtechno (disco’s heirs), hip hop, and dub reggae. Slowly but surely, these alliances began todesediment rock’s strata such that, by the mid-1990s, perceptive critics could declare the birth of“post-rock,” an international movement that represented rock’s self-overcoming.42
Rock and pop operate essentially according to the logic of the refrain, producing tunes, ditties,
hooks, and choruses that get stuck in our heads and that we sing, hum, or whistle as we move

12
through the world. “The refrain,” Deleuze and Guattari tell us, “is essentially territorial,
territorializing, or reterritorializing.” It not only marks musical territory but psychic andgeographical territory as well, soliciting memory and charting out zones of comfort and control. As
such, “[t]he refrain is [. . .] a means of preventing music,” of capturing and restricting the flow ofsonorous material. Conversely, “music,” in this special sense, “is a creative, active operation thatconsists in deterritorializing the refrain.” And, because the voice is the privileged vehicle of therefrain, “[m]usic is a deterritorialization of the voice.”43
Post-rock largely did away with the lead singer and, hence, with the hero and focal point of the rocksong. Rock’s narrative structure soon collapsed as well, melting into an ambient pool or stretchedout into an infinite drone or groove. While often retaining rock instrumentation, post-rocksubmitted these instruments to a profound détournement. Outfits such as Main and Flying Saucer
Attack did away with chords and progressions, instead treating the guitar as an electronic tool forthe generation of timbres and textures. Taking lessons from hip hop and techno, post-rock groups
Techno Animal, Stereolab, and others supplemented rock instrumentation with samplers, drum
machines, analog synthesizers, and laptops. Gastr del Sol and Tortoise embraced studio effects andmanipulations associated with musique concrète and dub reggae, effectively countering rock’s
obsession with presence and humanism.
Electronica: The Becoming-Sound of MusicIn myriad ways, experimental electronica is marked by this heterogeneous ancestry. Across thegeneric and traditional differences between classical music, jazz, rock, dance music, etc., it selects
and intensifies a single trait: the impulse to make music a body without organs. In minimalist houseand techno and ambient and noise composition, we find all the ways and means of doing this. Let
us rehearse these procedures and clarify the ways in which electronica deploys them:
1. Disarticulation and Destratification. We saw that the classical composition, the jazz tune, and therock song are bodies composed of fixed strata or organs (e.g., strings/winds/brass/percussion;voice/guitar/bass/drums) that capture sound and harness it to particular functions (e.g.,
melody/harmony/rhythm, the refrain, narrative development, etc.). Organized from without by a predetermined, transcendent scheme (the score, the chart, the song), they move in accordance with apulsed time (the time of development, form, narrative, and the refrain). Experimental electronica
disarticulates sound from the strata and liberates it from pulsed time. Sound appears in its virtual
form: as a free-roaming flux, pure possibility, no longer or not yet attached to musical forms orfunctions. In place of narratives, melodies, and themes, we hear sounds themselves. We hear sonicforces, affects, singularities, and intensities, the grain of sounds, textures, timbres, etc. As Deleuze13puts it, “the inaudible makes itself heard and the imperceptible appears as such: no longer the
songbird, but the sound molecule.”44 Recording under the apt moniker Gas, for example, German
producer Wolfgang Voigt lets loose swarms of sonic particles, fragments of rhythms and melodies
set afloat in vaporous drones. Francisco Lopez’s La Selva immerses us in the teeming soundscapeof a tropical rainforest. Devoid of the visual clues that would allow us to carve up space and attachsounds to their sources, we are confronted with dense and vibrant masses of sounds differentiatedsolely by their speeds, textures, and timbres, and moving according to their own logics and rhythms.
This experience of sound itself is equally the experience of a non-pulsed time. For, we no longer
track the subject of a narrative; instead, we are drawn into the impersonal, asubjective life of sounds.
Time is no longer spatialized, charted, and territorialized by formal markers; instead, it appears as aqualitative immersive flow. Rather than structure and genesis, we hear process and duration. Thisconnection between attentiveness to the life of sounds and liberation from chronometric time isrichly noted by noise composer Bernhard Günter, who remarks that sounds grow, live, and die at
different speeds, producing a variegated “continuum” in which time is “stretched and relaxed likea rubberband” such that the listener loses track of clock time.45
2. Laying-out of a Plane: But experimental electronica does not unleash sonic chaos. For the planeof organization it substitutes a plane of consistency: a smooth surface on which sound particles are
distributed, loosely held together, and offered up to experience. Noise composition, minimal techno,
and micro house are organized from within, according to an immanent logic of presentation thatplaces the listener in an immersive, indefinitely extended flow that highlights becoming, duration,and continuous regions of intensity.
The plane of organization can be likened to the sedentary, striated, hierarchical space of the city or
the state. The plane of consistency, on the other hand, is like the smooth, open space of the desert
on which the nomad roams. Electronica tracks are just like this: deserts of sound, the only
landmarks of which are the singularities, haecceities, and affects that populate them.46 No doubt thisis why electronica is fascinated with those archetypes of smooth space: air, sky, sea, ice—broad,
open spaces on which elements can be freely distributed and connected.47 Indeed, Deleuze andGuattari’s description of the desert (“ice deserts” and “sand deserts” alike) nicely characterizes
the soundscapes of Thomas Köner, Steve Roden, and Richard Chartier, and the minimalist beats of
Jan Jelinek, snd, and Plastikman48 :[T]here is an extraordinarily fine topology that relies not on points or objects but
rather on haecceities, on sets of relations (winds, undulations of snow or sand, the14song of the sand or the creaking of ice, the tactile qualities of both). It is a tactile
space, or rather “haptic,” a sonorous much more than a visual space.49
Reanimating the discoveries of classic minimalism, electronica constructs this plane by two different
means: the drone and the pulse. Noise composition is the heir to the minimalist drones of La Monte
Young, Tony Conrad, and Pauline Oliveros. It often presents blocks of sound that gradually reveal
themselves to be composed of myriad microparticles.50 Rather than discreet tones organizedaccording to background/foreground and charted by formal markers, it discharges molecularswarms of vibrating granules that immerse the listener, drawing him or her into a world populated
solely by a sonic flux that permeates the body and makes of it a sonic force field. In some noise
composition, it is not so much the dense drone but silence itself that forms the plane of consistency
on which sonic particles are distributes.51 In the work of Bernhard Günter and Richard Chartier, forexample, silence forms a surface from which microscopic sonic events spring into being and into
which they fall back.
Techno, house, and their offshoots reanimate the musical strategy of pulse-driven minimalism,
generating difference through repetition. Despite a superficial resemblance, the repeated pulse has
nothing to do with a ticking clock or with the objective chronometrical time it marks. On thecontrary, as the classic minimalists often noted, such repetition generates a peculiar sensation oftime that is not extensive (directional, progressive, goal-oriented) but intensive (static, suspended,
immersive, fluid), not quantitative but qualitative: the time of duration.52 The regular pulse shortcircuits the listener’s desire to listen for form, structure, or development, and instead focuses
attention on the moment-to-moment appearance and disappearance of sounds, events, andintensities. In this way, repetition highlights difference. Fine-grained shifts in timbre, texture,interval and intensity take center stage, and repeated sounds begin to appear in different guises. “I
was noticing that things didn’t sound the same when you heard them more than once,” Terry Riley
told an interviewer. “And the more you heard them, the more different they did sound. Even thoughsomething was staying the same, it was changing.”53 Riley underscores the Bergsonian point that
there is no pure repetition, since each repeated instance is inflected with those instances alreadyaccumulated in the memory.54 Minimalist house and techno tracks thrive on this conjunction ofdifference and repetition. Maurizio’s “m6,” for example, repeats the same two-note figure
hundreds of times, each time bending, contracting, or drawing it out it to elicit different textures,
timbres, depths, and speeds.55 Here, electronica learns from elektronische Musik and minimalism
alike: rich in wild, sonic matter, classic electronic music was often too busy and structurally
complex to make that matter fully audible; via minimalist-style drones and pulses, however,electronica puts this sonic stuff fully on display.56

15

Pause: The recent profusion of glitch-ridden electronic minimalism intensifies these two features ofrepetition (ateleological movement and the foregrounding of sonic matter).57 In a fine discussion ofrepetition in black culture, James Snead gives us a way of understanding this. Contrasting Europe’s
obsession with historical-cultural progression and black culture’s affirmation of repetition, Snead
writes:In black culture, repetition means that the thing circulates (exactly in the manner ofany flow [. . .]) there in an equilibrium. In European culture, repetition must be seen
to be not just circulation and flow but accumulation and growth. In black culture, thething (the ritual, the dance, the beat) is “there for you to pick it up when you comeback to it.” If there is a goal (Zweck) it is continually deferred; it continually “cuts”
back to the start, in the musical meaning of “cut” as an abrupt, seemingly
unmotivated break (an accidental da capo) with a series already in progress and awilled return to a prior series.
A culture based on the idea of the “cut” will always suffer in a society whose
dominant idea is material progress—but “cuts” possess their charm! In European
culture, the “goal” is always clear: that which always is being worked towards. The
goal is thus that which is reached only when culture “plays out” its history. Such aculture is never “immediate” but “mediated” and separated from the present tenseby its own future orientation. Moreover, European culture does not allow “asuccession of accidents and surprises” [as Hegel characterized African culture] but
instead maintains the illusions of progression and control at all costs. Black culture,in the “cut,” builds “accidents” into its coverage, almost as if to control theirunpredictability. Itself a kind of cultural coverage, this magic of the “cut” attempts
to confront accident and rupture not by covering them over but by making room forthem inside the system itself.58
Against our expectations of formal development and narrative progress, the turntablist’s scratch or
cut and the electronica artist’s glitch accentuate the value of repetition. The scratch and the glitch
interrupt or pause the forward movement of the track, throwing it back upon a prior moment. Snead
continues:
The ‘cut’ overtly insists on the repetitive nature of the music, by abruptly skippingback to another beginning which we have already heard. Moreover, the greater the16insistence on the pure beauty and value of repetition, the greater the awareness mustalso be that repetition takes place not on a level of musical development or
progression, but on the purest tonal and timbric level.59
In affirming the value of repetition, then, the cut or the glitch detaches sound from its forward
temporal and harmonic movement and instead draws attention to its texture and sonic matter. In
Deleuze’s terms, the scratch and glitch “stutter” music, withdrawing it from meaning and instead
display “a pure and intense sonorous material [. . .], a deterritorialized musical sound, a cry thatescapes signification, composition, song, words—a sonority that ruptures in order to break awayfrom a chain that is all too signifying.”60
Play: Repetition or the steady pulse can be thought of as producing a kind of “fixed plane” for thepresentation of sound particles. But “fixed,” Deleuze notes, “does not mean motionless; it
indicates the absolute state of movement as well as of rest in relation to which variations in relative
speed themselves become perceptible.”61 That is, in the first place, the plane and the elements thatoccupy it are not ontologically distinct. The fat, grainy beats of Pan Sonic, the waterlogged throbsof Porter Ricks, and the tactile ticks of alva noto, for example, remind us that the repeated pulse isitself sonic matter, composed of the same stuff as the material that is distributed upon it: theunivocal plane of electronic signals or digital bits. Secondly, house and techno are built from loops
such that the only distinction between the steady pulse and the sonic figures that move across it isthat of speed and slowness, regularity and singularity. Everything is at once rhythm and pitchtimbre; and whatever distinction we draw between these is relative, not absolute.
Nonetheless, the drone and the pulse mark out the plane or BwO that defines electronica tracks andholds their elements together in a provisional assemblage. As such, they model the plane ofimmanence of Nature itself, in relation to which they present a particular slice or plateau.62 Viewed
on the scale of millennia, bodies, species, states, cities, and languages are like waves on an ocean,evanescent forms that dissolve back into Nature’s fluid mass. So, too, in electronica, tones andtimbres come and go as the pulse carries on, or retreat back into the block of sound or silence fromwhence they came.
3. Distribution of Singularities and Haecceities, Affects and Intensities. The symphony was marked
by thematic exposition, development, and recapitulation, the pop song by the alternation of verse andchorus (or refrain). But you don’t hum or sing along with electronica tracks. There are no tunes orrefrains to get stuck in your head. Rather, electronica tracks are marked by musical individuationsof a different sort. Upon their smooth spaces or planes, electronica tracks distribute sonic17
singularities and haecceities, affects and intensities: pure aural qualities, quantities, and aggregatesdisarticulated from melodies, forms, and structures.
Singularities and haecceities are events, moments when particles and forces come together to form
an assemblage that attains some degree of individuation. On the surface of an ocean, a wave rises
up, an eddy or vortex spins the surface downward, a warm current momentarily passes
through—each of these is a singularity or haecceity, an individuation not of the subject- or objectkind but of the event-kind. These same sorts of individuations characterize electronica tracks.
Oval’s “Textuell,”63 for example, begins with a stuttered flow composed of jittery ticks and a
fuzzy tone that vibrates in the interval between two neighboring pitches. In themselves, theseelements (ticks, tone, pitches, interval) are not yet haecceities or singularities. Rather, they hang
together to form a basic surface or plateau. A few seconds in, a bass thud pulls this surface quickly
downward then sends it leaping up to a new plateau marked by slower clicks, a richer and moreresonant sonic palette, and a three-pitch figure. This is a haecceity, a sonic event in the flow of a
track, an event that draws elements together into a provisional configuration and that marks adifference of intensity and sonic quality from that which precedes and follows it. The new plateau issoon traversed by more subtle, smaller-scale haecceities: flutters of woody pops, sets of shallow bell
tones, dubby bass notes that slow the flow. A few minutes in, another major event: the shift to a newplateau, this one marked by a regular bass pulse and slow tonal shifts between the poles of a wider
interval. For the remainder of the track, these various haecceities (plateaus, flutters, bell series, basspulses, etc.) drift across the auditory space, recurring at different speeds and frequencies.
Haecceities and singularities provide the topography of an electronica track, the extensive dimension
on which occur cuts, shifts, zones, levels, etc. But electronica tracks are described or measured byanother dimension as well: by the affects or intensities that correspond to these haecceities andsingularities. “Intensity”64 names the ways in which these singularities are sensually experienced,
their peculiar quality and force. When we describe a track or its parts (haecceities, plateaus,intervals) as “cold,” “warm,” “hard,” “soft,” “sharp,” “bright” “sludgy,” etc. we are, albeit
crudely, describing its “intensities,” the ways in which it affects us, the quality and quantity of theforces it transmits.
In a passage Deleuze alludes to often,65 Varèse already imagined a music delineated solely by its“zones of intensities”:
These zones would be differentiated by various timbres or colors and different
loudnesses. Through such a physical process these zones would appear of different
colors and of different magnitude, in different perspectives for our perception. The

18role of color or timbre would be completely changed from being incidental,
anecdotal, sensual or picturesque; it would become an agent of delineation, like thedifferent colors on a map separating different areas, and an integral part of form.66
More than a half-century later, contemporary electronica realizes Varèse’s vision. Noise
composition—the work of Merzbow, for example—all but dispenses with musical form in favor of
massive glacial or molten flows that collide, intersect, and interpenetrate to produce a textured
surface of peaks, valleys, fissures, and plains. Pulse-driven electronica is equally marked by such“zones of intensity.” Minimal techno and micro house tracks flow like waves that rise and fall,tracing zones and levels of intensity as they flow.67 Composed of loops (waves) moving at different
speeds and with different amplitudes, they create interference patterns marked by nodal points ofintensive confluence. The work of Carsten Nicolai (a.k.a. noto and alva noto) is exemplary here.
Deploying loops of various thicknesses, depths, and speeds, his tracks produce aural equivalents of
the liquid ripples and patterns that characterize much of his visual art.68
As distributions of haecceities and intensities, electronica tracks invest desire in ways rather
different than do rock, classic jazz, or classical music. In place of the tension and release thatcharacterize rock and pop, and the conflict and resolution that characterize classical music,
electronica substitutes myriad “plateaus”: “continuous regions of intensity constituted in such a
way that they do not allow themselves to be interrupted by any external termination, any more thanthey allow themselves to build toward a climax.”69 Not verse and chorus, but thresholds andcontinuums of intensity, the confluence of flows, waves, or loops on a plane that is itself a plateau,
an indefinitely extended continuum of intensity.
4. Construction and cartography of a body or assemblage. A track, then, represents a particularslice, section, or plateau of the sonic phylum. It is a plane of consistency or composition that selects,
articulates, distributes, and holds together a set of tones, timbres, and rhythms. As such, a track
forms a body, though not an organism: a body without organs. It presents the minimum ofcomposition or consistency necessary to individuate a body without allowing it to harden into anorganism.70
A body, Deleuze tells us, is not defined by form, function, substance, etc. Rather, its definition takes
the form of a map [plan] that charts a piece of territory according to longitude and latitude.71 By“longitude,” Deleuze means the relationships to one another of the particles that compose a body(which is always a multiplicity). Following Spinoza, who argues that bodies are distinguished fromone another not by reason of substance but solely by reason of the relationships of motion and rest,
speed and slowness that obtain between their component parts, Deleuze describes the19“longitudinal” relationships of a body’s parts to one another as “relations of motion and rest, of
speeds and slownesses between particles.”72 By “latitude,” Deleuze means the affective andintensive capacities a body has in relation to other bodies, the concentrations of power and ability
that distinguish it.
“Maps of speeds and intensities.”73 This Deleuzian (and Varèsian) form of description is ideallysuited to the analysis of electronica tracks. They do not readily admit of description in terms ofform and development; but they can be perfectly described in terms of longitude and latitude,“variations of speed between particles or molecules of sound,” and the “free floating affects” andintensities generated by these particles and their conjunctions.74 They lend themselves togeometrical, geological, and geographical description: description in terms of vectors, thresholds,
gradients, peaks, valleys, and plains.
Abstract, molecular, machinic, and desubjectified, electronica tracks are simply selections of sonicparticles set in relation to one another and in relationship to those of other tracks. At thelongitudinal level, a track is a body, machine, or assemblage, a collection of sonic particles thatoccupy the same territory and that move at speeds measured in relationship to those of otherparticles. They form temporary conjunctions (loops, slabs, haecceities, etc.) with other particles andmove together with them. At the latitudinal level, a track is defined by its intensities, its
accumulations of force and their qualitative effect upon us. Longitude and latitude, speeds andintensities also measure a track’s relationships with other tracks, for a track is itself simply anelement in a larger machine, the mix, itself a kind of macro-track. A track’s speeds and intensities,
then, will determine which other tracks it can link with and what sorts of relationships (flow, rupture,affective modulation, etc.) it can have with these other tracks. The term “mix,” here, is significant,for it highlights the fact that, from the micro- to the macro-levels—from the level of a track’s
component haecceities to the level of the mix as a whole—electronica tracks are not closed“compositions” or “songs” but open-ended, provisional assemblages that, at any level, can beconnected with, or plugged into, other assemblages.

Such, then, is the anatomy of the musical body without organs. We have also traced its genealogy.
It is marked not only by the perceptible haecceities and intensities that are distributed upon it but
also by a set of historical singularities that stretch across the music of the 20th century and that
supply its genetic code, its transcendental or virtual conditions of possibility. Listening to the classic
minimalists in the late 1970s, Deleuze began to hear how music might become a body without
organs. With the advent of experimental electronica—which, courtesy of Sub Rosa’s Guy-Marc

20
Hinant and Mille Plateaux’s Achim Szepanski, Deleuze heard only in the last two years of his thenailing life75 —all the forces of musical deteritorrialization are brought to bear and music has truly
become a BwO. No subjects, forms, themes, or narratives; just flows, cuts, aggregates, forces,
intensities, and haecceities laid out on the smooth surface of pulse and drone.
Discographyalva noto, Prototypes, Mille Plateaux MP 82
alva noto, Transform, Mille Plateaux MP 102
Eno, Brian, On Land, Editions EG, EEGCD 20
Cage, John, The 25-Year Retrospective Concert of the Music Of John Cage, Wergo 6247-2
Cale, John/Tony Conrad/Angus MacLise/LaMonte Young/Marian Zazeela, Inside the Dream
Syndicate Vol. I: Day of Niagara (1965), Table of the Elements TOE-CD-74
Chartier, Richard Of Surfaces, L–NE 008
Conrad, Tony, Four Violins (1964), in Early Minimalism, Volume 1, Table of the Elements TOECD-33
Coltrane, John, Ascension, Impulse 314 543 413-2
Feldman, Morton, Why Patterns?/Crippled Symmetry, hat ART CD2-6080
Feldman, Morton, String Quartet (II), Ives Ensemble, hat [now] ART 4-144
Fennesz, Plus Forty Seven Degrees 56’ 37”/Minus Sixteen Degrees 51’ 08, Touch TO 40
Fenn O’Berg, The Magic Sound of Fenn O’Berg, Mego 031
Flying Saucer Attack, New Lands, Drag City DC137CD
Gas, Königsforst, Mille Plateaux MP 65
Gastr del Sol, Upgrade & Afterlife, Drag City CD90CD
Glass, Philip, Music in Twelve Parts, Nonesuch 79324-2
Global Electronic Network, Electronic Desert, Mille Plateaux MP014VN
Jelinek, Jan, Loop-Finding-Jazz-Records, ~scape 007
Köner, Thomas, Teimo/Permafrost, Mille Plateaux MP 35
Kraftwerk, Trans-Europe Express, Capitol CDP 0777 7 46473 2 8
Lopez, Francisco, La Selva, V2_Archief V228
Main, Hz, Beggars Banquet HERTZ016CD

21

Maurizio, M-CD, M
Merzbow, Merzbox Sampler, Extreme XLTD 003
Music Improvisation Company, The Music Improvisation Company 1968–1971, Incus CD 12
Oliveros, Pauline, Primordial Lift, Table of the Elements TOE-CD-53
Oval, Systemisch, Thrill Jockey THRILL032
Panasonic, Kulma, Mute/Blast First 9032-2
Plastikman, Consumed, Novamute 3048-2
Porter Ricks, Biokinetics, Chain Reaction, CRD-01
Reich, Steve, Works 1965–95, Nonesuch 79451
Riley, Terry, Poppy Nogood and the Phantom Band: All-Night Flight, Organ of Corti 4
Roden, Steve, Four Possible Landscapes, Trente Oiseaux, TOC 005
Schaeffer, Pierre, L’Oeuvre Musicale, INA/GRM INA C 1006/7/8
Schoenberg, Arnold, Verklärte Nacht op. 4/Piano Pieces op. 11 & 19, Five Orchestral Pieces, op.
16, Chicago Symphony Orchestra, Daniel Barenboim, Teldec 4509-98256-2
snd, makesndcassettee, Mille Plateaux, MP 69
Stereolab, Emperor Tomato Ketchup, Elektra 61840-2
Stockhausen, Karlheinz, Kontakte, Ecstatic Peace! E#87
Techno Animal, Re-Entry, Virgin AMBT 8/7243 8 40404 2 0/40405 2 9Tortoise, Millions Now Living Will Never Die, Thrill Jockey THRILL025
Varèse, Edgard, Déserts/Equatorial/Hyperprism, Ensemble InterContemporain, Pierre Boulez,
Sony SMK 68 334
Various Artists, Clicks & Cuts, Mille Plateaux, MP 79
Various Artists, Clicks & Cuts 2, Mille Plateaux, MP 98
Various Artists, Electro Acoustic Music: Classics, Neuma 450-74
Various Artists, Pioneers of Electronic Music, CRI CD 611
Various Artists, OHM: The Early Gurus of Electronic Music, 1948–80, Ellipsis Arts CD 3670
Various Artists, Folds and Rhizomes for Gilles Deleuze, Sub Rosa, SR99
Various Artists, Return of the DJ Vol. I, Bomb Hip-Hop BOMB 2002

22

Various Artists, Return of the DJ Vol. II, Bomb Hip-Hop BOMB 2003
Various Artists, In Memoriam Gilles Deleuze, Mille Plateaux MP 22
The Velvet Underground, The Velvet Underground and Nico, Verve, V5008
Notes
1

These interrelated terms are discussed more fully below. Rigorous definitions would take us too far afield. For the
moment, suffice it to say that all of these terms are ways of describing and individuating entities from the standpointof nature conceived as a collection of heterogeneous flows rather than from the standpoint of the stable, bounded
subjects and objects that make up our ordinary ontology. For Deleuze, what is given is this univocal, fluid nature;and ordinary entities are seen as temporary accumulations or contractions of the flows and micro-particles of which
Nature consists. Hence, entities (or “bodies”) are individuated in respect of their relative speeds and slownesses (theinternal, kinetic relationships among the elements that compose them), their “affects” (their dynamic relationships
with other entities), and the degrees of intensity (accumulations of energy, force, or power) of these affects. Deleuze
often calls such fluid, event-like individuals or entities “haecceities” or “singularities,” which he opposes to stablebeings, subjects, or things. We can think of music in this way too. Instead of conceiving it as a set of given entities(tones, pitches) that are articulated into scales, melodies, forms, and narratives, we can think of music more
physically or materially as a heterogeneous fluid substance (the sonic phylum) that is momentarily articulated into
various speeds, intensities, and affects. All music can be conceived in this way. But, as Deleuze argues—and as I
argue here—certain forms of music make this more evident and palpable than others.
2
On the “plane of immanence” and “plane of transcendence,” see Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, A Thousand
Plateaus, trans. Brian Massumi (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987), pp. 265–72 and Gilles Deleuze
and Claire Parnet, Dialogues, trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1987), pp. 92ff. Manuel De Landa nicely develops the concept of the self-organizing “plane of immanence” inA Thousand Years of Nonlinear History (New York: Zone Books, 1997) and Intensive Science and Virtual
Philosophy (London: Continuum Books, 2002).
3
Deleuze and Guattari, Anti-Oedipus, trans. Robert Hurley, Mark Seem, and Helen R. Lane (Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1983), pp. 8, 4.
4Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, pp. 43,159ff.
5
Spinoza’s text reads “no one has yet determined what the body can do,” and, later, “they do not know what the bodycan do,” Ethics II, P, S in A Spinoza Reader, ed. and trans. Edwin Curley (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1994), pp. 155, 156. Deleuze often refers to this text, paraphrasing it “we do not even know what a body can do.”6
Of course, “[y]ou never reach the Body without Organs, you can’t reach it, you are forever attaining it, it is alimit,” a regulative ideal for experimental practices. Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, p. 150.
7
Brian Massumi offers a nice description of this process in his User’s Guide to Capitalism and Schizophrenia (NewYork: Zone, 1992), 93ff.
8
Deleuze, Spinoza: Practical Philosophy, trans. Robert Hurley (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1988), p. 127.
9Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, p. 267. Deleuze and Guattari refer to Reich and Glass in a footnote tothis passage. A rather similar paragraph in Dialogues runs: “Some contemporary musicians have pushed to the limit
the practical idea of an immanent plane which no longer has a hidden principle of organization, but where the process
must be heard no less than what comes out of it; where forms are retained only to set free variations of speed
between particles or molecules of sound; where themes, motifs and subjects are only retained to set free floating
affects” (94; cf. 33). Indeed, when describing the “plane of immanence,” Deleuze often raises the example of music.
In addition to the passages just cited, see Spinoza: Practical Philosophy, pp. 123, 126, 128 and Negotiations, trans.
Martin Joughin (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995), p. 43.
10
See Deleuze and Parnet, Dialogues, pp. 91, 93.
11
Deleuze and Guattari discuss this briefly in What is Philosophy? trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Graham Burchill(New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), pp. 189–91, 195.
12
For a short characterization of the classical work, see Robert P. Morgan, Twentieth-Century Music (New York:
Norton, 1991), pp. 1ff. For a similar critical analysis, see Christopher Small, Music, Society, Education (Hanover,
N.H.: University Press of New England, 1996) and Chris Cutler, “Necessity and Choice in Musical Forms,” in File
Under Popular: Theoretical and Critical Writings on Music (New York: Autonomedia, 1993).
13
Edgard Varèse, “The Liberation of Sound,” in Contemporary Composers on Contemporary Music, Expanded
Edition, ed. Elliott Schwarz and Barney Childs (New York: Da Capo, 1998), p. 207.
14
See Varèse, “Liberation of Sound,” p. 197.

23
Notes (cont.)
15

Varèse, “Liberation of Sound,” p. 203. This is precisely how Bernhard Günter describes his own process ofcomposition. See “Interview for The Wire,” http://www.bernhardguenter.net/frame_int.html.
16
Varèse, “Liberation of Sound,” p. 197. This is an astonishingly apt description of the way in which much noise
composition (e.g., Merzbow, PanSonic, Fennesz, Fenn 0’ Berg) works.
17
A composer, Cage remarked, should “give up the desire to control sound, clear his mind of music, and set about
discovering means to let sounds be themselves rather than vehicles for man-made theories or expressions of humansentiments.” Cage, “Experimental Music,” in Silence: Lectures and Writings by John Cage (Hanover, NH: Wesleyan
University Press, 1973), p. 10. Note that, following Kant, Deleuze distinguishes the “transcendental” from “thetranscendent.” The former names the conditions for the possibility of actual sensual experience, while the latternames what transcends sensual experience altogether. The description of a “transcendental” or “virtual” field thatprecedes the subject occupied Deleuze throughout his career, from The Logic of Sense, trans. Mark Lester (NewYork: Columbia University Press, 1990), pp. 100–17 to “Immanence: A Life,” in Pure Immanence, trans. Anne
Boyman (New York: Zone, 2001), pp. 25–33. In the latter text, Deleuze elaborates on the distinction between “thetranscendental” and “the transcendent.”
18
Cage, Themes & Variations (1982), in Postmodern American Poetry: A Norton Anthology, ed. Paul Hoover(New York: W.W. Norton, 1994), p. 623. Compare Deleuze and Guattari: “music is not the privilege of humanbeings: the universe, the cosmos, is made of refrains.” A Thousand Plateaus, p. 309.
19
“There is no such thing as an empty space or an empty time. There is always something to see, something tohear. In fact, try as we may to make a silence, we cannot,” Silence, p. 8. “[T]o me, the essential meaning of silenceis the giving up of intention.” John Cage, in Conversing with Cage, ed. Richard Kostelanetz (New York: Limelight
Editions, 1988), p. 189.
20
Morton Feldman, “The Future of Local Music,” in Give My Regards to Eighth Street: Collected Writings ofMorton Feldman, ed. B.H. Friedman (Cambridge, MA: Exact Change Press, 2000), p. 157–58.
21
Feldman, Give My Regards to Eighth Street, p. 196.
22
I owe this fine characterization to Kyle Gann, writing on Feldman in The New York Times (February 17, 2002).
23
Such are the sounds that make up Pierre Schaeffer’s Études de bruits (“noise studies). Pierre Schaeffer, L’Oeuvre
musicale (EMF).
24
Deleuze and Guattari, Anti-Oedipus, pp. 324.
25
See Pierre Schaeffer, Traité des objets musicaux (Paris: Éditions de Seuil, 1966), ch. IV.
26
Quoted in Wim Mertens, American Minimal Music, trans. J. Hautekiet (London: Kahn and Averill, 1983), p. 90.
27
Steve Reich, “Music as a Gradual Process,” in Writings About Music (New York: New York University Press,
1974). In his comments on musical minimalism and the plane of immanence (see note 9, above) Deleuze clearly has
this text in mind.
28
These characteristics of “pulsed time” are presented by Deleuze in the “Vincennes Seminar Session, May 3, 1977:
On Music,” trans. Timothy S. Murphy, Discourse 20:3 (Fall 1998), pp. 209ff.
29
Glass, cited in Mertens, American Minimal Music, p. 89; Reich, “Music as a Gradual Process.”
30
Mertens, American Minimal Music, p. 90.
31
On Chronos and Aeon (also Aion) and their relationship to music, see the “Vincennes Seminar” and A Thousand
Plateaus, p. 262. Deleuze first introduces the Stoic distinction between Chronos and Aeon in The Logic of Sense,ed. Constantin Boundas, trans. Mark Lester and Charles Stivale (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990).
Deleuze and Guattari discuss the difference between Goethe’s Bildungsroman and Kleist’s “pure ‘stationary process’”in A Thousand Plateaus, p. 268-9.
32
Feldman, Give My Regard to Eighth Street, p. 87. Discussing his late pieces, some of which last longer than five
hours, Morton Feldman said: “Up to one hour you think about form, but after an hour and a half it’s scale. Form iseasy—just the division of things into parts. But scale is another matter [. . . . I]t requires a heightened kind ofconcentration. Before, my pieces were like objects; now, they're like evolving things.” Quoted by John Rockwell in
his liner notes to a recording of Feldman’s Crippled Symmetry (Bridge Records, 9092A/B).
33
Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, pp. 267–8. “Unformed elements” correspond to Spinoza’s “simplest
bodies,” the atomic entities of which any composite entity (assemblage or multiplicity) is formed. See Spinoza:
Practical Philosophy, p. 127, note 3.
34
Reich, “Music as a Gradual Process.”
35
Conrad, “LYssophobia: On Four Violins,” liner notes to Tony Conrad, Early Minimalism, Volume I (Table of
the Elements).
36
Tom Johnson, “La Monte Young, Steve Reich, Terry Riley, Philip Glass,” originally published in The Village
Voice (September 7, 1972), reprinted in The Voice of New Music: New York City 1972–1982 (Eindhoven: Apollo
Art About, 1989), pp. 44–45.
37
On “anti-production,” see Anti-Oedipus, pp. 8ff.

24
Notes (cont.)
38

John Coltrane, Ascension (Polygram)“Free Jazz” generally describes a largely African-American tradition that emerged out of bebop and is associatedwith the names Ornette Coleman, Cecil Taylor, (late) John Coltrane, Sun Ra, and the Art Ensemble of Chicago.
“Improvised Music” generally describes a British and European tradition associated with the names Derek Bailey,
Evan Parker, Han Bennink, Misha Mengelberg, and others. While “Free Jazz” often retained a connection to theblues, “Improvised Music” combined the liberatory impulses of Free Jazz with the sonic worlds of vanguard classicalmusic (Webern, Cage, etc.).
40
On “becoming” as mutual deterritorialization, see “1730: Becoming-Intense, Becoming-Animal, Becoming
Imperceptible . . .,” in A Thousand Plateaus, pp. 323–309.
41
For a further catalog and discussion of these “extended techniques,” see Derek Bailey, Improvisation: Its Nature andPractice in Music (New York: Da Capo, 1992), pp. 98–102, and John Corbett, “Writing Around Free
Improvisation,” in Krin Gabbard, ed., Jazz Among the Discourses (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1995),
pp. 229–36.
42
See Simon Reynolds, “Shaking the Rock Narcotic” The Wire 123 (May 1994), and “To Go Where No Band Has
Gone Before: Rock Travels Past Its Own Borders,” Village Voice (August 19, 1995): 26–32.
43
Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, pp. 300, 302.
44
Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, p. 248.
45
“I try to create a time continuum that gives the listener a chance to hear sound appearing, slowly presenting itself,changing, intertwining with others, being repeated in different configurations, and finally disappearing [. . . .] The
basic measure of time in my music is slow, relaxed breathing, which I manipulate by slowing it, or speeding it up,
in small, homeopathic doses, stretching and relaxing time like a rubberband. Most people completely lose theirsense of [clock time] after awhile and can never tell how long the piece lasted.” Bernhard Günter interviewed in
Halana Magazine 3 (Winter 1998), on-line at: http://www.bernhardguenter.net/int_halana.html
46
Edgard Varèse named his first electronic composition Déserts (1950–54). Reanimating Varèse’s impulse, Global
Electronic Network titled an early Mille Plateaux 12” (and a subsequent full-length CD) “Electronic Desert,”, aphrase that has since become common in the culture of electronica.
47
See Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, p. 480.
48
E.g., Köner, Teimo/Permafrost (Mille Plateaux), Roden, Four Possible Landscapes (Trente Oiseaux), Chartier, Of
Surfaces (L–NE), Jan Jelinek, Loop-Finding-Jazz-Records (~scape), snd, makeSNDcassette (Mille Plateaux), andPlastikman, Consumed (Mute).
49
Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, p. 382.
50
For example, much of the work of Merzbow and Francisco Lopez. Jim O’Rourke’s “As In” and DJ Spooky’s“Invisual Ocean,” both on Mille Plateaux’s In Memoriam Gilles Deleuze compilation, provide other good examples.
51
On silence as a plan sonore, see Deleuze and Parnet, Dialogues, p. 94.
52
See, for example, the comments of Philip Glass and Terry Riley in K. Robert Schwarz, Minimalists (London:
Phaidon, 1996), pp. 9, 35. On duration as qualitative, intensive multiplicity, see Henri Bergson, Time and Free
Will, trans. F.L. Pogson (New York: Harper and Row, 1960), chs. 1 and 2 and Creative Evolution, trans. Arthur
Mitchell (New York: Random House, 1944), ch. 1. Also see Deleuze, Bergsonism, trans. Hugh Tomlinson and
Barbara Habberjam (New York: Zone, 1990).
53
Terry Riley quoted in Schwarz, Minimalists, p. 35.
54
See the opening pages of Bergson’s Creative Evolution.
55
Maurizio, “m6 [edit],” M CD (M/Basic Channel).
56
On this feature of minimalism, see the opening section of Kyle Gann’s “Minimal Music, Maximal Impact,” NewMusic Box Issue 31, vol. 3, no. 7 (November 2001): http://www.newmusicbox.org/page.nmbx?id=31tp00; also see
Deleuze and Parnet, Dialogues, p. 33.
57
E.g., the tracks and artists on Mille Plateaux’s Clicks & Cuts compilations.
58
James A. Snead, “Repetition as a Figure of Black Culture,” Black Literature and Literary Theory, ed. Henry Louis
Gates, Jr., (New York: Methuen, 1984), p. 67.
59
Snead, “Repetition,” p. 69.
60
Deleuze and Guattari, Kafka: Toward a Minor Literature, trans. Dana Polan (Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 1986), p. 6; cf. also pp. 21ff. On “stuttering,” see Deleuze, “He Stuttered,” in Gilles Deleuze andthe Theater of Philosophy, ed. Constantin V. Boundas and Dorothea Olkowski (New York: Routledge, 1994), pp.
23–29.
61
Deleuze and Parnet, Dialogues, p. 94.
62“The plane of consistency [of Nature] would be the totality of all BwO’s, a pure multiplicity of immanence [. . .
.] A plateau is a piece of immanence. Every BwO is made up of plateaus. Every BwO is itself a plateau incommunication with other plateaus on the plane of consistency.” A Thousand Plateaus, pp. 157–8.
39

25
Notes (cont.)
63

On Systemisch (Mille Plateaux)Deleuze generally reserves the term “affect” for the description of organic entities (plants, animals, human beings).
The term “intensity” is used more broadly to describe the nonorganic world (metals, language, colors, sounds, etc.).
Hence my musical analysis here is largely in terms of the latter.
65
Deleuze’s oft-used phrase “zone of intensity” (e.g., A Thousand Plateaus, p. 156) is clearly taken from thispassage.
66
Varèse, “Liberation of Music,” p. 197.
67
See Deleuze, Francis Bacon: Logique de la Sensation (Paris: Éditions de la Différance, 1981), ch. 6.
68E.g., alva noto, Prototypes (Mille Plateaux) and Transform (Mille Plateaux/Raster-Noton) and the visual art
installations Milch, Fluid Interferenz, Hertz + Wave, and Telefunken.
69
Deleuze and Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, p. 158, cf. pp. 21-22. Also cf. Tony Conrad: “Western music, with
its ever-present investment in progression, animates a sense of absence—of suspension and expectation. Thisirresolution corresponds to the conflict that provides a forward impetus in narrative story telling. Indian music also
conveys feelings of suspension and resolution, but much differently—always in the presence of its object. Its
operative figure is balance, or repetition, not absence and conflict.” “LYssophobia.”
70
See A Thousand Plateaus, p. 158 and Francis Bacon: Logique de la Sensation, ch. 7.
71Deleuze’s clearest and most succinct presentation of this idea appears in “Spinoza and Us,” the final chapter of
Spinoza: Practical Philosophy. See also A Thousand Plateaus, pp. 260ff.
72
Spinoza, Ethics II, P13, L1. Deleuze, Spinoza: Practical Philosophy, p. 123.
73
Deleuze and Parnet, Dialogues, p. 93.
74
Deleuze and Parnet, Dialogues, p. 94.
75
On Hinant’s and Szepanski’s correspondence with Deleuze, see Hinant’s liner notes to Double Articulation:
Another Plateau (Sub Rosa) and Simon Reynolds, “Low End Theories,” The Wire 146 (April 1996).
64