You are on page 1of 31

When asking the question 'what is music,' , .lM!; becomes that 'structured sound' is it :.Jlffl the answer.

Perhaps music can be listening ..diractureless sound, silence, or what is neither "JOund nor silence.
Attali continues, 'music, "the organization of , I.,. noise, reflects the manufacture of society; it "",,' ". eenstitutes the ... that make up society.':"
~.~ .t

Today, when tradition no louger prescribes anything for music, its enigmatic character emerges, weak and needy, like a question mark--one that, admittedly, becomes blurred the moment anyone BSks it to confess what ''''. it actually b.t. ' ,

"Perhaps suppositions as Attali' s - that music is "the organization of noise' - 'reflect the manufacture of society' as much if not more than this supposed 'organization' itself.




For the ancient poets, music, 'the art of the muses,' is magic. They write at length of Arion, Amphion, Timotheus, and especially, of Orpheus. They write of Hermes' gift of the lyre to Apollo, and of the divine muses themselves, born of Mnemosyne and Zeus, those touched by them sing. In the Hebrew Bible, God orders his high priest, Aaron, to wear a ceremonial robe with little bells when he enters the Holy of Holies. trumpet blasts bring an entire city to ruin; David's enchanting harp impels restlessness from the heart of king Saul. All the same, the 'gods cannot take fear away from man, for they bear its petrified sound within them as they bear their names." And so, from the poets to the philosophers JJ1lUic becomes a science of harmony. Though this becoming 'remains impotent to the 1:-' extent that it develops from the cry of terror '..' which is the duplication, the tautology, of ''', ' terror itself. ,5 The Pythagoreans are fascinated that a plucked-string stopped in half sounds an octave higher than the whole; stopped in third, a fifth higher than the whole; and so on, analogically for them is the harmony of

everything, the world as a harmonious cosmos, and not only the harmony of the spheres, but also of the body and soul, and so on.

In his Timaeus, Plato writes that music is 'to correct any discord which may have arisen in the courses of the soul, and to be our ally in bringing her into harmony and agreement with herself,'6 against 'irrational pleasure, or the irregular and graceless ways which prevail among mankind generally.' 7
In his Republic Plato banishes all music but the warlJ)le and the pedantic, 'these two harmonies " I uk you to leave; the strain of courage, and :,.';the Wain of temperance; these, I say, leave. ,8

,;":,If music must be a way of listening and not , '" iWldt it listens, if music must be listened with IIPt to so that what is listened with music is

I, I

" ~an;,


is by asking how music is different from listening the wind blowing through the grass, the birds singing in ,.' , 'the trees. the sonorous star in the night sky, 1;_- and SO on.

',~' m_

'listened as music, then perhaps we ask what other ways of listening;



Perhaps music is different from other ways of ': listening in that the wind, the birds, the star, and so on, can be listened with music. Though perhaps not. as perhaps anything can be listen3



ed with anything; the birds with the wind, the wind with the star, the star with the birds, and so on Perhaps no thing demands to be listened with the way we call music, as perhaps no thing demands to be listened with the birds, the wind, the star, and so on. Perhaps music is different from other ways of listening in that it affects. Though perhaps not, as any listening the wind, the birds, the star, and so on, perhaps make sure. Perhaps music is different from other ways of listening in that it is a disinterested listening. Though perhaps not, as any listening the wind, the birds, the star, and so on, perhaps make, sure. Perhaps music is different from other ways of listening in that the world it is listened it I'::" special. Though perhaps not, as perhaps listeD"~.". ' ing is always a special world; the world of the grass, the world of the trees, the world of the night sky, and so on. Besides, the question 'where is music' may not be the question 'what is music?' If a question about the listening situation in a concert hall is not a question about the listening situation in an automobile, then perhaps neither is a question about the same way of listening in either.

Perhaps music is different from other ways of listening in that it is the listening that is of eoacem for the State. Is there a grand archilecture especially to listen the wind? Is there law concerning bird song? Is human being driven to frenzy by the stars? And so on. Perhaps music is not the listening that is of concern for the State, but is only a concern of the State; the concern is for no thing but the concern. Though perhaps not, e.g., as Gilles Deleuze reminds us with color, the State may onJy allow knowledge of black and white, that being its instatement, but this instatement is not what color is, color is what allows this in'. Jtatement. 'This is why we identify, in the last :' ~ysis, the domain of intuitions as immediate .representations, the analytic predicates of exis,,_~ and the descriptions of mixtures or agg,','Wd.t_
I I • ..,.,.",.....,.~





long as predicates are brought to bear upon individuals, we must recognize In them equal Immediacy WhICh blends WIth their analytic _acter. To have a color IS no more general than to be green, since It IS only this color that is green, and this green that has this shade, that are related to the indrvidual subject ThIS rose is not red without having the red color of this rose. This red is not a color WIthout having the color of this red. 10



from the Pythagoreans through Boethius. and that. He reminds us Attali' s suspicion that 'the entire history of tonal music involves an" attempt to make people believe in a consensual: ' representation of the world' 12 is itself already ". couples this inheras music is instated against the 'sensual . ntoxtcated artful sorcery. the instatement of music as 'a prompt to have us transport ourselves to eternal numbers. an attempt to make people believe in a' '> consensual representation of the world: that music IS this or that. hke the poetry of Mallarme. Debussy's mUSIC. the Levisong. music is what the State states it is.Ileiitncm cults. it repels reahty 13 Michael Shapiro reminds us that Attali's answer to the question 'what is music' is a Statist answer in that it falls short of questioning music's capacity to change the State. subj ecting to the yoke of 7 6 . Was not the wind known as the breath of God ? Were not bird calls known as solemn omens? Were not the sonorous movements of the heavenly bodies known as music par excellence? And so on Music no longer has the task of representing a reality that is preexistmg for everyone in common. in so doing. the of the Fathers. ' of Alexandria writes of 'the new llaJ]Qcmywhich bears God's name. If so. is not different from r'. for music.'~. disrupts familiar meaning conventions . by implication the production of a system of counterllltelh~lblhty 11 The answer 'music is what the State states it is' does not concern the question 'what is music' anyways.'15 instating it against the 'ravmg. and so the question 'what is music' has an answer. 10 ItS isolation..' 4 Auctoritas. there is no music but what the State Instates.16 intent on 'corrupthuman life. other ways of listening. but rather of revealing.LISTENING MUSIC LISTENING MUSIC Do we find ourselves supposing here that some thing exceeds the State? Cannot knowledge change without necessitating an outside about which it changes? Perhaps knowledge is not knowledge of some thing rather it is in and of itself. only in that the instatement of it changes. it continually blocks rather than fulfills expectations The result IS a disruption of conventional musical mtelhgibihty and. where for Shapiro what is important IS what It is not-yet The Middle Ages inherit. the very cracks that reality would hke to cover over 10 order to exist 10 safety. where God is " more fully found than In t~e empirical qualities the temporal world.

there is a feast of the Devil. an activity of tile . But not such IS my song. the first. upper-classes. Boethius stratifies music in three: uppermost. an'" 8 Perhaps we can-only think music's difference from other ways of listening through what it often listens. 21 . . incidentals from which its essence should be extracted. and that speedily. to be mere epiphenomena.'n. to this type of inquiry. camouflaging additions.' 19 In his De Institutione Mustca. and astronomy.:~th " 9 . musica instrumentalts. there God is present with His angels. Boethius stratifies the origins. the harmony of body and soul. ADd so. is held above the second. recalls to heaven those that had been cast prostrate to the earth. not all areas of discourse ~e equally open and penetrable. . and bottommost. the bitter bondage of tyranmzmg demons.' Boethius also seems to have been the first to use the term quadrtvtum. '. or making of music in the artes liberales and tbJt artes mechanicae. are precisely its unfolded life in which it has its truth and in which its essence Dl4y be. open to all 20 ' Ephraem Syrus writes. which has come to loose. and leading us back to the mild and loving yoke of piety.LISTENING MUSIC LISTENING MUSIC extremest bondage the truly noble freedom of those who live as free citizens under heaven. silence. musica mundana. 'where the chant of psalms resounds in deep contrition. geometry. qual~fied to do so More exactly. with the arithmetic. Md everything-else? . first determined. Finally. moreover. Perhaps the things that would seem. musica humana. Where the playing of the cithara and dancing occurs. coupling music." activity of the lower-classes involved. It alone has tamed men. in materiality and in the irrationality of the instinctus natura lis . in fact. while others are virtually open to the winds and stand without any prior restrictions. Now 'composers' are held overand-above 'performers' and music is bound to the 'greater certainties of that intellect' so that: None may enter into discourse on a specifrc subject unless he has satisfied certain conditions or if he IS not. already a science. are not three things most often listened the way we call music: sound. something which is of the utmost contempt for Boethius and the Middle Ages. below that. or music as Attali imagines it. from the outset. some are forbidden terntory . 'organized noise. the music of the spheres.

and only In 1lIL'n!ll'IAIiV this 'edge' is why the verb 'listen' intransitive and usually followed the preposition 'to'. so that when ~liJJtClled with the way of listening we call silence may be only listening the way of tisteniing we call music. .~fta . without having to sound or everything-else. with what we call 'performance' 'composition?' To be hstemng IS always to be on the edge of meamng. as an acoustic phenomenon but as a resonant meaning. that is sometimes there with listening.24 may offer the possibility to listen the of listening we call music without having sound or everything else.. everything-else not there. because it is some. Perhaps we should think sound as some thing. e. as it so often appears Webem's work-be extinguished. this fnnge.Ola. offered there. or In an edgy meaning of extremity. open to all. it would ratherthe most literal sense.22 Perhaps sound. that is 10 resonance. everything-. sound. to be listened as mUSIC. the way we call mUSIC.LISTENING MUSIC LISTENING MUSIC What is sound and why is it often listened with the way we call music? Perhaps we should not think sound as anything that can be listened. this 'edge' being . and as if the sound were precisely nothing else than this edge. Besides. listening somehow both listens and is at the same time as sound. as perhaps such thinking offers us no difference between these three things.. so that when it is there with listening. may be most often what is listened with . else. or sounded. ' thing that must be there.g. that many may even suppose the two inseparable.g. not. perhaps is what is also open to all that offers possibility to listen listenings. is not that which is not there but listened with music. a meamng whose sense IS supposed to be found in resonance. and everything-else.' sound is there. Though'. And so it is perhaps 'music that remains true to itself rather not exist at all.some thing other than listening with listening goes. rather than. perhaps different listenings listen it differently. open to all. e.. however. and so perhaps each listening there that can listen it may. but does not forbid us from using silence as way of frinldIllg the specialty of music? Perhaps we 11 'JI"'a. is silence and why is it perhaps often fliJlteIled with the way we call music? perhaps sound is open to all. the margin-at least the sound that IS musically hstened to. often.." /Pfll'hlllnll gathered and scrutinized for Itself.

shapes. Even Stockhausen. thoughts. Perhaps neither sound nor silence..on. from origin in discovery to origin in ~lr~atiolD. activities . When the composition IS over. 12 13 . perhaps becomes listening this way of listening itself. in this instance. 'The music ': -hall is well lit' reminds George Brecht Composition #5 1960 I Turn a butterfly. Nikolai RimskyKorsakov. . to be listened with music."""''''J necessitate a radical transformation the instatement of music: from number to ~'mlD. graphemes. offers. and so on. 'in his head. and other synesthetes. be sure to allow the butterfly to flyaway outside The composition may be any length. may be there: a color. LaMonte Young. can be listened with the way of listening we call music as well. While Olivier Messiaen. and so on. when listened as music.. like sound.. starvation. everything-else is everything else that can be listened even and especially with the way of listening we call music. remind that color. perhaps we are not thinking what is listened.g. Aus den sieben Tagen. as silence.g. a body. Robert Ashley. a memory. Perhaps everythingelse. What is everything-else and why is it perhaps often listened with the way we call music? When Robert Schumann writes of a 'gloriousness sounding more wonderful than one ever hears on earth. Perhaps everything-else is what is often listened with the way we call music that is neither sound nor silence. Alvin Lucier. what is everything else. ideologies of individuality and '~.LISTENING MUSIC LISTENING MUSIC can think music's difference from other ways of listening through thinking what is often listened with it.g. but with silence. the doors and windows may be opened before the butterfly IS turned loose and the composition may be considered finished when the butterfly flies away 26 " What could be gained by neglecting all these of music and how might that ~"'J'I"""L 'reflect the manufacture of society'? ..' a number. the ghostly non-: sounds 'in his head' that sound like sound. all offer to be listened with music. and so on. and so on. gestures..and from value in fidelity to authority value in ingenuity. e. the tibtargc. (or any number of butterflies) loose in the performance area. in his . paralysis.. but if an unlimited amount of time is available. . Franz Lizst.25 he may writing be of everything-else.. the end of the Middle Ages. numbers.~I1. a movement and so on. and may be not there" e.

whether these are simple qualities or comparative. and as a by-product the false.. those tones about which science has learned the truth. becomes creation as op-posed to discovery. and to some natural and inborn talent than to craftsmanship And this .' '«»I potest creare. " erea te. 'God alone creates._. Tinctoris reinforces this instatement when. It then lets art exploit as it sees fit. the music. the creatura .the origin of music.' writes Saint . reinforces this instatement in a 14 :way altogether unthinkable in the Middle Ages when he writes: The true end of science IS altogether different from that of art [ ] The science of music goes about diligently Investigating and considermg all the qualities and properties of the existing constitution and ordering of musical tones. In both [the melodic Inventor and the contrapuntist] this IS to be ascnbed more to the energies of genius. 'this. as for the ancient philosophers. without any limitation.' blasphemy. In the Renaissance. ' Through the Renaissance. is in my opinion to be left enti-rely to the judgment of the ears. negotiates their potential in perhaps a much more subtle manner. This is impossible to determine from what is listened itself. is not so much what is listened. to think that music has its origin in creation than in discovery is ." . however. for the Middle Ages. Girolamo Mei. and this for no other aim than to come to know the truth itself. categorically. having more to do witk listening than with number.28 S' amt Augustine agrees. individuality and " qrig-inality are reinforced so emphatically that . Music.. The significant change then. he writes. the perfect goal of all speculation.' The philologist and student of ancient music. what is said about it.. like the cons-onances. music is instated as an object of individual enjoyment.LISTENING MUSIC LISTENING MUSIC This distinctively Renaissance instatement of music has the advantage over its Medieval counterpart in that soliciting individuality and originality. . can be proved through those who never studied 15 . . is the science of harmony. a rondeau by Machaut may 'be an object of individual enjoyment' just as easily as a motet by Josquin. quod quidem penitus aurium judicio relinquendunm cen-seo.Thomas Aquinas.27 For the Middle Ages. but its instatement. a negotiating moreover mastered by commercial capitalism. instead of forbidding them. the 'creature cannot create. in one of his eight rules of counterpoint. 'no mortal being can .

So that Tinctoris dedicates one of his writings to a singer of the Papal Chapel. 16 . . not of the Master's music. Glareanus.. the Middle Ages. Even musical performers. The new emphasis on creation is emphasized in other ways as well. Michel Foucault may perhaps be after what is happening here when he writes that disciplinary power means the 'the reversal of the political access of indivi-dualization. his going over his compositions again and again. Medieval theorists rarely name composers or refer to specific works.g. but of his 'fits of melancholy and despair.• . . writes not only of Josquin's outbursts of temper during rehearsals.' Manlius too. and the preachers of the Divine Word (for about the poets there can be no doubt) and for all works dedicated to Minerva 29 LISTENING MUSIC All this is reinforced as well by new talk of the 'creator's personal and psychological constitution. unless his mother gave It to him-which IS Just as true for the painters. but also of his unending search for perfection.35 Unlike perhaps. Ockeghem and Busnois. but also through those who are masters of counterpoint although they were often poorly taught-to say nothmg of the other discrplines From this It appears certain that neither IS possible for a man unless he is born for It.' So that.32 Glareanus writes mere anecdotes of Josquin's witty musical rewonses to forgetful or demanding patrons.' in that the 'heavens are cruel to him. who printed in his consummate Dod-ekachordon no fewer than 121 polyphonic com-positions. the Celtic [French] or the German.i" going so far as to call the former opttmi ingenit compositor. 34 In his Discipline and Punish. the sculptors. refining.LISTENING MUSIC music. relegated by Boethius to the artes mechanicae. polishing. as IS apparent in our vernacular [folk song]. Tinctoris dedicated a treatise to the two composers he admired most. lists each composer by name. . and nevertheless show a miraculous ability In inventing melodies. as the people say. now receive appreciation.31 most mgemous composer. the poet Serafino dall' Aquila's sonnett 'Josqutno suo compagno musico d'Ascani' tells. where 'individualization is greatest where sovereignty is exercised and in 17 Nothmg demonstrates more the Renaissance emphasis on creator as origm than the theorist's new habit of referring to a specific work by a specific composer. e. or. changing.

and in his music a specialist in melancholy. becomes not merely another scientist of sound. The Middle Ages.' works together with another of the Renaissance's significant transformations. but 'the loner. The Renaissance thinking of music's origin in creation. something that always escapes it. conceived the materiality and the irrationality of the tnstinctus naturalts as bad. Boethius and the Middle Ages. characteristically deploys the concept of 'natural and inborn talent. a deep melancholic in life. form of awareness. ' We should distinguish this exercise of power as individualization from the Renaissance through Romanticism from the similar phenomenon of celebrity in commercial capitalism. What is important is that all this chatter. 18 : '" ' " [I]n every society the production of discourse IS at once controlled. the ceaseless refiner of his works. this 'individualization. Contrarily. selected. dominated by auctoritas. whose role IS to avert ItS power and its dangers. the temperamental conductor. Josquin. coupled as it is always with the emphasis upon the 'poet being born and not made. Spataro. awesome matenahty. to rules.37 Thus. perhaps the distinction between them being was ambiguous as the distinction between the cosmos and positive science today. 19 . writing when his inner voice compels him. . as the former seems to be a means of controlling something potentially antagonistic to the dominant flows of power and the latter a means of reifying something that is part and parcel with the dominant flows themselves. to evade its ponderous.' circumscribes a kind-of void. Spataro and the Ren-aissance oppose instinctus naturalis to rationality as a higher. not only as the reason the creator can create. whether the rules of the Church or of the Cosmos. 'the sufferer of a mental collapse' and Gesualdo 'the murderer of his wife and her lover.. organized and redistnbuted according to a certain number of procedures. but also as the justification for his breaking of the rules.g. think not only the origin.LISTENING MUSIC LISTENING MUSIC the higher echelons of power.'38 Or Lasso. those on whom it is exercised tend to be more strongly indiv-idualized . but the value of music as well. ':. to cope with chance events. almost divine.36 the Renaissance becomes where 'indivi-dualization is descending: as power becomes more anonymous and more functional. e.' the instinto naturale. in fidelity to the authority of tradition.

but they will not make the good composer. the attempt to respond conceptually to the question of the enigmatic that musrc poses to Its listeners. perhaps that is what primitively distinguishes sound at a pitch from noise.42 And the posinon of philosophy vis-a-vis musical objecnvity. it can enter into a relativity with itself.'40 The written rules can well teach the first rudiments of counterpoint. and/or other sound. and this IS apparent every day. can thought even begin to come close to what music IS 43 Is not the sound music listens often at a pitch? Or only a very few of an infinitude of possible sonorities? And does not the pitch or sonority around which a relativity may be opened often modulate. and not In the Immediacy of the question of pure bemg. are at a pitch. demands that these constellations be determined down to the most mnmate details not only of the technical procedures but also of the musical characters 20 . one needs almost more divine help than the Written rule.39 'There are as many kinds of poetic rules as there are kinds of poets. Therefore. Perhaps sound at a pitch is what makes into a semi-presence a whole system of pitched sounds. Inasmuch as good composers are born just as are the poets." themselves Only by means of such meditations. in almost all the ways noise can. 21 Baldassare Castiglione. especially other sound at a pitch. in his II Cortegtano. i e . and so on. The Count asks Federico. isn't sound always 'organized' in the way Attali mentioned? What is sound at a pitch and why is it perhaps often listened with the way we call music? Perhaps the sounds. and whom did Boccaccio and Petrarch imitate?. Perhaps this is because sound at a pitch may be more open than noise. often listened with the way we call music.LISTENING MUSIC LISTENING MUSIC Zarlino writes that 'poetic license' is allowed to the composer as well as to the poet. 'who should have been Homer's model. has the Count uphold the ingenuity of a great artist against Signor Federico's insistence on imitation of the great masters. and in many ways noise cannot. regardless of everything that is not sound that might be listened with music. in such a way that it is organized? In other words. and everything-else that sounds like sounds. because the good composers (through natural instinct and a certain manner of grace which can hardly be taught) bring at times such turns and figures In counterpoint and harmony as are not demonstrated In any rule or percept of counterpomt.

. or going through.enou~h pitch to open the relativity offered In being so. found themselves upon this suspicion? That the timbre. or extensive. in sound at a pitch. Perhaps being at a pitch does not forsake being noise-like and being noise forsakes being pitch-like.' and some think 'minor triad. and the double octave plus major sixth. go 109 towards.LISTENING MUSIC '" LISTENING MUSIC Perhaps noise gives ideas of the causes that produce it. of any sound may be determined by the relative volume of the overtones that make up that sound we. Even and especially if we think 'noise [as] a resonance that interferes with the audition of a message in the process of emission.ning offered in being so.. !he word 'relativity' comes from relatus: reto trace-back or restore' and -Iatus 'broad wid~. cal~mg relativity may be the offering of th. but the octave plus fi~th.' Relativity may be th~ tracing back or restoring of broadness wideness. A. but not a state of Immanence to an intrinsic farnib' of . Do mUSIC theories. ' Already. The dIstmctness of sound at a pitch. Movement may be alw~ys relative to some thing and what we are. Relativity may b~ a con~urrent opening and closing. that ~he commonest of these same overtones compnse the sonorities most often listened with the way we call music. 44 . yet it 22 . col?r within a chromatic field and noise may be Its blur. not only the octave.45 it may be wrapped-up 10 " uu~'Wl'apping itself.nd WIth Mersenne is listened. from Pythagoras to Rameau ~o Schenker. Why are the sonorities often listened with ~he way we call music perhaps so few respecting the infinite possibilities? Perhaps the few sonorities listened than the many possible are the few that open t~e opening to all that sound may be. except to allow for the ope. reflexes. making itself snap. of blur. double octave plus major always within sound at a pitch. Aristotle notes the octave abo. may not be clo~i~~ . di~positions of action. 23 may be necessarily 'elaborated with the aim ?f ~oi~e may be precisely a sound which lacks It distinct . of color.because it in no way forsakes the possIblhtles of the indistinctness of noise.' 'dominant seventh chord. ' Perhaps being at a pitch opens relativity. or extensiveness.ISthing Just to go from it: going away from.g. gray-scale relative to full-color the natur~ numbers relative to the real numbers. e.. 'major triad.. Perhaps pitch may be a . double octave. as it offers Itself It does not offer what it may not be.

25 . open to all. may be a nominal approximation for some thing that has to do with sound as it may be there. and not relanonally differentiated ?46 Some would have it that the relations often listened with the way we call music would be a kind-of fascist imposition upon things from without. to go from. Perhaps the pitch or sonority around which perhaps a relativity is opened. Perhaps this 'harmonic series' may not be a structuring of sound as it may be there. go to. its home. Like the 'performers' of so-called 'minimalist music' who sound the psycho acoustical effects they listen arising anomalously within the drones and almostendlessly-repeating sonorous figures surrounding them.received ItS first shocking sounding In Western music in the 'Tristan chord. sonority or a sound. or go through. Perhaps we even often temper sounds at a pitch listened with the way we call music to allow modulation. in other words. What is modulation and why is it perhaps often listened with the way we call music? Perhaps a relation often centers on a. is an imposition. Perhaps 24 modulation is the movement wherein this some thing can become some thing other. how can it be internally. movement. the Tristan chord forces us to abandon relational thmking How can one single harmonic event be so many contradictory things at once. or tonic.the ehminanon of functional referents such as the tonic and dominant that teleologically reduce all musical harmony to relationships . As if one thing moving past another. But this objectivism turns into Its opposite. Perhaps it opens this opening to all that sound at a pitch may be. which. perhaps often listened with the way we call music. What concerns us is that perhaps the sonorities listeners often listen in the way we call music open the opening to all that sound at a pitch may be. a key change. In response to this heteronymous relanon.' Like Deleuze 's concept of internal difference itself. but may be the approximate structure of sound as it may be there. perhaps the sonorities often listened with the way we call music open sound as it may be there. that obVIOUS element of the possibrllty of doing everythmg differently-the very thmg that had been striking fear into composers ever since Its emergence dunng the romantic era. the dehierarchisation of harmony . often modulate. considered abstractly.LISTENING MUSIC LISTENING MUSIC Perhaps this 'overtone series. the' ' relative some thing it perhaps offers as a thing.' like pitch. The force that imagmes It IS overcommg the arbitrary rule of the subject.

One of these ways. into a power of affirmation their neutrality. perhaps thinking may place itself under the condition of truth they configure. such naked fidelity as his remains considerable. partly at least. Stevie Moore is an index. terrifying way. that our destitute time would not even be able to experience its own destitution. The insipid banalities. It means that our time. encouraged It-IS Identical with complete reifrcanon the desire to be pure nature corresponds to the purely manufactured thmg 41 With commercial capitalism. into a power of decision the impotence and indecision that is their relation to themselves.'48 that our time is the 'destitute time in which it would be that the ground has failed to come. we know this already. Because our time is an endless regime of circulation. it is the time which settles and decides by way of a speech that does not decide and that does 27 . unsheltered even by the 26 traditional tent of the sky. and sometimes even celebrating. music finds itself instated in ways previously unimaginable. thinking that truth's wager on how to bringforth the immediacy of the way of listening called music universally. . But we know already that the question of our time is about the 'world's night. its absolute threat. and enjoyment. is as pop.LISTENING MUSIC LISTENING MUSIC nevertheless. After the similarity of these chronologically discrete subjects of pop. obscure the way that our time might fall into profundity. the time of commercial capitalism. to the now synchronic singular truth of pop. and thus always ever more destitute Our time is the 'time of the world's night. bringing-forth that it is infinite and always consequential. This means. bullying in the bullying manner proper to our time. a diachronic subjection to music through the singular truth of pop music.' yes. carry [our] existence into lan~uage. reckoning with the epoch in which they find themselves. It also means. is precisely the time that is never its time enough. racked by reality and in search of it'S insisting as we do. Ariel Pink is subject as well. but what does it mean that the night of the world would be a night without the abyss of its darkness? (This being is absolutely destitute character). instruments which transform into an active power the passivity that is their essence. as it would be without an abyss from which to experience it. R.49 the time of groundlessness where we 'with man-made stars flying over head. desire. a surface brought-forth on the basis of instruments of consumption. communication. exposed in an unsuspected.

which oommercial capitalism can always appropriate and thus even solicits.:". From the would be abysslessness of our titxfc.. standardized emotional intention.jther surplus value nor social meaning. Thinking this wager through its discrete subjects does not mean thinking it as such.commercial capitalism. in all of its untruth. . materialization.":1 pop music reaches into an abyss. and multiplication are contingent particulars.' R.. $at it will meet particular standards: song form.en b2 i:t .f. I ._ . subjective expression of what there is. Standardization of form is the commodification of what is listened in the way called music.. is above all.~ . 'to achieve the objective subjectively. Thus. becomes our time enough and thus more than its untruth. ' . periodic rhythm. + ~ _. profit.. and so on. the pop song 'Hobbies Galore. 'of listening called music.' . to concentrate 'v Je. These particulars include standardization. . In the pop song 'You Are True. becomes a plenipotentiary of that which is not distorte4 \ by exchange.' 29 ~ I J '" J I\. .t. materialization. This affirmation exceeds what there is.the intimacy of this absence.LISTENING MUSIC LISTENING MUSIC live in . concurrently use and exceed in making it. In it. e. . but ~'". 28 . Stevie lJCeeds standardization of form through affirmation of it. tonality. In excess of contingency is universality.. contingently. "T. this pop song is too much a pop song (c. the untruth of the situation becomes obvious not through negation. standardization of genre. responsible for it. degraded humanity. it means thinking the particulars these subjects. and the false needs of a degraded humanity. becq~e. This is one definition of genius. Stevie the particulars of his musical situational . assumes its risk. and multiplication. t1tCess of all particularity as regards the way " ......w. It is where our time. Standardization.g. but through excessive affirmation. and enduW"" its favor. 'state to exceed that situation.t similarity of R. concentrating through SUbjection concentration itself into a unive1'iS81 as regards the way of listening called music. and so on.f. concentration is' commodification. Stevie and Ariel.~. profit.' R. 'She Don't Know What To Do With Herself). exactly through that which ' is distorted by exchange. they arecontingent upon the situational state for which they are to concentrate surplus value and social meaning . that they exceed the standardization of pop "m through excessive affirmation of this particular all of its own particulars: standardization of form. and the false needs of .

this pop song brings-forth a subjectIVity that IS not reducible to what there IS In an R Stevie or Anel pop song.51 Materialization of pop means. the pop record album' s inextncabilrty from its materials of production IS not.. pop as consumable object. or JOY.' such an affirmation of subjectivity is truthful Moreover. 'No Know' IS 'psychedelIc. the use of now obsolete materials speaks to somethmg In excess of It 31 I ': . .~\ '.'.supreme longing suffenng. commercia] capitalism uses them to dupe consumers into thinking they have choice ._ I. this affirmation IS the progressive purification of pop towards its truth through the subtraction of genre.' R Stevie exceeds standardized emotIOnal mtention through affirmatIOn of It. however. ". not only those currently 10 fashion As the situational state continues to 'Improve' ItS means of production. a provisional release through consumptlOn that reconciles consumers to their contingency upon the State.' and so on. through new products and planned obsolescence. Stevie and Arrel exceed the standardization of genre in that they are not reducrble to any of the genres they use In an untrue Situational state where everyone is 'self-evidently equal' and 30 .'" '>'))~~.e. and so on While the fact of pop as consumable object IS outside the scope of this text. . o much so that s this intent resists reconcIlmg its listeners to their State. I I therefore 'replaceable.~ '. 'You are True' is 'punk'. synthesizes singular procedures of truth thus diminishing their transformative power Adorno wntes. the pop record album's inextricability from the materials of ItS production. though all these genres are chance. f. 'the posrtive tendency of consolidated technology to present objects themselves in as unadorned fashion as possible is. 'i I III .. i. R Stevie and Anel use production materials in all of their marufestations. despair. ' StandardizatIOn of genre IS the commodificatIOn of choice and the relfication of consumable identity All of the so-called genres of pop are In themselves almost meamngless.. instead of taking-part in the p~ogresslve purification of Itself towards ItS truth.LISTENING MUSIC LISTENING ML'SIC Standard1zed emotional mtention is the commodificatIon of catharsis.' "~ ". bnngmg-forth as It does something exceedmg this state . R. In the pop song 'No Know.and so on. Compare this with that pop mUSIC which.choice for this or that standardized identity 'Hobbles Galore' is 'folk'. the emotional intent IS ObVIOUS. traversed by the ideological need of the ruling SOCIety. which demands subjective reconcihanon WIth t h ese 0 bjects . e g.

we should choose attention.the sound of a whisper. is another mamfestation of the sttuanonal state's imperatrve towards expansion more markets for more identities Moreover. Here intimacy and immedIacy are related. The pop record albums of R Stevie and Anel are an affirmation of multiphcrty. e g.' 'Goodbye Plano. a whole dimension for hsterung 1D the way called music is opened singularly by pop . from attendere ad. and so on.. IS unable to prescnbe entirely what we listen to in this way called mUSIC Both discrete subjects of the singular truth exammed show thinking what remains In excess of this prescription Moreover. The subjective sameness of R Stevie and Ariel unbounds the multiple as such because it IS both and/or neither one and/(n)or multiple.. though often dismissed. as an attention. R Stevie IS so close to us we can hear him breathmg 'Multiphcity' IS the catchphrase of this srtuanonaj state. and nghtfully so. a wresting of it from the oneness of commercial capital in the turnmg of It over to a subjectrve sameness 10 32 . it is a universal over which the situational state can have no domimon. Stevres pop songs ('Records. room resonance.' and so on) listener's may listen to the production matenals (tape hiss. matenahzation. and so on). That the srtuational state so effortlessly appropriates multiplicity must mean that It is not really multiphcity.'to' and tendere 'stretch' Listenmg in the way we call music. they show thinking that this excess IS subjectively wrested through concentrating the contmgent particulars of standardization. and multiplication Finally. of mood. DC offset. of genre. The radical multrphcny pop invokes. through concentratmg greater multiplICIty into a lesser package. a void around which It can only ever circle Though the cruelest master music has ever known (think how unlike other musical truths the musical truth of this situational state is). R Stevie and Ariel foreground the matenalrty of these obsolete materials. rather. of production matenals. It IS multiplicity turned-over to the oneness of commercia] capital. as a stretching towards. On several of R." excess of that situational state and the immanent differences It mamtams for ItS sustenance. 33 . offer a universal way of bnngmg-forth the immediacy of this way of listemng called music Neither intention nor expression is appropriate for thmking this VIOlence.' 'Part of the Problem. the situational state can concentrate the amount of products consumed.' I " !I '1 ~ LISTENING MUSIC LISTENlNG MUSIC Moreover. they show thinking that these particulars.

for not only does barring the listener not abolish the listening. Without this barring of the listener. listening in 34 the way we call music is an attention '. we must ask ourselves..' though for Nancy. doing to that interval? It is not that music can be a listening the unstructured. Considering very briefly all of what listeners listen in the way we call music that seems to WIU1t nothing to do with any kind-of development. the possibility of listening might be forbidden. Jen-Luc Nancy has already noted this 'stretching.' . a fit of self: isn't sense first of all. why they listen it. 'Popular music' forbids an attention that develops because in it structure is absolute.. who would otherwise remain. As much as Deleuze and Guattari would like to suggest that there is such a thing as a 'territorial' ritournelle all their attempts to think it show that it is impossible. a crisis of selj)?. this violence. i. then.S2 Though is a 'self' really what is being attended to by this attention? Can the listener be barred? And can we bar the listener without barring the listened? Perhaps. 'To be listening will always. what is development if not the difference between a 'perfect fifth held for a really long time' and the same perfect fifth listened in the way we call music? What is the way of listening we call music. in a pathological manner.. every time. If we can think anything through most of what listeners listen in the way we call music.LISTENING MUSIC LISTENING MUSIC or development can never really territorialize this is apparent by Mille Plateaux. the stretching is towards the 'self' .e. .. it is that music is only a listening the un-structured. be straining toward or an approach towards the self (one should say. Besides. that develops. it is never its un-structuring. As the listener always knows the relations of 'popular music' 35 ". development is an un-wrapping of this wrapped-up-ness in un-wrapping. the relation is always wrapped-up in un-wrapping itself. but is necessary by our thinking of listening. Even when listening structure in the way we call music listeners are un-structuring it. Without this barring of the listener. Adorno thinks what he calls 'popular music' is some thing that listeners cannot listen in the way we call music because it listens for itself. the listened might disappear as such. it is that listening in this way is always an unstructuring. at least where music is concerned.

in the way we call music then they may listen.. ] But they are childish.' attention that develops and where listening and structuring are the same music is not at question. were we think anything could be. Does the piano player sitting before the sheet music have any more chance to unstructure than the Sitar player does about to play a Raga? Does the third violin in a 37 . unstructuring becomes in listening and not in 'performance'. Even if they are different. Other thinkers think some thing similar to 'popular music' when they think that listeners cannot listen. in this way. If nobody can any longer speak.' 'variations. listening and structuring are the same. Our concern is that both Adorno and these thinkers think some thing that listeners cannot listen to in the way we call music... 54. and so on. the birds.g.g. and 'improvisation'. 55.g. They suppose identities that forbid any attentive development because they are always identical to what they are.. their primitivism is not that of the undeveloped. and 'improvisation' are different from each other and different from the way of listening we call music. but that of the forcibly retarded 56 36 . along With freedom of choice and responsibility. 'classical sonatas'. but precisely In this dissociation they develop certain capacities which accord less with the concepts of traditional aesthetics than with those of football and motoring.. e. If listeners may listen. for us. Not only do the listening subjects lose. and so on. the capacity for conscious perception of music.LISTENING MUSIC LISTENING MUSIC already. 'They suspend the critique in which the successful aesthetic totality exerts against the flawed one of society. 'it is perceived purely as background. e. Both Adorno and these other thinkers suppose the identical. 'baroque fugues'. 'They cannot stand the strain of concentrated listening and surrender themselves resignedly to what befalls them.' and so on. the fountain. 'variations'. then certainly nobody can any longer listen.. which was from time immemonal confined to a narrow group. 'classical sonatas.. e.. Adorno writes. 'composition'. the wind.' 'baroque fugues. with which they come to terms only if they do not listen to it too closely. is always an . 53. in the way we call music because in them listening and structuring correspond. [. Adorno and these thinkers also suppose 'performance'.:wwhatis music'? Music.floes this thinking even concern the question '.. 'composition'.] They hsten atomiscally and dissociate what they hear. but the stubbornly reject the possibility of such a perception [.

Listening in the way we call music is always an un-structuring. it is that listeners do not. Listening the wind blowing through the grass. an attention that develops. Music is the listeners listening of these things as music. i. and so on.g.LISTENING MUSIC LISTENING MUSIC symphony orchestra have any more chance to un-structure than its conductor does? 'performance' and 'composition' mean anything. it is unthinking to dismiss Adorno. it is the bringing of what-is-neithersound-nor-silence to the opening to all. When listeners listen the wind. become some 'thing more. the '-birds. an attention that develops. as music. Perhaps music is different from other ways of listening in that it is always an un-structuring. the fountain. Answering 'a listening that is some thing more than listening' or 'an attention that develops' to the question 'what is music' is exactly that. an answering. Either Adorno's concept of 'popular music' cannot be..Thinking cannot identify non-identity.e. and so on.e. i. it is never an answer. The how and the where of the bringing of what-isneither-sound-nor-silence to the opening to all are not what music is. the question 'what is popular music' is not the question 'what is music'. We can think about the State of this bringing but this is not a thinking about music. In view of our thinking.. Though.. the dripping fountain in 38 39 .. This is the more to music that even the most flexible State cannot control. A thinking that begins by supposing music is this or that. If kitchen. 'structured sound'. ~:. is not a thinking that answers to music.":th. e. Perhaps it is not that listeners cannot listen 'popular music' in the way of listening we call music. . Adorno's thinking of 'popular music' is that it is the State's making impossible the way of listening we call music. i. it can only answer to it through questioning. is always only exactly . the birds.e fountain. the wind. the birds singing in the trees.e. and so on.

that they are not only the redistribution the deterritorialization and reterritorializatio~ of what is. ' r' yv e suspect .: . It reminds us that the function of reason is not to represent. to establish relations Any adequate analysisof Beethoven bas to ~ras~ music a~ an event. t- . our suspicions suspect an existence that IS qualified in no other way than this: that It IS 41 .' '~I . our suspicions suspect something like the world.'. and universal in their address. but also that through inclusion of effects. It> . movement It ensures that we have a surrounding environment and populates It With smgularities. ' I ' '" I Though because our suspicions suspect a world only has as much potential as effects that It includes.'.opposed to making a 'd ecision between them' 2 . increase . • .' ~ '. any world. ".opens up a way of . I 'r /' • . but also the coming to be of what 'was not.' . .' Through the coupling of these two thinkings music becomes both a way of doing or making that intervenes in the general distribution of the sensible'' as well as the sense that senses the sensible itself . the potential actualities that world. . \.I~'. . that is. . . as is commonly suspected. as 'a something WhICh IS happening.TWO EVENT ." J'. I~ I' . We suspect that the thinking of the event as sense coupled WIth the thinking of the event as breakdown of the count . but to actualize potentiality.' . .' and not only as the elements flanked by this event." ' " II . and makes us create. materral and relational. because our suspicions suspect that these effects are both infinite in their potential. What this means is that we suspect that the event not only exclusively brings forth a world. Lacking a soul and transcendence.' . can have. approachmg mUSICas a politics.. that It IS otherwise than being We suspect that its effects will always and everywhere force it. . Music creates. . unqualified existence. 1 that the event is extraordinary. " . Because our suspicions suspect that its effects will always and everywhere force the event. " '. " I '" . music is the most reasoned of human activities.I ~..

. 1(2.. Badiou. dismisses the suspicion that its effects will always and everywhere force it. and the SUspICIon tht is otherwise than being.he event is extraordinary. very thinking that dismisses many of So too Nancy. insists. 'to think ourselves as a we by disidentifying ourselves fro~ every sort of We that would be the subject of Its own representation. Badiou equates. ~at t. and/or by which. Deleuze dismisses the suspicion. if a world is only ever:' a representation of the world. and doing this insofar as we coappear. 43 Badiou. not only an actualization of a potential that is. 42 . And so our suspicions approach the imperative. dismisses the suspicion that it is extraordinary. and the suspicion that they are the coming to be of what was not. it must be otherwise than being. . although he suspects that the event is otherwise than being. Deleuze also dismisses the suspicion that its effects will always and everywhere force .it. appearing. NI. to think singularities. he remains ambiguous. ontology.. No with presentation. for example. As for the S11apicion that its effects will al~~ys and everywhere force it. the event.4 Strangely enough. mistakenly we suspect. What this means is that. that it has an actuality before it is ever actualized. is mathematical set theory. being. and 1(1 with its representation. as the thinking where being and thought are actively indistinguishable. this would mean that the event is also the foundation of a new potential within the potential that was. that it is has the potential for more potential than it has. the initiates our suspicions them as impossible. In terms of actuality and potentiality. itself be forever changed. Nancy and others have raised for contemporary thought. although he suspects that the event is extraordinary. there are an infinity of infinites. that the ontological status of that before which. For Badiou. and the suspicion that its effects are the coming to be of what was not. In this theory. mus~ be extraordinary. we suspect that the world a world is a representation of C8:D. and the SUspICIon that 1:lIoH effects are the coming to be of what was not. we coappear. against Deleuze. each infinitely greater or lesser than the other: No.TWO EVENT TWO EVENT more than potential qualification. Finally. that it is otherwise than being.

that allows this abyss to be decided.. the self-realization of its idea . TWO EVENT '::. though otherwise indistinguishable. '. between No and NI there is ali undecidable abyss...dinalization of an otherwise ordinary. '. and Because the Continuum Hypothesis cannot be proven. To understand Badiou's thinking of the event. Badiou thinks the event is precisely the eruption in an otherwise static being from an otherwise than being. we coappear. these representations are always 'limiting. because chance is . not only is the event a summoning to decide the indecision betwecm No and N16 but it is also always 'one way or another. and/or by which. is wellordered.. ~ . ' " rn Badiou's . of course. that before which. for exampJ. that the with :' itself.. 'chance is the pure thought of the event. What is represented of presentation must only be a fraction of thia presentation.ite.' The parts cannot be grea. and the large infinity of real numbers. nor does it allow for difference. or language. and never provides anything other than its repetition.TWO EVENT . presentation. \ . of' and not 'all of' what is? Take. representation. Both are. It leaves no room ~ events. static. other than difference in number The underlying assumption of such an ontology IS 1bIt the term 'being' can only be understood as a noun._. holds over No. and cannot be inferred from [a well-ordered] representation.o. Obviously. because the parts are.. For Badiou. c. as a set. nominative NI. representations. 'really is. 5 And so. a mark 45 :.. in truth. . a break-down of the count. -m -:. so what is is at least 'equal' to what is represented as what is represented must be. " :1 How can Badiou equate representation with NI and presentation with No? Does this not imply that what is represented of presentation is somehow . 00. . ordinary. is impossibly' than its being? Representations are. ] and in no way correlation with the world. sense.' Nancy is more ambiguous about this. .' ontology NI itself.' . although he does write.. Ancilther important aspect of the event for Badiou is that it is always 'purely haphazard. erranf and 44 un-asignable excess that Nl."? a disQr.W than the whole if the whole is being. 0. This means that OO=No.. Is not being there always only a 'part . c=NI. Badiou's is a static ontology. the event is where the absolutely infip. similar to Badiou.'8 For Badiou. the event. . it necessary to understand the Continuum Hypothesis that there is no infinity between the small infinity of integers.

: : together. as neither being nor otherwise than being. finally.insofar as this ISunderstood only as what is designated by the very verb 'to originate. For Nancy. to think that it is not even nothing. 'nothing preexists.:' 'the e'leMal site.13 there is no extraordinary because every thing is extraordinary.' As a rich and complex tradition demonstrates..' If the nothing is not anything prior than nothing but the ex remains 11 exists.. this fact Instead signifies two things: on the one hand. is only ever known as the from. . regardless of writings where he is similar to Badiou. thereby . he most often thinks the. or star. -'.TWO EVENT TWO EVENT drawn out over the void. on the other. this does not signify that the creator operates 'starting from nothing.IS Deleuze famously insists that the event is not otllerwise than being. constituting its drawing apart and its drawinc.. Nancy is less ambiguous about extraordinarity is always oftbe event. . more often. . that nothing is indeed not even nothing. it is ordinary. . 16 So for Nancy. the event. animal.. as its local effects that are.. as the edge of : . is not. '. We write that Nancy is 'more ambiguous' because. we coappear. logically speaking. as a plurality of singularity. which crosses it and underlines it at the same time. 'whether an other is another person. Because for Nancy. To think that nothing. ontological status of that before which. plant.. and destination.·. it Signifies that the 'creator' itself is the nihil. nothing is an illusion of transcendence that arises from the conceptual misappropriation of immanent potential. it is the act of appearing. '. . If creation is ex mhlo. this is not nocClBBl'ily dissimilar to how Badiou thinks of '" .HeIlce of a place and a moment of absolute origin. unconceals J!Q.u1tiplicity that which conceals it. only what ~xists 46 47 " .with which it is in 'a sort of sudden and headlong participation. but the ' very origin. For Deleuze. . irrefutable.:~. of some thing in general and of everything Not only is the nihil nothing pnor but there IS also no longer a 'nothing' that preexists creation. as that as . aadlot. it is the very ongm .10" .' 14 it is always and everywhere. nothing is not even nothing. .12 Although ambiguous.· by which. offered as such and vanishing in its passing. 'the ordinary extraordinary. it is above all the glaring F. Because the event. but not even either. that before which unqualified existence is unqualified. it signifies that this nihil is not. as the origin. something 'from which' what IS created would come.

a large or a small.. as transcendental empiricism. as thinking's inability to 'stop itself from interpreting immanence as immanent to something. unlike Badiou. What's more. but a virtual that is no longer chaotic. but it has a shadowy and secret part that is continually subtracted from or added to its actualization: in 48 49 . and only then. for Deleuze this process is never the result of chance or of agency. from one end to the others. Or again. in a the event in and of Being . 18 For Deleuze. in the same instant that it falls back into its own present. .t '" Forms of the negative do indeed appear in actual terms and real relations. his ontology opens the way for the event of being from within what presents itself in actual situations.19 So.. 20 empmcism. the event cannot be the coming to be of what was not. the deterritorialization and reterritorialization. nor before a beginning or an Even chance for Deleuze. By removing the [Badiouian] abyss from between Being and event. as a 'mistaken conceptual reconstitution of immanent chaos..TWO EVENT TWO EVENT contrast with the state of affairs. event is immanent to all concrete situations. firstly. ideal without being abstract Deleuze does admit that immanence is always 'holed' for thinking. only the redistribution. of what is. [. It IS actualized in a state of affairs. and from the movement of their actualization Then. It opens the way for transcendental . but always of contingency. and represents it as pure difference in delrvermg it up to a ground In relation to which it longer matters whether one is before a relative minimum or maximum. that has become consistent or real on the plane of immanence that wrests it from chaos -it is a virtual that is real without being actual. The concept of the whole follows and espouses determination in all of its metamorphoses. for Deleuze the event is purely and simply sense: It IS not the state of affairs. but only insofar as these are cut off from the virtuality which they actualize.projects itself into the eternal passage of the past into the future. ] each throw of the dice affirms chance and endlessly ramifies it. 'means that the event .' and secondly. do the fmite affirmations appear limited in themselves. For Deleuze. It IS the virtual that is distinct from the actual. it neither begins nor ends but has gained or kept the infinite movement to WhICh It gives consistency. . but he insists that this 'fog' can be explained in two ways. opposed to one another. in a lived. and suffenng from lack of privanon.

that there are persons. is tais person. and there is. and so on. We suspect that these effects win always and everywhere force this event. in 50 regress.' .".I I IL_ ~ '. I. or anybody. nut the foundation of a new potential within the potentia! that was. but that there was an extraordinary event whereby this ordinary person as a potential actuality came to be included in a world Potential that IS. plants. ~ IS\-~- ~..~- ~. animals. hIS ontology opens the way for the event of being from withm what presents itself in actual situations . and so on. which can in turn. and not of another effect. this plant. is the event with ItS effects. unlike Na. rather. I I . only about the event that they force. this star.y that.~. effect effects. 'evental sites block the infinite regression of the combinations of mult'ples. ' . and the effects of effects of its effects. ~I~ . we cannot think what is beneath their being presented It IS thus legitimate to say that these sites found the situation. animals. and not on. or stars IS surely because there was an event. :t means. can be this person in a world. with their dismissal of the suspicion that the event IS extraordinary.22 What both Deleuze and Nancy seems to confuse. means that this person itself is ordinary. plants. since they are Its absolutely primary terms.. ...-----------::--- TWO EVENT end. this animal. ' ~ ~ 51 I' ~ " . That there are persons. As they are on the edge of the void. that is extraordinary. only if it is effected by nothing. nothing extraordinary about this. we suspect. As with Badiou. is.. in regress Pr Nancy. But we suspect. this person. the event IS 'immanent to all concrete situations. the event cannot be extraordinary. .. but could not before the event of which this person is an effect was included in this world.. or anybody.. We suspect that an effect IS the effect of the event. what 'bores a hole In [them]. but these effects are not this event . of course. WhICh TWO EVENT this ground Since the two comcide IS In a unique 'total' moment 21 It is also because of this that for Deleuze.-~=. or stars is surely because there was an event. By removing the mterposition between being and event.':" That we ourselves. what does not fall under their determination as what is. but its effects with the effects of it effects. that there is nothing extraordinary about these effects..23 These effects can themselves effect effects. "1 I . that what is extraordinary is not that we ourselves. like Nancy.!lCY. . and so on... 4_ -.

pl~.._ '. not a choice between. specifically constructed... until the event of a new music. I •I r '.' nor in the front of the bus. be there.~ ':UUl. chance. Neverminding that the event. where the event is thought as the actualization of a potential that is. Beethoven.g. much of Deleuze' s thinking about how . To render language possible thus sigmfies assuring that sounds are not confused with the sonorous qualities of things.~. On the contrary. Badiou's and Deleuze's thinking of _event. cannot sit at the restaurant counter with a 'white. . "'. . what we are left with.TWO EVENT TWO EVENT Pro Deleuze. while sense. we suspect that a 'black' in a world. thought. or has the potential to-." ' pure potentiality. this actualization is always only the actualization of the Sllm4'. without the event. make music possible. moreover. is the inclusion of this new potential in this world. Viennese Classicism. and we can see this so well with music.organizes them into propositions freeing them for the expressive function. Listening that same musie again and again. it is to think that the .' looking out the window on the back of the bus.. To think otherwise is to suggest an extra-specific potential.' . with the sound effects of bodies.ts 'make language possible' open a way toWards thinking how events. What is needed. politically.. as both are entirely necessary to approach it. would grotesquely have it that our 'black. Such a thinking inevitably measures all worlds against an ideal '. or are music. regardless of how the there is . same potential is there. but for the effects of the event nominated as the 'civil rights movement' now included in this world.I .. is absolute OQItingency. as its local effects. even in our impossible world. t . is a coupling of. his thinking of them. is a part taking-part in an event of the same magnitude as when she impossibly insists on sitting where she has no 'right' to. in the front. event as the foundation of a new potential witkin the potential was does not. I ' Thinking the event as the actualization of potential that is has limits that thinking the 52 53 . For '. as pure and simple sense. for example. a pure potentiality that we" . This event. where ~o event is thought as the foundation of a new potential within the potential that was. things may abolish by chtmce. Or again.' aomalization of all potential. as stopping-short at '. is implicated in actualization. of pure potentiality. in the impossible world of the . have. music. ". for example.. or with their actions and passions. What renders language possible is that which separates sounds from bodies and ..

. " 135 136 : I '.~i~y~':""'" ~~ ~ -:. Methods and Notions- M~IC. Theodor Adorno. 7. trans.467. 2004). kicbard Le~~ trans.:. /~~. LISTENING MUSIC 9. Benjamin Jowett (Boston: Claredon. • '.::" . . Susan Gillespie (Berkeley" . Jacques Attali.. ~~~:~. Piato..' 16.ii'ii)~~. The Logic of Sense. 3.3 . . NOise The Poblica! ECOIJOtKyf i 0 ~ 12. 1985).140. (New York: Routledge.'~ ~~ <% -:"'. Michael Shapiro. 5. Es~ays on Music. CuIttvGI Governance and the Indigenous Subject 11...5._ ~1I1I1I1I"". The Polutcal Economy of Jluic. Tht Dialogues of Plato. '4. 131. 1beodotAdorno and Max Horkheimer. ~s. Mark Lester (New York: Columbia University. Ibid.. 1979). Jacques Attali.·I[t~"· . 6. Brian Massumi (Minneapolis: Umverslty of Minnesota. 540. Essays on Music.. ~ ~ ~ __ ~ ..'. IS. B. 76.. Ibtd. The 2 ~DIolecticofEnJightenment (London: Verso. Ibid . 10.'?. e4. 1990).- . '_ ~ . UniVersity ofCaIifomia. Theodor Adorno. trans.". "' :\~J::'<. Ibid.1l2. Noise. 1892).9. 2. Ibid.. 398. 2002).•• It • NOTES .! .. 13. Gilles Deleuze. na ' 1.

Th. 15. Charloltc Mandell (New York: Fordham University. "Augustine OD the Transcendent in Music.. 1999). . 31. 22. M60t. 28. 1885). Essays on Music. Jean-Lac Nancy. Schumann' The Inner Voices of . (New Random House. Ibid. 4. 23... Saint Thomas Aquinas. Ibid.eodor Adorno. Composmon #5 1960 (N. 1987). Ibid. Peter Ostwald. (Cambridge: MIT. lames Donaldsoa. ad). 31. Ibid . . . Donald WaIhout. Ibid. "Music as a IleJQoaIg Art.p: D.27. Theodor Adorno. 266 29. ':'24. 20. "Music and Science. 14._ '." DlcIiottary of the History of Ideas 3 (1973): 262. 316. tl JINsiall Genius (New York: UPNE. Michel Foucault. trans. Ibid. Hammerstein Reinhold.NOTES 14... quoted in Douglas Kahn. Listening.237. . trans. Edward Lowinsky. ed.p. 137.. ThoItttl. ~." DlctionIlry of the History of Ideas 2 (1973): 317. 141. 311. 18.J VoU. Essays on Music. 7. 2007). 16. Ibid. trt. "Musical Genius. LaMonte Yotmg. 21. Clement. "26. 32. 138 <.171. The Ante-Nlcene Father3. Ckudc Palisca. 320. Ibid. Noise. Anton Charles Pegls." Philosophy and Philosophy 3:3 (Spring 1989): 287. The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Lan~ 2Z425.• 316. . AtISr' Cleveland Coxe (Buffalo: Christian Litcraturt. 34. ap. WQkr. 1945). Alexander Roberts." Dictionary of the History ofIdew 3 (1973): Y*. Bene Wrltmgs of Samt 19.172 17. 137 ~ Ibid.ra.

144. (Edin Edinburgh University. 'Ibeodor Adorno. 310.. Collected Prose. Thought.. 58. Essays on MUSIC. Theodor Adorno. 139 140 . 197 I). 91. (N York: Vintage. 57. Thought. Michel Foucault. 1979). 36.. Deleuz~ and MU3~C. 1raBs. Essays on MUSic. 52. 291.. Ibid. LWemng.. Martin Heidegger. 12]. Martin Heidegger. Ibid. 192. 42. Language. AJbert Hofstader {New York: Harper. = . 1986). . 56.. 1971).. Gilles Deleuze: and FelIX ~ua~ . " $1. . 39.. 1971). 44. 193. Ibid. Ibid. SO. 2004). trans. trans. 'Ibeodor Adorno. LIstening. Albert Hofstader (New York: Harper. 312. 58. 37. IC8D~LucNancy. IbId. Theodor Adorno. 46. 92.NOTES 35. Essays on MUSIC. Albert Hofstader (New York: Harper. ~1S'::w NOTBS 47. 316. Language. Jean-Luc Nancy. 54. 289.. 40. Poetry. DIScipline a~ The Blrth a/the Prtson. . ~~ Buchanan and Marcel SWlboda.35. trans. 303. 96. 1987). 310. University of Minnesota. Ibid. Rosemaire Waldrop (Manchester: Carcanet. trans. 49. 48. 96. 9 5!. Poetry. . Ibid.. [bid. 41. NIck Nesbitt. Alan Shend . Martin Heidegger. 315. Language.216. Poetry. Brian Massumi (Minneapo 53.. I~~~I .. Essays on MU31C. 271.. 43. 305. trans. 38. Ibid. 45. Pltul eelan.. Ibid. Thought. A 'f'hoarand lis: Plateaus.. Ibid. 15.

. " . trans. Ibid .. Ibid. lhicl. L 'Etre et I '€venement. . ~ J ~.16. 20. Alain Badiou.. 75. Bemg Singular Plural.L 'Etre et /'hinement. ' Jr r~ ~~ .. Conditions.. Alain Badiou.. tQlIa. 1992). GUles Deleuze. 10. 18. ed. 207. 172. 7. • 15. Jean-Luc Nancy. Condtuons. Ibid.. Gilles Deleuze. Boundas (Edianbrugh: mversity.2oo6).e: . 4. 142 .'i. NOTES I ~ ~ I • ~I~~~':' J~'''~~' II~ . 181-82. Bemg Smgular Plwal. Essays on MUsic. Paul Patton (New York: Columbia University 1994) 151.. ~ V. 141 125. •~ . 51. 26. Bela.. Diffe. 129. 2. Ibid..:' 19. Conditions. Ibid. 6. . 16.·"'\I~· ~ . S. . Richardson and Anne E. " .8.. Theodor Adorno. The Logic of Sense. 12. • 189. .~. De/euze and PhI/SOphy. Alain Badiou. Robert D. . Difference and Repetuum. 1. AJain Badiou. h ~ '. 62 9. 11. TWO EVENT l3. Alain Badiou. 713. GlUes Deleuze. Edinburgh .215.74. .: ~. 42. ~ ~ ':!' ~ ~~I.. O'Byrno (Stanford: stanford University. M. 1988)..." t. . C.. 10. Ibid. (paris: Seuil.Egyed. Jean-Luc Nancy. {PariI! Seuil. 17..xorss . 2000)..rence and Repetition.