Musicology after Deleuze: Response to Brian Hulse's Review of Music after Deleuze

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Brian Hulse concludes his review noting that ‘much remains to be done’. On this we can agree and, in saying so, he hits pretty much the note on which I conclude Music after Deleuze. Our disagreement concerns the precise nature of what exactly has been done and what remains to be done.
Hulse is committed to a retheorising of sound/music in the light of Deleuzian thought and he expresses the desirability of recalibrating Deleuze’s philosophy in relation to musical modernity. While I have never equated Deleuzian philosophy with musical modernism, I do not share his conviction that Deleuze’s relationship with modernity is fundamentally problematic and, for me, Deleuze’s engagement with non-musical modernism in Mallarmé, Proust, Kafka, Joyce, Beckett and others is fertile soil from which important aspects of his philosophy arise
and develop. Deleuze’s engagement with musical modernism is part of this larger picture. Consequently, I do not share Hulse’s premise that ‘A Thousand Plateaus makes a bit of a mess in its glorification of the modernists’. Given this starting point, we were never going to agree.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)145-152
Number of pages8
JournalDeleuze Studies
Issue number1
Early online date1 Feb 2015
Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2015


  • Deleuze
  • Musicology


Dive into the research topics of 'Musicology after Deleuze: Response to Brian Hulse's Review of Music after Deleuze'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this