{"id":38730,"date":"2016-10-16T15:10:08","date_gmt":"2016-10-16T22:10:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.vuzhmusic.com\/blog\/?p=38730"},"modified":"2016-10-16T15:22:41","modified_gmt":"2016-10-16T22:22:41","slug":"ambient-album-recommendations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.vuzhmusic.com\/blog\/2016\/10\/16\/ambient-album-recommendations\/","title":{"rendered":"Ambient Album Recommendations"},"content":{"rendered":"

This blog post is a response to Pitchfork\u2019s recent article presenting a list of ranked \u201cBest Ambient Albums of All Time<\/a>\u201d. Upon its publication, a few people in my social circle were complaining about the canonization of certain albums as the top of the crop, the absence of other albums, and how that, in a sense, the numbered ranking implicitly (though probably not intentionally) delegitimizes individual variances of taste – (on the other hand, the numerous response articles published afterward are a strong indicator otherwise.) There’s also the thought that when a small set of works is enshrined into the canon of necessary works by acclimation, it calcifies the style. Perhaps no one needs look further into the genre, the fifty best gives you all you need.
\n–
\nAt the same time some people were tangentially discussing how musical publications such as Pitchfork give no time to netlabels doing current work in the ambient genre (or in any field of musical exploration.) While there are exceptions, I think this perception is mostly correct. It seems that the non-objecthood inherent in netlabel and free-download self-releases prevent them from being seriously considered by institutionally object-oriented publications like Pitchfork. The result is that artists who are not well known, but who release their musical work physically and\/or with payment required are placed on a higher tier than those who share non-object musical releases.
\n–
\nAs for me, I have a great admiration for artists who have decided to release their work to provide for the greatest accessibility (despite your ability to pay, you may own the work,) and the least materialistic approach (one less object to hold, and later discard.) It feels to me like an important symbolic rejection of the dominant business-oriented nature of the music world, a notable anti-capitalist gesture.
\n–
\nFourteen people (including myself) have decided to take a proactive approach to the problems outlined above. Each has recommended a few albums within the broad spectrum of what is called \u201cambient music.\u201d They\u2019ve provided a sentence or so of descriptive text, nothing too fancy, just enough to get a sense of the music and the reason the author enjoys the music. These aren\u2019t presented as the \u201cbest\u201d that the world of free music has to offer in the genre of ambient music. They are simply some albums the authors really enjoy and wanted other people to get a chance to hear. There is no album ranking to be found here. <\/p>\n

Each of the releases described below are free, or pay-what-you-want to download. You are welcome to respond in the comments section with further recommendations, or with reactions to any of the albums listed here! Huge thanks to the participants who spent the time to recommend music. I hope these recommendations find a receptive audience. The authors of these recommendations are themselves engaged in some interesting projects, including making music and writing about music. Please take the time to follow links to find out about their work as well!
\n–
\nHere goes:
\n–
\n–
\n–
\n–
\n–<\/p>\n

\n
\n

–
\n<\/p>\n