No it doesn't, as long as it's not compressed. Nothing wrong with FLAC files, and Fripp is perfectly happy selling those from his site. His issue is iTunes and how little artists are compensated and, as others have said, after all the fighting he's gone through to get the rights to his music (and that of his band mates) back, I can understand why he wants to control how his music goes out into the world.
But let's be clear: there's nothing inherently evil about digital downloading; the issues are (a) compressing the music that folks have worked hard to make sound as good as possible; and (b) compensation.
How so? He has offered two special big boxes for hardcore fans. But the CD/DVDA versions have been absolutely reasonably priced, and considering what some groups make you pay for surround sound remixes, downright bargains.
Well, the only issue here is getting into that of sound. If you're putting uncompressed files into iTunes, great; if not, you're compromising sound. You may be fine with that (and more power to ya) but not everyone is. And with some artists, like Steven Wilson, also releasing their music in uncompressed high res, it's absolutely possible to dispense with physical media (check out gubemusic.com, which sells high res music in digital download form), but personally I still think there's a place for both. In fact, I see the market for high res sound growing in the next while until it kinda of settles down. I know that when I upgrade my sound system in 2015 as part of a renovation of our apartment, I'm planning to make it possible to have high res music in both our living room and my office (the second of two bedrooms on our two-bedroom condo). Plan to pick the brains of my good friend Rottersclub, in fact
Bookmarks