I don't know why I am posting this here. I guess I did not want to start a thread.
METAL JESUS @clueless videos
A few days ago I was thinking how ironic it was that I enjoy looking at old magazines NOW...when, back when they were new, I thought the writing/opinions/analysis/etc. was mediocre, at best.
If I was critical of content as a kid, you can imagine my views of the old written content now.
Then I thought how the world really hasn't improved as much as I thought it had, post-Internet.
A few people who write about _____ know what they are writing about.
A few folks who talk about _____ know what they are talking about.
That's it.
It has always been this way.
It shall always be this way.
The only good thing is that occasionally, if you are lucky, you'll find someone who knows what he/she is talking about (but this was true Pre-Internet as well!).
Pre-Internet, it was hard to find competent folks. You had to physically find them. But if you did...
BOTTOM LINE: We are better off now. There is MORE OF EVERYTHING...more quality and more crap.
You see, I thought the CRAP:QUALITY ratio would change.
But the crap:quality ratio is still pretty bad today... We just have more of everything (which is, indeed, an improvement...but it means you have to sift through a lot more crap).
WHAT I AM SAYING IS NOT NEW...it has been said whenever technology lowers the obstacles to create and/or distribute stuff. See: Gutenberg and printing press.
I remember arguing about this issue in the 80's/90's when it came to music (indie music/fanzine scenes were blossoming... People talked about the crap:quality ratio versus the sheer quantity of content available).
Oh, and who was having this discussion? Well, my friends and I read about the debate in our favorite fanzine. Then we started talking about it. Some things don't change.