hpf3s3c13caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaf b b b f1Something really critical about f3b b f1the state of nowadays diskmags. f3b b b daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaae f1c11 PROFESSIONAL DISKMAGS? MY ASS c12 Sane/Sardonyx & Mellow c13When I talk to Sceners of todays Scene, who are involved (or just interested) in the diskmag Scene, I hear a lot of cheers and blah-blah's. When I listen to most editors of todays Scene, I listen to poor people who over-estimate their own work. People who call themselfs VIS but who are not. People who think the diskmag Scene is so cool and highly standard but do not care to look back. Sceners who believe (some know it for sure) that the diskmagland of the past grew up to become a c12United States of Magazines c13but just do not see that the land of yesteryear is a little isle today. Editors who think they are skilled because they write articles of 28 pages in faultless English. The fact that those articles are not interesting at all and have no real core does not bother those editors. In short : Sceners of todays diskmag Scene are very glad and happy with, even proud of, that diskmag Scene. c12I say, cry, they should not be. c13Of course there are some very bright lights to discover but you have to look very hard. When you compare the diskmag Scene of 1996/1997 to the diskmag Scene of 1993/1994, you can not be proud. Not even too happy. c12Generationc13, c12Seenpointc13, c12NoSense c13and c12ShowTime c13give us some new hope. But thinking, and even speaking out loud, that this Scene is of a higher standard as the Scene of 1990 until 1994, is absurd. Legends like c12RAWc13, c12Upstreamc13, c12Zinec13, c12ICEc13, c12Stolen Datac13, c12MCDiskc13, c12Grapevine c13(the old version), c12Sledge Hammerc13, c12The Official Eurochartc13, c12Chit Chatc13, c12Eternalc13, etcetera etc. are no more. The few (I come to four reasonable succeeders, see above!) new mags, which are really good, can not fill the empty space left by the old legends. Yet the Sceners who really believe that the diskmag Scene of 1996 is of a very high standard are not easy to convince. And let us be honest; a Scene which vote a mag like c12ROM c13(Pretty original and nice but absolutely not worth to beat all other mags with such a huge amount of votes.) to an absolute number one spot is maybe too thickheaded to see the truth .... f4c12"Just look at the mags released today", f1c13those Sceners say, f4c12"those mags look far better and a lot more professional as the mags of the past did." f1c13Without realising it, those people disable their own thesis with such a remark. Most f4'top mags' f1of today just f4'look' f1better and professional. When it comes to the contents those mags lack of quality, originality and professionality. c11 ROLE OF MAIN-EDITORS c13The leading editors, (I hate that word, but I have to use it to point out the incapable, annoying, self-loving editors to you.) use the work of some of the best coders and artists. When you load most mags of today, you are probably astonished by the magnificent graphics. (Two, three sometimes even four loading pictures show what I mean.) Your ears hear some of the finest tunes ever made on a computer, using 300kb. And when it comes to the userfriendlyness of the mags, you are really spoiled. The coder did everything in his power to make the mag as easy, nice and fast as he possibly could. Artists who made demo's in the past, design magazines today. f2The leading editors do not have to write very good articles when they managed to get their hands on such a swell mag. f1They know people vote for the mags which 'look' professional. Sadly enough most magazines of today have a contents (and excuse me for my choice of words) which just c12sucks like a French bitch. c13And that is the difference with the past! In the early days, Sceners cared for the quality of the articles. Today, Sceners care for the design of their diskmagazines. Decide for yourself what shows a high standard, a good quality, professionalism. I made up my mind a long time ago. Bye.