Yes, Genesis, PFM, Magma...DINOSAURS?!?

Kleynan wrote: They were big, and anyone not willing to admit, that they are extinct, is a denier. Thus: DINOSAURS!

Calling something a dinosaur usually carries negative connotations so I don't think it's a good idea really.  Also I simply don't like the term and it conjures up images of something that is big and slow-moving - like old computers or something.

And here's Webster's most relevant definition of dinosaur: "one that is impractically large, out-of-date, or obsolete".  Not a very flattering one, I'd say.  A lot of the great music made during that period is simply timeless, not dated or obsolete at all.

mystic fred wrote: I quite like the term "Dinosaurs", i don't find it derogatory at all - it's quite a compliment! Dinosaurs were great survivors, beautiful, gigantic, intelligent, resourceful....... like Prog!   Look at it this way - Dinosaurs were the most successful species that ever inhabited this planet, they were here for millions and millions of years, recent research reveals they were much more resourceful and intelligent than most gave them credit for. The great meteor catastrophe theory continues to gather credibility and if it wasn't for that they would still be here (some survived, Crocodiles, Lizards, Birds, Fish, Insects...and one tiny mammal). Dinosaurs were a key development in evolution until Man only really entered the scene only 100 thousand years ago, in that short time he's managed to enslave the planet and f**k it up with pollution, and global warming is now at danger level.

They were big, and anyone not willing to admit, that they are extinct, is a denier. Thus: DINOSAURS!

MANDRAKEROOT wrote: The Prog band/ artists of gold period (1967/ 1976) are from a lot definited "DINOSAURS".

MANDRAKEROOT wrote: The Prog band/ artists of gold period (1967/ 1976) are from a lot definited "DINOSAURS". Even though this definition is offensive, I the use and I find that is nice. But it is just or except for to define them so?     I would define them "GOLDEN CLASSICAL PROG BANDS/ ARTISTS"!!!

Well, the groups you've listed above are the "Giants" of Prog, among others. At the time, I think the critics of Prog Rock (as usual) were just trying ti find a way to minimize them as already old farts, passe, or finally sold out to commercial success. 

They're surely dinosaurs in terms that the average guy has to do a lot of dig to find information, tgheir works and people who like them. Of course I'm referring to the old days before the internet has come, but hey, these were my days in the f***ing 80's. they're out of their time now as well, living in a kind of Jurassic Park created to them and their public. However, some of the work of these bands is paradigmatic and, in this sense, beyond time restrictions: Magma's MDK era, Yes' Close to the edge, Genesis' TLLDOB. Although PFM is one of my fav groups I can't think that tgheir work could be considered as remarkable as those cited above by the eyes of the average informed person. Sorry for that.

I do think 'dinosaur' is offensive, somebody who couldn't adapt to ... the changing musical styles. Punk indeed. But it's not only offensive, but also incorrect. Bands like Genesis, Yes and King Crimson could adapt, in the case of Genesis and Yes in particular: more than some people would want them to.

The dinosaurs themselves have a thick skin, so they can have it, no offense taken, and I suppose they like it when somebody digs their bones.

 

IIIIIIIIIIIII'MMMM A DINOSAUR
SOMEBODY'S DIGGING MY BONES

Sorry folks, but the term "dinosaur" is a silly punk era term that is definitely derogatory when used in that way, so I wouldn't say it's not offensive.

Hence, I would say these bands were not dinosaurs. I don't like I Can't Dance or any of Yes's post 1980 stuff, but they had the right to continue making music, even if it didn't reflect the tastes of Buzzcocks fans.

Perhaps "forefathers" would be a nicer term!