Okay folks, thanks for the replies and lots of good points made on both sides, so we're off to a real start.
Let me put in my 2p worth here, and state that a lot of folks can't see the point of prog: I mean, it's the very opposite of rebellion, yoof culture and headbanging, disposable pop and 15 minutes of fame, not to mention fashion, innit?
Well let's stop and consider what really happened, and I'm not talking authoritatively, but relying on memory from other articles and books about why and how prog happened.
Prog originated as a uniquely British musical movement. We don't have the heritage of 'da blooz', country and R&B here that the USA has (John Mayall notwithstanding of course
) and a lot of musos who grew up in the 50s and 60s who DIDN'T live on council estates, come from deprived backgrounds or have all the other usual supposed rock credentials actually had a background of reasonably stable lives, grammar school education (this is not me being elitist, just a statement of social fact) and -most importantly of all- exposure to both classical, jazz and pop music both via the media (which in this case means the BBC) and their school orchestras and choirs.
So we have a bunch of folks who are reasonably well educated with a knowledge of and interest in literature, philosophy and perhaps various forms of music including classical music. Moreover, some musos who later went into prog rock bands have had classical teaching: Vincent Crane (Atomic Rooster), Hugh Banton (Van Der Graaf), Keith Emerson, Rick Wakeman, Tony Banks, Carl Palmer (who studied percussion with the venerable James Blades before joining ELP), Chris Squire (who sung in choirs in his youth) and a whole lot more will have bought the classical sensibilities to rock music.
This then gives us the situation where those musos (and even self taught guys like Jon Anderson) will ask questions about pop and rock music:
Why should a song only be four minutes? (those of a certain age will remember the fuss over the fact that The Animals 'House of the Rising Sun' clocked in at 4 mins when the de facto standard in 1964 was only 2-2 and a half minutes)
Why should pop and rock not borrow from other musical styles, just as jazz and classical music has done?
Why should you be limited to street, yoof and contemporary themes for songs when there's a world of inspiration available from other arts -literature, paintings, etc. If classical composers can do it, why can't we?
Why can't we explore extended song forms? If a symphony can last an hour because it NEEDS that time to say and express all that the composer wants to, why shouldn't rock bands do the same?
And here I'm not suggesting that the results were always perfect or that aspirations were matched by creativity or ability, but that the intention was and is a sound one. If you can explore more ideas and emotions in the 28 minutes of 'Supper's Ready' (surely a shining example of the pinnacle of extended song form) rather than in 3 minutes, then why not go for it?
Likewise, those musos with classical training will have 'thrown down the gauntlet' to others to keep up with them in musical ideas, AND THE MEANS TO EXPRESS THEM: in other words, technique.
It's a well documented fact that Pete Townsend claims that his guitar smashing antics were originally fuelled by his frustration at not being able to play what he wanted or heard in his head. Even though his dad was a dance band musician and may have passed down some practical musical knowledge, Pete didn't (at that point in history) perhaps have the knowledge or ability to express himself that he developed later on.
As bass legend Victor Wooten has said in the last decade, music is a language, your instrument is the vehicle for expressing that language, and the more musical vocabulary you can develop, the better you are at saying things through music.
I'm suggesting that Prog bands by their very nature set themselves up to explore music in a drastically different and experimental way to other idioms. In fact the liner notes to Gentle Giant's 'Acquiring the Taste" (one of my all time fave albums and deliriously eclectic in its approach) claim that the band's intention was to expand the bounds of pop music at the expense of being unpopular. Now while that's gained them a terrific amount of criticism from the more street cred writers (some who claim to be commentators on prog really ought to know better), the argument and intention is valid. If this music appeals to you, then that's all that matters, and it doesn't make the music any more or less valid than any other style of pop and rock.
I (and all the above are only my thoughts and conclusions) have always thought that prog was the most satisfying musical style FOR ME (and not necessarily for anyone else).
It covered more in the way of subject matter from a wider variety of sources and inspirational material (you may have thought Topographic Oceans was rubbish, but are you going to get anyone else in rock asking the question 'why are we here and what's it all for'? the Sex Pistols didn't and wouldn't and you wouldn't expect that, but neither did the great majority of musos).
I'm not saying there isn't bad prog, just like good and bad metal, jazz, reggae, folks or what have you.......
Likewise, Prog borrowed effortlessly from the world of jazz and the classics (Gentle Giant were experts in combining all three and then adding a whole lot more) as well as developing some entirely new musical hybrids. It's now forgotten, but it could be argued that Patrick Moraz's solo album 'the story if i' possibly began the whole world music movement with his ebullient use of South American musicians, instruments and rhythms, preceding the Police's cross fertilisation of reggae and rock and more recent experiments in cross cultural music.
Yes, it could be white musicians playing for white audiences, but to that charge I would reply firstly 'yes, and why not?' and also point out the reverse example, which is the current state of the folk (or Roots) music scene, where obscure African albums and artists are held in higher regard than home grown ones by certain critics.....
Obviously the music should speak for itself, regardless of fashion, image, race, culture or whatever. But to my mind, prog has had an unjustified bad rap from those in positions of influence who don't know better, don't want to know better, think that everyone should think as they do, and realise that you can't appeal to all the folks all the time.
But holding up (as some rock critics can and did) ever more obscure and irrelevant neo punk bands as the future of rock didn't work. To me it seemed as if those writers were trying to get even more elitist in their own way than the prog musos and fans that they were aiming their barbs at.
And it's ironic, and amusing, and ultimately deeply satisfying to see that Prog has its own groundswell that has outlasted all the musical movements that were designed to kill it off, and indeed prog is flourishing in its own quiet way.
I'm reserving judgement on prog metal: I can see the musicianship in guys like Dream Theater, and while they have their moments, I don't always relate to it on an emotional level. That's fine, it's horses for courses, and their are obviously others who do go for it in a big way. However, one obvious legacy of prog itself it that a lot of these guys have studied at Berklee or similar establishments and really know their stuff, as do a lot of the leading metal drummers.
It's no longer a case of paying your dues, but just doing the studies to get to the level you desire musically.
And as for the oft quoted criticism of band X sounding like early Yes/Genesis/whoever, why not? If you're going to explore your influences, go for it.
I haven't seen any criticisms of Metal bands sounding like Led Zep/Deep Purple/whoever..........
All in all, us Boring old farts were right all along!
All of which you are at liberty to disagree with, naturally.
Thanks for staying with me on this not quite a rant....
Best wishes,
Dave.
. 
