How to define and classify "Progressive Rock"?

I find the problem you raise here very interesting , suitkees, and as far as I can see, it's about what's the best starting point for an effort to make a definition. I don't have any ready answer for that right now, but following my usually question, regarding problems like that, I would start to ask what is the purpose of a Prog definition, what can it be useful for.

Hi,

That's what I stated in the statement above. It is "in relation to to other pieces of art" ... since that is all we really have. What is the point of comparing it to itself, or its copies? There would be so many insignificant points to make as to make some think that the whole thing is ridiculous. 

For, what we call "progressive music" can only be valuable and important when put within the context of music history and development, other wise it is just a bunch of rock'n'roll songs, that no one will remember in the long run. That's not to say that  all music gets lost in the ethers of the universe, but a lot just disappears and we can see that here. WHEN, and only when, it is put within a musical historical context, the music will show itself stronger and better, and not just some crazy idiocy that someone thought up the musicologists love to ignore because they are not intelligent or educated! I hate that put down, in the sense that my dad (well known Portuguese Literature writer published in 37 languages) because I saw too much of it in my days of his academic career. But it is true to a degree, and even the great things get lost, which is going to be different now with the media and people having the ability to hear different things in the future. 75 years from now people will still be able to hear YES, Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull, ELP and many others ... where as 100 years ago, the only music people knew were bar songs, and a couple of musical pieces that rich people heard on their megaphone or saw a concert of the symphony somewhere. Very little music "lived" then, but a lot has been resurrected and found to be important. But the ability to "hear" it, and learn it, is the problem. 

Today, this is all very different. We all have access to everything, to the point where making a theory of relativity where it all makes some sense, is a serious problem, mostly because we are finding new and different things everywhere. But, I think this will improve as time goes by. I'm not the only one discussing and talking about this ... there are a couple of folks I know in the UC system that are doing very important "progressive" studies, and when they come out as part of their dissertation, I think that the world of "progressive bs and talk" is going to take a hit ... a serious hit, because its discussion and sectarian ideas are very weird, and SOUND formulated, and not music formulated. Half of them, if you UNPLUG THEM, have the same cheap musicality as the bar stuff when you are having a drink with the new girl you just met! And we need to start recognizing that we're being taken by the electricity, not the music!

And this is the hard part, because I am not sure that a lot of fans know what I am saying. Take the electricity out, and YES (earlier stuff), ELP, JT and some bands are excellent. But take the it out of many other bands, and it will sound so empty ... and not enjoyable, because we have become enchanted with the "sound" of it.

There was a "Behind the Music" thing in which Andy Summers showed something that was really scary ... he played a portion through his regular setup and then he said, now listen to it without all the effects and guess what ... it wasn't listenable, or enjoyable or something that you would ever spend a minute on! AND that was a famous hit song! Now we have to discuss what makes "music" ... the real thing or the effects? I have no issue with the enhancement, but I do when what is under it is crap, not music that you and I will ever bother listening to.

The best NEVER forget this. An effect is fine, but not the music. Even SW can do all his stuff solo and acoustic. But I don't see many bands even trying it. Take a look at PH/VdGG ... unplugged or not, it is still lovely, and PH stands up and out. That's what ART is all about. And has been for centuries!

As I've written initially in my OP, I think quite a lot of people may profit from larger acquaintance of different Prog definitions, and maybe by hearing and making new thoughts and discussions.

You don't seem to find this idea very good. Can you explain why?

I won't say, I'm quite sure what you mean, as I find you some difficult to understand, but as far as I can see, you put much weight on artist's doing and their universe to be able to understand their pieces of art. But I'd say yes, right, but it's only one way to view it.

Another way is to say, pieces of art speaks for them selves, and they can be understood just in relation to other pieces of art. - And that's the way I relate to music.

So, I'd say we have think here more dynamic and dialectic than usual logic tells us.

Logically speaking, yes, but if the boundaries (like for instance, "Rock", "Jazz" and "experimental", and even more the combination of them) are floating themselves, and somehow subjective, I don't see any contradiction.

Further, if not to use the word "genre", "sub-genre" doesn't give any meaning.