Jethro Tull vs. Genesis

Again, that's not what you were saying earlier so you have changed your stance.  And you are again generalizing in the last part. Yes at their best could make an epic, namely CTTE, tighter than any of JT's compositions. It has no filler whatsoever, so I don't see how you came to that conclusion.  And even when I don't like TFTO, I don't think they padded out their songs intentionally to stretch them to 20 minutes, it's simply that the material itself isn't that strong.  I don't think that is the same thing as padding or noodling at all, whereas you were agreeing to a statement of Anderson that Yes and ELP simply noodled out decent ideas.  

If you did not change your stance and if you really like Yes, care to explain what do you find justifiable about Anderson's disparaging comment about Yes?  So, you like taking a decent idea and running with it for a week with piles of noodling, am I to take that as your 'final' stance?

He didn't say that at all, at least the words used were much harsher.  What is a step too far, anything you don't like? As I said, each one is entitled to his preferences but the concept of noodling is not so whimsical. It is clearly a section of music that completely lacks any initiative, does not take the composition forward and lacks much relation to what comes before and after it. You'd be hard pressed to objectively name more instances in the 70s recordings of Yes than JT.  Generally, their material is thoroughly composed regardless of whether it's brilliant or mediocre. Moreover, anything that is unorthodox or unconventional like Sound Chaser is not necessarily noodling. JT rely much more on songs than free form and so will tend to be more accessible, but that doesn't mean using free form is in itself a bad idea.

Those 'effects' are all thoroughly composed and I can clearly discern a direction to the composition.  You may be simply unaccustomed to unconventional music. Calling that noodling is, I am sorry, preposterous when the band clearly has intended to build a mood through the so called effect. I don't even think that is what Anderson meant, it seems to be a rather lazy and dangerously generalized comment, probably with an eye to endear his music more to the classic rock audience, which supposedly hates prog.

It's a simple enough question. What do you prefer fish or eggs. It's answerable.

As I'd say that I like both apples and oranges, but like apples more.  

I'd argue that if they were the same kind of band, it would be harder to establish points of difference where preferences diverge.  I cannot really say who of Zach Stevens and Russell Allen I like more because they are similar kind of singers with their strengths cancelling off but I definitely like Jeff Buckley more than either, a completely different kind of singer.   That both Genesis and JT are progressive rock bands which don't veer too much into freeform or atonality, but with divergent influences, makes them eminently comparable to me.  But to each his own.