Not cool, man. Not cool. Rush deserve every bit of praise they get. Read my reviews and you will know exactly how I feel about this. One day you will love prog...I just know it. You will wake up and want to listen to nothing more than Genesis's album Foxtrot and we will laugh that it took you so long to figure out how awesome this music is.

The day I listen to a Gensis album is the day I'll realise I'm middle aged and dull. I hope that day doesn't come too soon.

I might actually give your Rush reviewed a read through, I do actually like their first album. It's more.. simple.

I always get the feeling Progressive Rock is overly pretentious and has an air of self worth around it, y'know what I mean? Or is that just me.

I think your idea of "prog" is a little unrealistic. Especially for early progressive rock, "prog" is not really a good way to describe the actual music.

In other words, King Crimson doesn't sound like Yes doesn't sound like Genesis doesn't sound like Jethro Tull doesn't sound like ELP doesn't sound like Caravan doesn't sound like Gentle Giant doesn't sound like Pink Floyd etc etc ..

If you think it makes sense to just label those bands as "prog" and "pretentious" and "no thanks", then it's your loss, really. ;)

Well it's like that with most Genres of music, whether it's Metal or Electronic. Bands don't sound the same from one to another, their sound can branch off. The genre Metal or Electronic is just a loose term, there's lots of sub genres with in that. The same with Progressive Rock, whether it's Psychedelic Prog (Pink Floyd) or Progressive Art Rock or Progressive Experimental, it's still Progressive Rock. The whole structure of it just strikes me as really pretentious, unfortunately.

So what is it the bands have in common which makes them "prog" that you find pretentious then? The structure or whatever you call it .. ;)

I'm on even more than you Micheal. Don't complain.

^Plus people think you're a 30 year old man. xD

^True

To answer the original question.

You can't.