Why can't I stand most modern prog?

Very thoughtful of you, Roger.  Having been through all of that and still living, there is a lot of truth to this, sadly (old hippie that I am).  Those ideals (not the drugs part of it, really, I was young enough to note that they tended to destroy people, so dabbled way less than those just a little older than me), informed much of my world view, personal taste and politics.  We really did believe we could change the world through music.  I do wonder sometimes if the current state of the world will give rise once again to a similar movement, but as you said, it requires a special set of circumstances.  However, history tends to be cyclical.  It would be different, but have many of the hallmarks of other major cultural shifts.

That being said, on the topic, I love all of the usual progenitors of prog and saw most of them live (many, I saw multiple times) and also love a lot of modern prog too, and doubtless will love some I missed along the way.

I am not as big of fan of the metal side, but I do enjoy some of that current acts that mix it in and also some of those who came more from the metal world that are now progressing, if you will.  

Absolutely. I did consider working that into my rant reply to Pedro but it just added further complication that would confuse things more than they already are.

But yes, the fabled Advance is not free money, it is an advance on future earnings. If you go to your boss and ask for an advance on your pay that money will be deducted from your next paycheque and the same is true for recording artists. The record company gives them an advance on their future earnings - if the album sells well they'll deduct that advance from the sales revenue before paying royalties but if it tanks then the company writes off the loss and the artist walks away debt free. With some contracts the advance is used to pay for recording the album, in other the company pays for the album and deducts the costs from the sales. Nothing about this is underhand, secret or dishonest ~ it is sound business practice.

I've asked myself why I don't really connect to a lot of Prog albums released in later decades, and the two main points I come up with are:

Although there are exceptions, a lot of the albums I've heard over the last 10 years or so are pretty indistinguishable from each other. Meaning that I can listen any new release from a band I'm familiar with (without knowing who it is), and it could be any artist from a dozen or more. As I said, that doesn't apply to all of them, but to too many to feel comfortable. I used to be able to listen to a few bars of music from a new album (blindfolded, say) and know immediately who it is. It's as if musicians of later generations have developed great technical mastery but no style.

Most classic Prog had sections that rocked. It was just as important as the atmospheric parts; in fact the music lived and breathed through the contrast. A lot of Prog artists don't do that any more. It's all so level and unexciting. The worst offenders here seem to be the bedroom pajama wizards of keyboard.

Is it just my impression, or has this been especially pronounced in the last two or three years? It's difficult for me to find the new music that appeals to me, much more than it used to be.

 I'm not sure if anyone has touched on this having just skimmed through the responses, but would anyone agree that some Neo-prog sounds kind of bland due to the technology used? 

 I have thought for some time that "pro tools" and other digital platforms have a "sound" that rubs me the wrong way. I gravitate towards seventies recordings because I like the sound of tape saturation, even when transferred to the first generation CD releases. (re-masters, even newer ones, are sometimes worse, i.e. "loudness wars.")

 I prefer the sound of older drum kits as well. One engineer explained to me that since the eighties many "rock" drum manufacturers have built their kits for maximum pounding and loudness which removes some of the "woody" character of say a vintage Bruford tone.

 Obviously the major culprit here is the keyboard tech. Early prog seems to create much much of its tonal palette from monophonic or duophonic synths where the parts fit into arrangements more like a flute or oboe...a single line that says everything directly and with cutting force. 

 I find that samples of vintage synths can sound great, but that the older gear made you play the part a certain way because of the limitations. I tend to not enjoy Mr Rudess and Mr Morse as much because I keep wishing they were using proper gear and not samples. (in the same way that you might wish to hear Mozart or even a brand new composition on a proper Stradivarius and not a cheap knock-off violin.) 

 Don't even get me started on software compression and "plug-ins." I realize these are the modern tools of the trade, I'm just saying that maybe some, not all, gravitate towards certain recordings for some of these reasons...??? 

 What do you think?