Is Progressive Rock truly pretentious?

KingCrInuYasha wrote: And yet, if a band the critics liked had those same traits, they would get away with, assuming they didn't do something like, say, make an equivalent of Bob Dylan's Self Portrait.

Is that the album where Dylan covered songs by people who were influenced by him? In my opinion, that's the exact opposite of being pretentious. :-) Critics hated that album because their great Dylan, whom they were hoping would lead and execute the revolution on their behalf, dared to put himself at the same level of people like Gordon Lightfoot, Simon & Garfunkel, et al. "Look, man, I'm just a singer in a rock & roll band," he seemed to be saying.

Maybe we've been asking the wrong question all along. ? How does one know (not think, know) what is pretentious?

^ So, anything that's pretentious is the real deal? Is that what you are saying? Or just that specific album was the real deal?

Prog that tries too hard can be pretentious but that's BS stuff like super lame prog metal that just sounds like recycled copies of everything. Or some of this djent stuff is just silly breakdowns for the sake of writing silly breakdowns.

I think all self expression could be deemed pretentious in as much as it presumes a caring recipient.
Ergo, how to avoid pretension? Easy, assume that no-one is remotely interested in what you have to express.
Reductio ad absurdum: there is no longer any art. (happy now?)

This is a pretentious post.(Admin edit)