<font color=red>Or perhaps long awaited? <img src=pix/icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle></font id=red>
One defining characteristic of progressive rock seems to me to be its reluctance in dealing with lust, rather than love. Oh, there are notable exceptions, like "Rhythm of Love," ELP's "Still . . . You Turn Me On," and other examples, I'm sure. But these are very much exceptions to the rule--by in large, progressive rock, including Yes, doesn't deal with physical love, as opposed to most rock, which deals almost exclusively with it, more or less.
I was reading a post by Dr Yes, a cogent and encompassing definition of prog, and trying to think of other characteristics of the genre. And I think this is one, irregardless of the band: Prog groups don't do "doity" songs, for the most part. Joycean stream of conscienceness, fine; Epic tales of fantasy battles, yeah; Social comment, sure. But prog rock, with it's driving rhythms and orgasmic cressendos seems rather prudish at times--for a genre that found its adherents mostly among teenage males in the 70's. For all my love of Yes, and other prog, I find this disturbing, but practically de rigeur.
I'd like to keep this discussion polite, but still meaningful. For example, the song "Awaken" has very spiritual lyrics, but it's fantastic to make love to . . . "Gates" lasts a bit longer than I do . . . <img src=pix/smileysex5.gif border=0 align=middle>
<img src=pix/icon_smokin.gif border=0 align=middle>
<hr>Yes--It's not just for breakfast anymore . . .