These are questions for today! Now discuss 

 

It's also boring and tasteless, for the most part.

 

 

edit: I don't intend to direct the above at any particular band, nor accuse any band (Dream Theater included) of adhering to what I refer to out of convenience as the "Dream Theater school."  There, that oughta keep 'em off my back.

 

...as for the question about which type I prefer, I�d say a bit of everything...if it�s good it�s good, if it�s bad it�s bad...just like it is with every other style or artist I enjoy...

And yeah, I know what you mean Jonas, one can't like a whole genre, usually we just like some bands that tend to be classified as given kind of metal. I think what we can like or dislike about a sub-genre as a whole are its key features. I, for example, don't like classic prog metal because it tends to be focused on virtuosity at the expense of atmosphere(other than the cheesy one created with keys), spontaneity and creativity. There are some commendable exceptions(Distorted Harmony, Riverside) but I still think it's one of the most consistent and repetitive sub-genres of metal music. My question is why?

That's a very good question. As I said, using a positively marked term was not the best idea ever (my guess is that the guy who coined the term was not a linguist ) and if I could, I'd rename not only progressive metal but whole progressive rock. My alternative would be the word "eclectic", currently used as a name for a sub-genre of progressive rock. Being eclectic is not a value in itself, and besides sounding a bit snooty, it's a better option IMO. Most of all though, that's what prog rock was really about - being eclectic, combining classical, folk and electronic music with rock. Words like "symphonic", "folk" or "electronic" would further indicate what's the main focus of the band.

Consequently, instead of being a symphonic progressive rock band, Yes would be a symphonic eclectic rock band, Dream Theater would be a symphonic eclectic metal band, Jethro Tull would be an eclectic folk rock band, Opeth would be an eclectic death metal band etc. This annoying clash would be once and for all gone. All those bands wouldn't have to be progressive - you can be eclectic without being progressive anymore as being eclectic doesn't imply progress and what's even more important it is neutral. 

On the other hand I do think the term progressive is losing its meaning, but not for the reasons stated here. What's been getting to me is how often metalheads seem to think albums out of other genres that do something a little different from the norm are progressive. You want evidence? Go look on Rate Your Music's genre vote pages, some users there vote progressive metal on every other album. 

The double standard you're talking about is another effect of this sucky misnomer I was talking about in my previous post. I'm not saying that bands playing in "Opeth style" are progressive. That's the point! This word simply doesn't make sense in the context of music.