Either the artists are using the showy self-importance to cover up a lack of skill or that the artists have overreached and don't have the skill to match the attempt. Sometimes this is true. But for the most part, the progressive rockers are regarded as virtuoso musicians, and pretense comes out when these virtuosos attempt to reach farther than even they can reach. I could go on, but again, this misses the point. Along this line is the question of motives.
Some people claim that progressive rock is elitist.
That is to say progressive rock is only for virtuosos, and that ordinary people couldn't learn to play like that without paying for it, or that they wouldn't even want to try. Are they disqualified whe sts have embraced those roots and taken them into the unexplored country of orchestral arrangements, expansive pieces or suites. There were failures and miscues, but when it did work, the results were great. Some claim that if you can't dance to it, it isn't rock and roll. Well, let's not go through the Beatles catalog, although that would be the shortest way to refute this contention.