The following ramble is derived from a post I did on the forum "Progressive Ears". I've included it in it's raw, unedited form for your enjoyment.

Well, first of all, I'll respond to a few things...

<<<Oh, and since when were dictionary writers experts on MUSICOLOGY??? >>>>

Well first of all, you are correct in stating that dictionary writers are not musicologists. They are however, linguists, who strive to research and understand the meaning of the very words we speak, including their historical and current contexts. In the case of writing a dictionary, you need to take all the knowledge that there is possible to gain on a word like "fusion" and sum it up into a sentence or two; a difficult task indeed. However, I would, more likely than not, trust the judgements and evaluations of a linguist when trying to determine the meaning of a word such as "fusion" at least on the same level as I would for a musicologist. However, since both researched the topic (and I gather both would), then both would in effect be valid judgements.

<<<You can have fast jazz; you can have fast metal. It doesn't mean that "fast" is a style of music, because most people would agree that jazz and metal are pretty different in a lot of ways>>>

Jazz and metal have different qualities. Putting "fast" in front does not automatically make it similar, except for the fact that it is "fast". That would be like confusing an apple with a car, because both are red. Also there's the fact that fast is sort of an adverb (sort of, because, we use it like an adjective. For example, if someone says "I have a fast car", they mean to say, "I have a fast moving car", but its implied that the car can only be fast if its moving).

<<<I don't know who coined the term and it certainly aint in the dictionary so this term is subject to interpretation... some say "only such and such is prog" and others say "this is prog to me" If you go around saying "only Yes, UZ, Magma, National Health, Soft Machine, Gong and bands like them are prog" well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. >>>

Herein lies the problem with using the word "Progressive" as an adjective to describe something that's both static, and dynamic. To describe something that was in the past as "progressive" is like describing a car with no ability to move to be "fast". We mean to say, "it was fast, when it was capable of doing so". This is in contrast to cars that are fast, rather, a car that is capable of going fast right now. This is the problem, we use an adjective to describe something in the past as having a quality that usually only things that are in the present have. Hence, the slang term, "Prog" came about, which was meant to describe things that "were" Progressive, in its time. Prog is not a word at all, but it is jargon, which among those who deal with these things, is as easily assimilated and accepted as a real word.

Part II....
<<<If I say Hendrix is rock, I may or may not be right or accurate, but if I say he's a musician, then I'm infallible. There really is no way to neatly describe a large group of music in one word. The simpler a term you try to use, the more broad you have to be.>>>

This is a natural pitfall of describing nearly anything. As a way of relating experiences to others and to ourselves in part (at least to verbalize them), we have created words, which are meant to describe the world around us. For example, the sky is blue. We have all agreed what a sky is, and we have all agreed what blue is. However, its entirely possible that the sky might not be a sky at all, if you were to compare it to other skies, and its possible blue might not be blue, if you were to compare it to other blues. So as a point of reference, we create such generalities. The more general a description we use, the easier we can describe it in our own words. However, the more specific a description is, the easier it is for another person to be able to understand the experience we are relating to them. For example, if I said "the sky is blue", that would pretty much be accepted as a given, and may not even be an accurate description of the sky that day. If I said, "the sky was a hazy, sun-soaked blue", that gives the other person a more accurate picture of what the sky might have looked like on that day.

This is what we mean when we create a word like "Fusion"; we mean to relate an experience of what music is to us to another person. If I say Hendrix is a musician, you might have an idea of what I mean, but there are literally hundreds of types of music out there, so it's not at all helpful. If I say "Hendrix plays rock music", you have a much more accurate and fulfilling idea of what Hendrix does.

We create words like "fusion", which, if you think about it, break down under ultra-close scrutiny, because to effectively communicate, we need to be able to relate our experiences to another person.

<<<When you expand the definition of prog to the point you have consistently suggested you wished to, you've simply made the word meaningless. >>>

In effect, yes. We need words that relate to experiences, as I have stated before. If none of us could agree blue means blue, then, we would never be able to tell what blue was. Apply this logic to everything, and communication ceases to exist.

<<<Cozy & DT are coming from a historical perspective and how the terms were first used or applied.
Omega & LP are revisionists. Plain and simple. The terms don't fit their perceptions and so they want to change the definitions or apply them in ways that results in confusion >>>

Okay, I don't want to name names, so, disregard the people who's names are quoted, but, this is rather common in many areas of history. The ideas that get started eventually do get challenged. However, my own personal standpoint, its difficult for me to ignore the historical basis for the creation of fusion, mainly, that it was brought about mainly by Jazz Musicians. That isn't to say that no one in rock thought of fusing jazz and rock together, and the fact that people did think of that is evident in the music of the time. However, if you accept the term "fusion", then you must also accept its historical basis, or, the term basically becomes meaningless. However, it is valid to see if other musicians do fit the criteria of Fusion, but it does not mean that they are necessarily part of what's known as fusion.