>Strike that though, because Bridges is at least a peer of
>those guys & a better actor than Wilco is a band.

In a way, this is the most interesting part of your post, because I think those of us who are with Anon on this think that Wilco *is* a peer to these other, zeitgeistier, flame-burning-brighter bands that have been brought up. And it's exactly in the same way that Bridges is a peer to De Niro - he's less showy (usually) and didn't ever have a stretch like De Niro did with "Taxi Driver" and "Raging Bull," etc., but he hung in there for years, vacillating between a solid leading man who anchored decent commercial pictures and an underrated character actor who always delivered something a little different. I feel about Wilco very much the same way that I feel about Bridges.

>You need albums, songs, moments that people can point to, it's
>the reason why Guns N' Roses only lasted about four years as a
>functioning unit but still made a bigger contribution to rock
>music than Wilco has done in their twenty-plus year run.

Ehhhh... LOTS of bands are critical darlings with good discographies who don't make "big contributions to rock music." This is a very sketchy area, to say the least.

>I like Wilco but they ain't even on the Black Crowes level let
>alone The Band or The Stones.

I'd never put them with the Stones but... Black Crowes? Hell no. The Crowes were a pure retro act who had a couple huge hit singles. They brought nothing new to the table and have vanished into the ether. I like the sound of the Crowes but song for song, I think Wilco kills them. The Black Crowes are Drivin' 'n Cryin' with hits. If we're putting them in the pantheon, there's a lot of journeymen that need to be admitted, and I'm not ready to fight that war.