>
>>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.
>
I realized at the end (hence 'srike that') that I elevated Wilco by comparing them to Bridges, I like Wilco but they're not occupying that same perch as Bridges relatively speaking.

But nah, all the Rocky & Bulwinkle's in the world can't take away Deniro's contributions from the 70's on through the better part of the next two decades or so (with multiple pantheon performances in some of the best films of all-time).

Same with Nicholson or Pacino.

That stuff alone places him above Bridges overall for me even if I'm done checking for Deniro and have loved some of Bridges' recent work.

If the Bridges or Masta Ace analogies didn't already illustrate what I was trying to say, I'll risk sounding redundant & say I think Badu has been better on record (shit, maybe even onstage *ducks*) in the past 15 years than Prince has while still not seeing him as an overall contributor to the world of music.

>>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.
>
exactly, lots are.

and not one of them would I think of while in discussion and say 'you know they might be the best rock band ever'.

Conversely there's bands that have been fairly popular in their time that don't get that critical love so they don't come up in these discussion either, like Thin Lizzy, who I'd also put above Wilco (who despite the impression I'm giving while trying to put their legacy in perspective, I actually do like).

Shit, there's probably more people out there right now who think Phish is one of the all-time great bands than there is Wilco & I'd have to point out to them how to at least insert a little perspective beyond their own little circle as well when speaking on rock music out in public.

>>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.

Chris Robinson bests Tweedy as a vocalist fairly easily, the Crowes have a better live show (I've seen both five or six times over the years so feel qualified to speak on it), their ten or so best cuts would be better than Wilco's & despite them sort of drifting into that High Times Magazine ether around album 3/4 they're still a harder ticket on tour than Wilco.

And no I *wouldn't* ever put the Black Crowes in the pantheon, that was my point in bringing their name up, that's more the junior middleweight or welterweight class Wilco is looking to fight in then being in their with the Ali/Louis/Johnson/Tyson type of bands.