Thanks for the Wilco imput Phil (the rest too :-). I'll have to make an effort to give them a listen (unfortunately for me, my ability to preliminarily audition stuff online is about nil, due to my relatively ancient computer, which just can't deal well with a streaming feed). My aversion to the "Alt-Country" tag doesn't have so much to do with not being a huge country fan (I'm not in the sense of knowing a lot about it or owning much of it, but I can greatly enjoy vintage country from the 50's and 60's [such as DC's WAMU carries on Saturday afternoons with the Eddie Stubbs show broadcast from Nashville - don't know if this is syndicated], and also like acoustic bluegrass), or even not caring for the original wave of country-rock (I'm a big fan of stuff such as Gene Clark's collaborations with Doug Dillard, The Band, Neil Young, Dylan, The Stones' country flirtations, and even some Flying Burrito Brothers and (gasp) Dead, but am not as attracted to later Byrds, Gram Parsons solo, or the artists that followed them with greater commercial success such as The Eagles, Poco, or Emmylou Harris), but rather what I perceive as the mannered and stilted approach characteristic of just about all self-conscious attempts at 'revival' or 'genre' music, combined with a tendency in this case toward the boring, songwriting-wise. I also found "No Depression" to be kind of presumptuous in a way that reminds me of the hype surrounding "The Year That Punk Broke", since both those phenomena were essentially media and commercial trend-hopping of movements that had really begun at least a decade before they were promoted as the latest thing. But as you say, the newer Wilco work may not be explicitly derived from this school.
I fully sympathize with The Beatles being your "benchmark of quality". I've been afflicted with the same expectation level ever since they became my favorite band when I was given the "Rubber Soul" album at age six, and this can make it hard for a rock fan to ever really give full marks to any other group or artist pursuing an original, non-genre, songwriting-oriented and impressionistic-in-execution approach to the music (artists not attempting to do anything other than entertain are, perhaps unfairly, given somewhat of a pass in this regard, but neither are they loved as much as The Beatles, while practicioners of traditional forms are exempt from having to compete). Part of the way I've reconciled this is to accept the realization that both the state of the art form, and the state of our society today generally, will never again allow for such a level of greatness to be achieved as The Beatles represent no matter what level of genius is brought to bear. Next taking into account the fact that almost universally, you are not actually going to find an equivalent level of genius anyway, I look to the hope of finding a different kind of genius, which is thankfully infinite in possibility. But the one thing that I really really look for, and get very high about when I think I may have found it, is an artist who, despite their limitations of ability or contextual serendipity (which may be severe compared to The Beatles), tries their very hardest, and brings all of their individual genius to bear, on attempting to achieve their own personal version of what The Beatles pointed the way toward in terms of what is ventured and gained artistically. Most artists lack both the genius and the effort required, and the rest generally lack one or the other. But when you can find an artist of considerable unique genius, who undertakes the difficult attempt to go beyond their own preconceptions of their art and reach for a new synthesis which might recall the creative spirit of The Beatles in their own small way, then you may have found an artist who successfully expresses what I have always identified as the key quality inherent in any work that can begin to satisfy in a way that even remotely recalls The Beatles: Generosity. It is the sharing of that personal artistic exploration in a way that tries to reach out to the audience unselfishly and give something that no one else could create, which is special. Most artists either don't possess something which goes beyond in order to give, or they end up taking from their audience rather than giving to it by not pushing themselves into so vulnerable and unknown an area of personal expression, instead working in a safe place where they are sure not to fail. If you can find that spirit of unguarded artistic generosity, even if the genius attempting to give it represents merely one which is different from what has come before, rather than one which is (impossibly) equal to what has come before, then you have found something which is worthy of the continuation of the art form's heritage of new creation.
I believe when you hear that spirit of generosity in an artist's work, you receive a spark of recognition that tells you: pay attention, this is different, this is real. Worlds can only open up for the listener if the artist is willing to go naked before them and share their unique creation despite the risk. I value receiving this spark into my heart even if the artistic genius in question is only a minor genius, relatively speaking. I can hear it and appreciate it in the case of Joey Ramone just as much as I can with John Lennon, just as much in the case of Gene Vincent as with Bob Dylan. Without all the reaching of all the minor geniuses, when it comes to rock, you might as well just listen to The Beatles and nothing else, but that would be a much less interesting and stimulating life. Which is, sadly, just about the state of the music as I hear it today. Most artists nowadays possess little to no creative genius, and are content to merely exploit their audience, essentially holding it in contempt. This might be okay for the industry (although not in the long run, I think) and for fans who have little in the way of artistic sensitivity, but it gets really depressing after a while for people like you or me, who grew up on something better. Rock is a pop art form, and though I can always listen to older material again, or tell myself that I can enjoy music that remains in the underground even though most people have never heard of it, I guess there is still a strong psychological need to be a part of something new which is much larger than yourself, and which has been going unfulfilled for quite some time now. I mean, I can barely recall the last time that I was totally into something that made much of a dent on the popular consciousness. There used to be a viable substitute for this in the underground rock community that existed when I was younger, but that was blown up and fragmented by the time of the Lollapalooza generation, and totally subsumed as everything became the oxymoronic "alternative". Of course, there will never again exist a day when the most popular artist in the world is also the best, as in the case of The Beatles. And in this post-regional, internet and video age, I don't even think there are going to be any more vital underground scenes in the way there were in the 70's and 80's. But I suppose that it is still just a simple hope of mine that someday, there will again be an artist who simultaneously sparks that recognition of artistic generosity within me, and also has it embraced by the larger world around me. Are The Flaming Lips it? If I'm being realisitc I think "No way it could happen, they're too weird, they're not what people want", but then there are times when I think that just maybe, enough other people might recognize in them the same thing that I do.
