You're still talking about ideas, Dave. See, I'm not "obsessed" with the song as being a good idea. I like listening to it, you know what I mean? You say that if I was around at the time I wouldn't think mixing "high" and "low" art was a credible idea. I never said I thought that it was in the first place. And you're probably right. In fact, even though I wasn't around I still don't think it's necesarilly a good idea. I never thought of this song as an idea in the first place. So, tell me something about this particular song, and, if you can manage, take it out of the context of the "Bob Dylan wannabee" and "art rock" songs (which is where it falls, right?, except its Dave Van Ronk singing it so a little bit better; he just made the mistake so many others like yourself did at the time by thinking his song, what? Sounded good, I guess, and turned out to be wrong, I don't know, thirty years later, etc.), and then, once you've done that, THEN say something about it, you know, without talking about the other stuff. When you find that you don't have too much to say about this individual song in that way, and if you decide that you can't really criticize a song by calling the category it falls under a bad idea, then we're going to have to agree that what it comes down to is that you don't particularly like this song for whatever reasons, and that that stuff about credibility is sort of strange, in a way. It's just a song, Dave. For listening.