You got it Jonno. I’m just too damn stupid to grasp the brilliance that you uniformly project.

But I think “Wagon Wheels” has a certain mystical or poetic quality, a la Kristofferson or Ian Tyson (listening to the song for the second or third time, you may actually absorb some meaning that you didn’t get on first listen) that sets it apart from–and above–your typical Kenny Chesney island song.

That would be plausible if, oh, something like “compared with” or “in comparison to” were in the original. Which there isn’t anything like that there. I tried to point that out by saying that the original statement wasn’t comparative, but evidently that went right over some folks’ heads.

Barry, that’s a nice try, but – to take up the comparison theme – how is that “I wanna be where it’s warm and sunny” theme any more substantive or deeper or more artfully handled here than in, say, any of those Kenny Chesney islands songs so widely sneered at around here? You’d think a substantive paean to the South would, among other things, get its geography right.

I’m happy to grant you the sing-along-ability-ness of the chorus (though not the “blues” part of your “blues-rock”), but it doesn’t relate to that theme (unless you’re arguing that people can’t or don’t, uh, rock, in cold weather states) and isn’t any more substantive than, oh, “hey ho a leena.” I’ve got nothing against feel-good singalongs, but their virtues are usually to be found somewhere else than in what’s generally meant by “substance.”

The verses’ evocation of the move from the frozen north to the the hot South, and explicitly and by suggestion deeper into the music that goes with that, capped by the explosive blues-rock chorus that I’ve seen a Ryman-ful of audience swaying and singing, with that a effective “release” sort of feel to it–well, I think that’s all very skillful.

That it’s become a sort of anthem of heading musically South and sexually ready seems completely understandable to me. I think it’s a terrific song that does what it means to.

Actually, I think the insertion of the word “some”–as in “some substance”–does constitute a qualifier.

I can’t say I know for sure why Sam put it in there, but a plausible interpretation is that he’s suggesting that even a minimal amount of “substance” is enough to make the song stand out in comparison to what’s out there now.

In the meantime, I’m still waiting to hear what the song has in the way of “substance”; the original statement wasn’t qualified or comparative, it called it “a song of some substance.” I’ll stipulate that doesn’t have anything to do with whether it’s enjoyable or not (and unlike some of its defenders, I’ve never said or even implied that a song has to be substantive in any respect to be worthwhile, much less enjoyable), so let’s not be distracted by that, eh?

This isn’t a question about taste, it’s a question about music criticism and analysis. As Clara Peller said, where’s the beef? You want to tell me you love love love it, fine; that puts you in with a big bunch of people. You want to tell me it’s “a song of some substance,” I want to know exactly where you see it.