Offside Chat Archives (2014-2021)

neonheron202 said:http://www.nytimes.com/theory-of-everything-discussion/posts/1386719/

I caught this 🤣

Good luck explaining that one to a news anchor at CNN. 😁

This one hits way too hard:



Knopfler on guitar, Dylan on keys (might’ve even been Mick Taylor on this version, honestly can’t tell).

you know what the internal logic fails at?

it’s that whole setup where they present this modern world—where some guy in a bat suit acts like he’s some kind of authority—and they try to show us reality (like Bruce Wayne flying a private jet to Tokyo), but then all that real-world influence just evaporates the second the action hits Gotham. It’s basically just Chicago, right? But once those characters start tearing through the streets with high-tech gadgets, explosions, and all that crap, any trace of the modern world just vanishes. The cops, the military... everything "real" just disappears overnight once that little group starts messing around. The movie is stuck in a trap it built for itself.

brightpilot6 said:So I have to ask you, which specific internal logic is being violated? Exactly which part?

And what does one even mean by a "caricatured" character? Even someone like Hannibal Lecter could be considered a caricature, yet he is placed within a realistic framework.

If you view the film purely as a cinematic work, the notion that it "has caricatured characters" falls away; instead, the film simply possesses characters as they are presented, whether realistic or otherwise. Does the underlying motive matter—is it a Batman story or some gritty true tale? It's all somewhat moot.

Besides, could you provide just one instance where something unrealistic was portrayed with such realism that it genuinely bothered you? Is there any single trait among the characters in *Dark Knight* that truly feels incompatible with the real world?

You claimed this film operates on paradoxical logic, which is quite a heavy accusation to make, especially when paired with an argument this thin and difficult to follow.

I have little patience for people who argue using empty platitudes, only to resort to insults the moment we touch upon concrete points, much like you and Jessica Gonzalez.

I've dealt with that particular tactic far too many times before.

Hold up. I’m not interested in these massive, over-intellectualized debates where someone asks me who built the Monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

That’s like me asking you who designed Gotham City. It's a nonsense question.

And what "acting superior"? We both know who's struggling here—you. You use this pointless deduction thing. You always have a follow-up question, digging into every tiny detail until you focus on stuff that doesn't even matter. You trivialize everything anyone says until the original point just gets shredded into useless little scraps.

Hannibal Lecter is getting treated exactly how he deserves in this context. The analogy is off.

Dylan’s whole thing is how he nails every single note just right for the lyrics, like in this one. Sure, he doesn't have the best voice on the planet, but honestly, nobody else could pull off a song this perfectly as a complete package. That imperfect voice and how he works it—that’s his X factor.

Take this performance, for example. Gives me chills every single time. He tells the entire story within the first word he says.

brightpilot6 said:So I have to ask you, which specific internal logic is being violated? Exactly which part?

And what does one even mean by a "caricatured" character? Even someone like Hannibal Lecter could be considered a caricature, yet he is placed within a realistic framework.

If you view the film purely as a cinematic work, the notion that it "has caricatured characters" falls away; instead, the film simply possesses characters as they are presented, whether realistic or otherwise. Does the underlying motive matter—is it a Batman story or some gritty true tale? It's all somewhat moot.

Besides, could you provide just one instance where something unrealistic was portrayed with such realism that it genuinely bothered you? Is there any single trait among the characters in *Dark Knight* that truly feels incompatible with the real world?

You claimed this film operates on paradoxical logic, which is quite a heavy accusation to make, especially when paired with an argument this thin and difficult to follow.

I have little patience for people who argue using empty platitudes, only to resort to insults the moment we touch upon concrete points, much like you and Jessica Gonzalez.

I've dealt with that particular tactic far too many times before.

Look at this nonsense. "The film has characters as it portrays them." You could say that about literally any movie ever made. By that logic, nobody deserves a single critique.

Stop playing games. We went through this whole headache with *The Odyssey* and *Interstellar*, and now you're trying to drag every new trend back to that same tired argument.

Yeah, what Larry Fox5 said about Like a Rolling Stone? Spot on. There are definitely "better" versions out there. If some math nerd tried to analyze every one of Bob’s takes, his might not even crack the top 10. You could nitpick forever. But none of them hit quite as hard as his does. Same goes for All Along the Watchtower. Jimi took that track and turned it into an absolute rock anthem. But man, there's a reason Moore had Dylan's version in mind when he referenced it in Watchmen. It's hard to put into words, but I feel it deep down. Listening to Jimi's version just hits different—nothing else gets close, no matter how much you're vibing.

Just one more thing, brightpilot6. These kinds of debates never end well. Ego won't let people just disagree; it's always gotta go to extremes. You could throw any argument at them—even if I were channeling some high-brow critic like Roger Ebert himself—and nothing would stick. Everyone’s positions are already set in stone; we're all just going through the motions of trading blows. I hate it, but it feels like it's just hardwired this way. I want a stalemate. I want to wrap up these types of discussions—since this isn't just mindless trolling or messing around—the way they work in the real world. One guy says he loves it, the other says he hates it. How? Why? They vent a little, dig a bit deeper (like we do), and then it's over. Just "Alright, whatever, man. You want another drink?"

I don't feel like getting into the weeds of what "getting specific" actually means. You have to start believing in axioms. Not every truth can be proven. Explaining that takes too much effort, and it requires even more patience from the person on the other side.

But honestly, at its core, it's pretty damn simple.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103767/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0770802/

Grab the high-def version. If you don't get it, you clearly don't know real cinema. Watch it again. Thx, my bad, peace out.

Matthew Anderson4 said:Ever actually heard Dylan when he sings like a normal person?

Matthew Anderson4 said:This one hits way too hard:

Knopfler on guitar, Dylan on keys (might’ve even been Mick Taylor on this version, honestly can’t tell).

Matthew Anderson4 said:Dylan’s whole thing is how he nails every single note just right for the lyrics, like in this one. Sure, he doesn't have the best voice on the planet, but honestly, nobody else could pull off a song this perfectly as a complete package. That imperfect voice and how he works it—that’s his X factor.

Take this performance, for example. Gives me chills every single time. He tells the entire story within the first word he says.

Matthew Anderson4 said:Yeah, what Larry Fox5 said about Like a Rolling Stone? Spot on. There are definitely "better" versions out there. If some math nerd tried to analyze every one of Bob’s takes, his might not even crack the top 10. You could nitpick forever. But none of them hit quite as hard as his does. Same goes for All Along the Watchtower. Jimi took that track and turned it into an absolute rock anthem. But man, there's a reason Moore had Dylan's version in mind when he referenced it in Watchmen. It's hard to put into words, but I feel it deep down. Listening to Jimi's version just hits different—nothing else gets close, no matter how much you're vibing.

I don't care if he hits a few flat or sharp notes here and there—honestly, I value raw energy and actual emotion over perfect pitch any day... It’s about how a performer connects with the crowd! Take someone like Bruce Springsteen, for example—he might miss a note once in a while, but he absolutely lights up every stadium he steps into. Same goes for Bono from U2...
Look, maybe Dylan’s vibe just hits you differently because of his delivery—I get it—but even if we take the vocals out of the equation, the instrumentation is just... thin. Seriously, it's super lacking.

Not sure if you play guitar or whatever, but his sound is just plain basic—and honestly, I bet he doesn't even care that much since his whole thing was always about the lyrics anyway.

Just compare his guitar work to someone like Beck. It’s night and day.

Walter Grant5 said:you know what the internal logic fails at?

it’s that whole setup where they present this modern world—where some guy in a bat suit acts like he’s some kind of authority—and they try to show us reality (like Bruce Wayne flying a private jet to Tokyo), but then all that real-world influence just evaporates the second the action hits Gotham. It’s basically just Chicago, right? But once those characters start tearing through the streets with high-tech gadgets, explosions, and all that crap, any trace of the modern world just vanishes. The cops, the military... everything "real" just disappears overnight once that little group starts messing around. The movie is stuck in a trap it built for itself.

Perhaps because the entire point of Gotham is its utter lack of order? That very chaos is what gave rise to a vigilante like Batman in the first place. Isn't that the core internal logic of the story?

Batman isn't out to save the whole world; he’s just trying to manage a broken Gotham, a city that’s arguably in worse shape than anywhere else in the country.

Would it be more logical for you if Batman emerged due to an inactive or corrupt police force, only for that same police force to suddenly help him catch petty criminals once the sun goes down?

Walter Grant5 said:Hold up. I’m not interested in these massive, over-intellectualized debates where someone asks me who built the Monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

That’s like me asking you who designed Gotham City. It's a nonsense question.

And what "acting superior"? We both know who's struggling here—you. You use this pointless deduction thing. You always have a follow-up question, digging into every tiny detail until you focus on stuff that doesn't even matter. You trivialize everything anyone says until the original point just gets shredded into useless little scraps.

Hannibal Lecter is getting treated exactly how he deserves in this context. The analogy is off.

Let's not be dramatic. I only asked because you were the one acting all high and mighty, demanding that I specify exactly what "wasn't clear" to me. Now you're using those very questions against me.

Walter Grant5 said:Look at this nonsense. "The film has characters as it portrays them." You could say that about literally any movie ever made. By that logic, nobody deserves a single critique.

Stop playing games. We went through this whole headache with *The Odyssey* and *Interstellar*, and now you're trying to drag every new trend back to that same tired argument.

Precisely. A film presents the characters as they are written, not how templates or previous iterations dictate they should be. If you hadn't read the comics or seen older Batman films, you wouldn't view the Joker as some cartoonish caricature; you'd see him as someone like Hannibal Lecter—a brilliant, terrifying enigma. You wouldn't even think of calling him a cartoon.

So, when you mention a cartoon on one hand, but claim to watch movies independently of their source material on the other—what am I supposed to make of that?

Walter Grant5 said:Just one more thing, brightpilot6. These kinds of debates never end well. Ego won't let people just disagree; it's always gotta go to extremes. You could throw any argument at them—even if I were channeling some high-brow critic like Roger Ebert himself—and nothing would stick. Everyone’s positions are already set in stone; we're all just going through the motions of trading blows. I hate it, but it feels like it's just hardwired this way. I want a stalemate. I want to wrap up these types of discussions—since this isn't just mindless trolling or messing around—the way they work in the real world. One guy says he loves it, the other says he hates it. How? Why? They vent a little, dig a bit deeper (like we do), and then it's over. Just "Alright, whatever, man. You want another drink?"

I don't feel like getting into the weeds of what "getting specific" actually means. You have to start believing in axioms. Not every truth can be proven. Explaining that takes too much effort, and it requires even more patience from the person on the other side.

But honestly, at its core, it's pretty damn simple.

What kind of extremes? The questions are straightforward. If you insist that the film suffers from paradoxical logic—specifically its internal logic—and I ask you to point out exactly where, then we are merely discussing the basics. Point out an illogical occurrence, and I’ll accept it without a fight. On the other hand, I will never accept a logically flawed argument, no matter how popular it might be.

And sure, if your argument—that it’s completely illogical for Gotham to lack police and military presence during the night, given that in the real world there’s an armed response everywhere things go south—is supposed to be the definitive proof of the film's "paradoxical logic," then I really don't know what else to say...

Walter Grant5 said:Just one more thing, brightpilot6. These kinds of debates never end well. Ego won't let people just disagree; it's always gotta go to extremes. You could throw any argument at them—even if I were channeling some high-brow critic like Roger Ebert himself—and nothing would stick. Everyone’s positions are already set in stone; we're all just going through the motions of trading blows. I hate it, but it feels like it's just hardwired this way. I want a stalemate. I want to wrap up these types of discussions—since this isn't just mindless trolling or messing around—the way they work in the real world. One guy says he loves it, the other says he hates it. How? Why? They vent a little, dig a bit deeper (like we do), and then it's over. Just "Alright, whatever, man. You want another drink?"

I don't feel like getting into the weeds of what "getting specific" actually means. You have to start believing in axioms. Not every truth can be proven. Explaining that takes too much effort, and it requires even more patience from the person on the other side.

But honestly, at its core, it's pretty damn simple.

See, that legendary Roger Ebert guy is actually the perfect example of how subjective watching a movie really is.

I mean, look at how he treated films like *Speed*, *Speed 2*, or *Knowing*—absolute masterpieces in my book—yet that highly worshipped Kubrick gets slapped with mediocre reviews for stuff like *Orange County* or *Full Metal Jacket*.

Amanda Evans2 said:It’s honestly painful to sit through this; there is absolutely no rhythm to the editing. Making the Russian accent so heavy feels like wearing a cheap Venetian mask at a beach party—it's just completely out of place. Honestly, Austin is a masterpiece compared to this mess...

🤣 Gotta wash away that bad taste next week. Doing a guys' night at AMC with the legendary Tom Hanks. 😒

ambertinker41 said:San Andreas

This movie is exactly what the trailer promised—dumb, pathetic, and trying way too hard to be tense. Honestly, it’s more boring than sitting through a Sunday sermon. The plot just marches along using every tired cliché in the book, occasionally pretending to be "creative."
If you're satisfied just seeing The Rock's biceps while he's in a helicopter, a truck, a plane, and a boat—all while channeling his inner Matthew McConaughey from *True Detective*—and you have two hours to kill, then maybe you'll actually enjoy this.
If someone had described that cringey scene with the Star-Spangled Banner at the end to me beforehand, I would've told them it sounds like some bottom-tier amateur filmmaking.
Highly recommended.

And man, that is hands down the most savage review I've ever read. 🤣

Walter Grant5 said:Just one more thing, brightpilot6. These kinds of debates never end well. Ego won't let people just disagree; it's always gotta go to extremes. You could throw any argument at them—even if I were channeling some high-brow critic like Roger Ebert himself—and nothing would stick. Everyone’s positions are already set in stone; we're all just going through the motions of trading blows. I hate it, but it feels like it's just hardwired this way. I want a stalemate. I want to wrap up these types of discussions—since this isn't just mindless trolling or messing around—the way they work in the real world. One guy says he loves it, the other says he hates it. How? Why? They vent a little, dig a bit deeper (like we do), and then it's over. Just "Alright, whatever, man. You want another drink?"

I don't feel like getting into the weeds of what "getting specific" actually means. You have to start believing in axioms. Not every truth can be proven. Explaining that takes too much effort, and it requires even more patience from the person on the other side.

But honestly, at its core, it's pretty damn simple.

It always comes back to that desperate need to be right—especially when we're talking about stuff as subjective as music or movies... just constant proving points for no reason...

Nobody’s willing to budge an inch—everyone just keeps trying to shove their own "absolute truth" down our throats... and newsflash, that kind of thing doesn't even exist...

Larry Fox5 said:It always comes back to that desperate need to be right—especially when we're talking about stuff as subjective as music or movies... just constant proving points for no reason...

Nobody’s willing to budge an inch—everyone just keeps trying to shove their own "absolute truth" down our throats... and newsflash, that kind of thing doesn't even exist...

Not quite.

As far as I'm concerned, you can think *The Dark Knight* is a total disaster for whatever reasons you choose—and I certainly won't spend my energy trying to talk you out of it.

However, logic remains an exact science, and it is entirely possible to debate the mechanics of a film independently of one's personal tastes. If your critique rests on the grounds that a plot point simply doesn't make sense, then we actually have something to discuss.

Previously, I was focusing strictly on the internal logic and the narrative structure of the Odyssey, rather than the cinematic experience as a whole, yet almost everyone involved in that conversation—with the exception of ruggedjackal46 and Branko—reacted like someone watching their favorite steak being threatened.

Larry Fox5 said:I don't care if he hits a few flat or sharp notes here and there—honestly, I value raw energy and actual emotion over perfect pitch any day... It’s about how a performer connects with the crowd! Take someone like Bruce Springsteen, for example—he might miss a note once in a while, but he absolutely lights up every stadium he steps into. Same goes for Bono from U2...
Look, maybe Dylan’s vibe just hits you differently because of his delivery—I get it—but even if we take the vocals out of the equation, the instrumentation is just... thin. Seriously, it's super lacking.

Not sure if you play guitar or whatever, but his sound is just plain basic—and honestly, I bet he doesn't even care that much since his whole thing was always about the lyrics anyway.

Just compare his guitar work to someone like Beck. It’s night and day.

Oh, for sure. If you look at the pieces individually, Dylan's strength is strictly songwriting and melody. You won't find him on any "Top Vocalists" or "Top Guitarists" lists. But that doesn't touch his legacy. Nobody's claiming he's a virtuoso. The idea that he's the greatest solo artist in modern music is basically an axiom at this point. He earned that spot. (Where are all those mediocre players who actually had better technique but zero impact?) Great artists have always been storytellers. From Homer to now, it's the same thing. Dylan is a storyteller; the music is just the vehicle. And what a storyteller. His influence reaches way beyond just music. There hasn't been an American artist in the last 50 years who hasn't admitted being inspired by him. When you break him down into parts, you see the magic: the whole is way greater than the sum of its parts. That’s the wild part. Even if he isn't a top-tier guitarist or singer compared to his peers, the sheer quality of his body of work puts him right up there with the Beatles. It makes sense when you think about him stating he sold his soul to the devil. Dylan is sitting way up in the pantheon of true greats.

Dylan’s rendition of All Along the Watchtower is hands down the definitive version. As for Like a Rolling Stone? It’s a tougher call; frankly, most covers of that track just miss the mark entirely.

brightpilot6 said:Perhaps because the entire point of Gotham is its utter lack of order? That very chaos is what gave rise to a vigilante like Batman in the first place. Isn't that the core internal logic of the story?

Batman isn't out to save the whole world; he’s just trying to manage a broken Gotham, a city that’s arguably in worse shape than anywhere else in the country.

Would it be more logical for you if Batman emerged due to an inactive or corrupt police force, only for that same police force to suddenly help him catch petty criminals once the sun goes down?

Let's not be dramatic. I only asked because you were the one acting all high and mighty, demanding that I specify exactly what "wasn't clear" to me. Now you're using those very questions against me.

Precisely. A film presents the characters as they are written, not how templates or previous iterations dictate they should be. If you hadn't read the comics or seen older Batman films, you wouldn't view the Joker as some cartoonish caricature; you'd see him as someone like Hannibal Lecter—a brilliant, terrifying enigma. You wouldn't even think of calling him a cartoon.

So, when you mention a cartoon on one hand, but claim to watch movies independently of their source material on the other—what am I supposed to make of that?

What kind of extremes? The questions are straightforward. If you insist that the film suffers from paradoxical logic—specifically its internal logic—and I ask you to point out exactly where, then we are merely discussing the basics. Point out an illogical occurrence, and I’ll accept it without a fight. On the other hand, I will never accept a logically flawed argument, no matter how popular it might be.

And sure, if your argument—that it’s completely illogical for Gotham to lack police and military presence during the night, given that in the real world there’s an armed response everywhere things go south—is supposed to be the definitive proof of the film's "paradoxical logic," then I really don't know what else to say...

Lawlessness isn't even my issue. It’s everywhere. My problem is how they try to explain this hyper-extreme version of reality using modern logic. You see it in everything—the sets, the architecture, the way society is portrayed. They’re presenting this version of Chicago that just doesn't add up. The way the city actually functions doesn't match what's happening on the streets. During the day, it looks like a perfectly polished, well-planned metropolis. Then night falls, and suddenly it’s nothing but tank battles and total chaos tearing through every street. It’s nonsense. A place dealing with that kind of mess would never be able to maintain the pristine look they show in the movie.

Batman isn't out there saving the whole damn planet. He’s just cleaning up Gotham—a place that's basically a dumpster fire compared to the rest of the country.

Makes more sense if Batman pops up because the cops are too lazy or crooked to do their jobs, and then those same officers end up helping him bust small-time crooks under the cover of night.

If I’d actually opened my mouth...

But wait, you're saying Batman actually works with the cops in the movie? I'm guessing the next thing out of your mouth is gonna be: "Oh yeah? Which exact scene?"

Cut the crap. I only asked because you were the one acting all high and mighty, demanding to know exactly what "wasn't clear" to me. Now you're trying to use those same questions against me. Typical.

If you didn't catch who built the monolith in that movie, you're just making yourself look bad. Honestly, seeing you use those quotation marks... it’s like you're low-key admitting it was obvious, exactly like I thought it would be.

Exactly. The movie sticks to its own characters instead of just following some tired formula or copying old movies. If you hadn't already read the comics or seen those older Batman flicks, you wouldn't see the Joker as some cartoonish clown. He’d be more like Hannibal Lecter—this brilliant, terrifying psycho you can't wrap your head around. You wouldn't even think about calling it a cartoon.

Man, you just don't get it. It’s not just about the characters. Every single movie has *everything*—it's how the actual film itself puts it all together and shows you the full picture.

Joker and Batman? They're solid characters. The real issue is the hellscape they’re forced to live in. Stop playing dumb like you don't get what I'm saying.

The Joker actually works for me. He’s got that gritty, realistic edge. But the way they handled Batman? Total garbage. Not feeling it at all.

So you're talking about some cartoon on one hand, then saying you'll just watch the movie regardless of how the comic turned out—what am I even supposed to say to that?

You're playing dumb. It's a phrase. Batman is still a caricature. A billionaire in a bat suit fighting urban decay is a caricature. Not because of how I see him in movies or comics, but...

It's simple: a guy in a bat suit acting as a solo night cop is a caricature. The whole concept is a joke. It’s not the comic book or cartoon style that makes him a caricature. It’s what he actually is, whether you read it in a book or wherever. He wouldn't work in the real world (like how they show it in the movie). There aren't characters like that with that kind of impact in the real world. Even if you imagined them, they wouldn't function that way. The Joker as they showed him is much more predictable.

What "extreme limits"? If you're claiming this movie suffers from paradoxical logic (internal logic, specifically) and then ask me where, well, those are the basics. Show me an illogical occurrence and I'll take it without question. On the flip side, I'll never buy an illogical argument, no matter how popular it is.

An illogical occurrence. The scenery shows Chicago running totally fine while Batman and the Joker are causing chaos inside it. The movie itself is schizophrenic.

And yeah, if your point—that it's illogical there's no police or military out at night in Gotham, since in real life there's police and military everywhere things go south—is proof of the film's "paradoxical logic," then honestly....

Did you even look at the visual depiction of the city when Batman and the Joker aren't on screen? It looks like just another normal modern metropolis. When they show up, it's mayhem, but otherwise, it's just a regular big city. A city where lunatics like that could have such an impact wouldn't function the way it does when they aren't around.

And please, drop the Hannibal comparison. He doesn't commit the kind of high-action crimes Batman and the Joker do. He doesn't burn half the city down after he's done.

graniteheron132 said:See, that legendary Roger Ebert guy is actually the perfect example of how subjective watching a movie really is.

I mean, look at how he treated films like *Speed*, *Speed 2*, or *Knowing*—absolute masterpieces in my book—yet that highly worshipped Kubrick gets slapped with mediocre reviews for stuff like *Orange County* or *Full Metal Jacket*.

You're reaching now. I only brought up Roger Ebert as an example. I could've named any critic.

brightpilot6 said:Not quite.

As far as I'm concerned, you can think *The Dark Knight* is a total disaster for whatever reasons you choose—and I certainly won't spend my energy trying to talk you out of it.

However, logic remains an exact science, and it is entirely possible to debate the mechanics of a film independently of one's personal tastes. If your critique rests on the grounds that a plot point simply doesn't make sense, then we actually have something to discuss.

Previously, I was focusing strictly on the internal logic and the narrative structure of the Odyssey, rather than the cinematic experience as a whole, yet almost everyone involved in that conversation—with the exception of ruggedjackal46 and Branko—reacted like someone watching their favorite steak being threatened.

Man, why do you act like you're some logic god and everyone else is clueless? Since when did you become the ultimate authority on what makes sense?

Larry Fox5 said:I don't care if he hits a few flat or sharp notes here and there—honestly, I value raw energy and actual emotion over perfect pitch any day... It’s about how a performer connects with the crowd! Take someone like Bruce Springsteen, for example—he might miss a note once in a while, but he absolutely lights up every stadium he steps into. Same goes for Bono from U2...
Look, maybe Dylan’s vibe just hits you differently because of his delivery—I get it—but even if we take the vocals out of the equation, the instrumentation is just... thin. Seriously, it's super lacking.

Not sure if you play guitar or whatever, but his sound is just plain basic—and honestly, I bet he doesn't even care that much since his whole thing was always about the lyrics anyway.

Just compare his guitar work to someone like Beck. It’s night and day.

You really can't put those two in the same category. Dylan has spent his whole life playing accompaniment—just chords, really, maybe some decent fingerpicking during his early years (think "Don't Think Twice, It's All Right" or "Girl from the North Country"). But Beck? He's one of the greatest solo guitarists out there. Comparing Dylan to someone technically near-perfect like Beck feels a bit ridiculous, to be honest.

For Dylan, the edge is all in the songwriting and the delivery. He doesn't have this smooth, melodic voice, but in most of his tracks, that gravelly tone actually works. And he often uses great vocalists to back him up. Take Joan Baez, for example—even though she’s a world-class singer, I’ve always found her covers of Dylan's stuff to be kind of mediocre.