i went to the Springsteen gig last night - when i told a firend where i was going she said 'whadaya wanna see him for?'. Said friend accompanied me to see Bob Dylan a couple of years ago, but apaprently she doesn't think the boss is in the same league as bob.

now personally i've no preference, i love 'em both, but i think it's very harsh to say bruce isn't in the same league as dylan. personally i think he's in exactly the same league (i.e. legenedary league). what do others think (trying to be objective)?

The thing I like about Bruce is that he can deliver the bombast of Born To Run and the sparseness of something like 'Nebraska' equally well. He reminds me of Neil Young (there was a picture of him in teh Sunday Times yesterday and he looked like an incredibly peeved Old Testament prophet... :) )

I think Dylan and Springsteen share some commonality, but Springsteen has a wider range, IMO, than Bob Dylan.

I'll listen to both of them, but could listen to several Springsteen albums one after another whereas one or two Bob Dylans would be enough!

I think I've got to agree with JoeP here.

Whilst Dylan is undoubtedly a songwriter with few equals his vocal delivery, to my ears at least, begins to grate after a fairly short while. And in the live performance context there is just no comparison - a Springsteen gig with the E-Street Band is something not to be missed.

Well Radio 2 has been playing stuff from Springsteen's latest album and I'm afraid it has to be the most self-indulgent tripe I've heard in many a year.

Born To Run though, marvellous!

I have to agree with JoeP and deadheadfred - has to be The Boss all the way!!

Ousetunes - Springsteen's latest album is a collection of classic folk tunes dating back to the 1500s, so I feel its a tad harsh to call it self indulgent. He's paying tribute to Pete Seegar, not to mention, the many americans who have shed blood and tears to live and work in the US.

BB.x

Personally, I'd have to go with Springsteen...he's got the weight advantage and a slight edge when it comes to age.

Sure...Dylan is wiry and could put up some resistance but I reckon Springsteen could take him.









...sorry, I'll get me coat.

dylan.

no question, this dude inspired so many people to get doing music, many more so than The Boss, even though i reckon brucie has his moments...

fnck the crap way his voice sounds, and the bloody harmonica every 2 minutes...the guy is a lyrical master.

Springsteen all the way! Was at his gig last night, the man holds a crowd in the palm of his hands. a true performer/entertainer. I've tried Bob Dylan, got a few of his albums and given the guy a chance, but frankly his voice gets on my t*ts. Springsteens new album is definately NOT self indulgent, its a reight good knees up!

ok, but being objective, not taking into account preferences, are they in the same league? For example i don't like michael jackson's stuff, but there's no denying the guy's a superstar.

Dylan's a legend - his influence, both musically and culturally (in the states at least), is significant - i guess my question is, does Bruce have the same legendary status? (bearing in mind that Dylan has a few years start!)

Who would I prefer to listen to: Bruce
Most important musically/culturally: Dylan
Who would I prefer to see live: Bruce
Skill as a songwriter: Dylan

"We need some professional help"

Well Radio 2 has been playing stuff from Springsteen's
latest album and I'm afraid it has to be the most
self-indulgent tripe I've heard in many a year.

Born To Run though, marvellous!

I also found his last effort to be pretty uninspiring! When you compare his recent stuff to "Born To Run" & "The River" it's quite shocking.