Poll: Bruce Springsteen or Neil Young

You forgot your sarcasm emoticon.

 

I'm really surprised at the hate for Bruce here.

 

Easy choice - Neil Young by a mile. I do like Springsteen's early material, but after Born to Run, I lost interest.

 

I'm a huge Neil Young fan. But I'm a huger Bruce Springsteen fan. I think his entire body of work--including a consistently more inspired concert history--gives him the nod, not only over Young but over everyone, with the possible exception of Bob Dylan and Richard Thompson.

 

Why?

 

It's even worse than you think -- and not just here. I actually knew a guy who would argue with me when I said Bruce was a better singer than Dylan!

 

I still like Bruce Springsteen a lot but his music hasn't aged as well as Neil's.

 

I personally think that both Bruce and Neil's music has aged well for the most part. There are pockets of weak stuff in their discograpy for both (Neil's early 80's stuff although I know "Trans", "Re-Ac-Tor", "Hawks and Doves", "Everybody's Rockin'', "Landing on Water": Bruce's early 90's stuff "Human Touch", "Lucky Town", even the ever popular "Born in the U.S.A." from the 80's and some of his more recent stuff).

I suppose it depends on how much of a fan you are, where you were when you heard the music and how it communicates to you.

Wow. Interesting. I just never understood "hating" a musician like that. There are those I don't care for but I try and recognize the skill and talent for each.

 

I don't know that i would call it hate, i think like me they probably find him overrated/overhyped and don't understand the whole Boss thing. I personally have never known or run into anyone who was passionate about Bruce or his music ''rock only types included'' the way some people are here and at RS, maybe i just hang around the wrong/right people.

 

Well, I haven't met very many people who were indifferent to Bruce, that's for sure. They either loved him or thought he was one of the most overrated artists they'd heard. IIRC, the guy who preferred Dylan's singing was in the latter category.

Oh, and let's not forget all the folks who loved Springsteen up until Born in the USA -- and hated him afterward!

 

I know a lot of people who are huge Springsteen fans. While generally the same people are Young fans I don't know any huge Young fans. I would never have guessed, based on my personal (outside this forum) experience, that Young would be the most selected. Maybe I am too young.

 

Neil has always spoken to my heart and seemed sincere. Whereas Bruce Springsteen has always felt like a media creation to me .I always thought it was funny that a 'working class hero' was referred to as "the Boss" . I always thought it was strange how half the time he is wearing a guitar he isn't even playing (seems like rock posturing to me).But most importantly, the music never touched me. Put me in the indifferent column on Springsteen. I respect that he means a lot to some people, but I never felt it.

 

I like both a lot, probably listen to Neil more, but I think Bruce's best stuff is the tops, and still has a ton of stuff that hasn't seen the light of day, and the live bootlegs albums are jaw dropping, Young has too much stuff that doesn't seem that well thought out , a lot of Bruce's B sides and side projects are as solid as the main stuff (Trapped on We Are The World).

 

But do you know anyone who dislikes or hates Neil Young, i sure don't.

 

For me this is the easiest poll question in the history of the Forum.

Neil Young

 

Was there a strong reaction immediately in 1984? I always thought of the "BITUSA" backlash as being a bit after the fact, as some prior fans got turned off that Bruce became so popular - he wasn't just "theirs" anymore.

But I'm one of the fans who came on board in that era, so I'm not a good judge of what pre-existing fans thought of the album...

 

I love both of these guys but Bruce gets my vote. I've seen Neil only once at a solo performance and it was thrilling, just mesmerizing. Have seen Bruce probably 10 times and every time it's like a revival. It's almost hard to believe you're seeing something that good. That said, I'd welcome the chance to increase my Neil-live to Bruce ratio.

 

Don't understand these comments at all. "Media creation"? Bruce's success is mainly a grass roots phenomenon - through touring and his highly-regarded live shows, he built an audience the old-fashioned way. When he got his initial dose of media coverage - ala the 1975 "Time"/"Newsweek" covers - it largely backfired, and I don't think Bruce was happy about it anyway.

For a lot of Bruce's career, he seemed conflicted about his growing fame. He was reluctant to go from theaters to arenas because he worried he'd lose touch with the fans - and then was concerned when he was supposed to go from arenas to stadiums.

For years, Bruce hated the nickname "Boss". Apparently he got it as a teen because he was the one who handed out the money after gigs. He resisted the name for years but eventually came to terms with it.

As for the "rock posturing" claim, I don't have the slightest idea what you mean. If Bruce wears a guitar, he plays it the vast majority of the time - when he doesn't play, he tosses it to his tech.

I don't care if you don't like Bruce, but calling him a "media creation" and "rock posturing" is way off-base...

 

Maybe not immediately, but more like a couple of years later. I was in college at the time, and I knew several people who had loved Bruce before and now thought he was the biggest sellout ever. I recall giving one of them a hard time because he loved '60s Motown, which was nothing if not commercial, so I asked him why it was OK for Motown to make great pop music, but not for Springsteen. IIRC, he responded that Springsteen had offered so much more than that before.

But I think you're right when you say he wasn't "theirs" anymore. Me, I've never had a problem with artists tailoring their music to please the masses. As long as the music is still good, I may even like it more than before.

 

Looking back, to a certain degree Bruce DID "sell out" in 1984 - mostly at the urging of Jon Landau, I think. He made his first real music video, one that positioned him as a heartthrob. He made his most commercial-sounding music to date. He worked out to become a hunk instead of the scrawny, scruffy guy of years past. Okay, he might've done the exercise for personal reasons and not to become more marketable, but clearly the image revamp made a difference.

All that aside, I think some lose track of the forest for the trees. "BITUSA" seems to have a poor reputation these days, as it's become accepted as Bruce's "sell-out album". While it was more commercial in sound, that doesn't make it bad - and it's still a good album. I think the songs still are recognizable "Bruce songs" - they just have a more commercial sheen.

I'm sick of "BITUSA", but heck, I'm sick of "BTR", too - that doesn't make it a bad album...

 

Neil Young.

 

Neil by a lot. If you had taken the same poll in the early 80s it would've been a lot closer but from my standpoint there hasn't been anything Springsteen did since Nebraska that excited me and he really started to go downhill after The River.

 

That's the point. Who knows? No one talks about Young. On the other hand Springsteen is often discussed (lately usually something like "how many times will you see him on this tour").

 

I wasn't trying to attack Springsteen, just share me thoughts. I appreciate the info you provide in rebuttal. Yes, I was thinking of the Newsweek/Time cover as that was my first exposure to him. Interesting background to the name, but it sounds like Bruce himself agreed with me. As far as the guitar part. I tried to find an example and I think I may be wrong as he may not play at first but then does come in with a lead. So I stand corrected. Remember, the media creation part was just how it FELT to me, not that it was an objective fact. There is no denying the power many people feel for his music(as your post shows). and I do respect that. It's just, I don't feel it. Again, thanks for the information.

 

You're welcome - and I understand that personal perceptions are a big deal!

I think 30 years of being a Madonna fan has made me really testy when I see my favorite artists referred to as "media creations" or whatever - no one remains successful and popular in music over multiple decades because of media efforts or "hype". Somebody's gotta like the music, right?

In terms of media, I do think Bruce offers an interesting study. While I believe he came to terms with his success in the early 90s - perhaps not coincidentally, at the same time he settled down and had a family - I think he's always been way more conflicted about that area than the average musician. I'd never pretend that Madonna didn't actively court fame and notoriety, but I don't feel the same way about Bruce - I think the fame is something that he viewed as a bothersome byproduct for a long time. I think he loved getting his music to people but didn't much enjoy a lot of what came with that.

But I might be creating my own Bruce mythology!

All I do know is the man plays his guitar, dammit - and plays it often and well!